Loading...
05-018 River Rd. PlanningL -.. -_ ,� ._.. .ice �. -. " -_.. . _ ..- .:.� -._. -_- - ',... -.:�. -.._ _- s' : - -:- - -- - - V ✓ W L ■ t s AV r 10lt*11 MEIHIIR i CO. 17 5163 Chec e q OS - UH � . _ pprj R� � ! f Altle tO OR /A4f _z 15Y-5TEtif 7, 7923 lee , q4M \ \ F TOTAL /A -6491 , - r K ...._ .s- J. a 'r . - -� s`r£ �f "r • _ - _ �s�^3 ' b �`'YY'��i' z�2 ' T_c _ . - �T ,c} - _ � a e 2.� ^v sa a � APPROVAL � NOT jut—aH we *P►rr • cc. 17 5153 i lZ - -- - - Checked - OBI $ 6 4&,6 (j ,60A-) O/90 i- - COMPUTATIONS: DA j- O/C' Z4 Z ID IAA DESIGN: /V`J1E !, ) /O/� 1Y/ t5✓AC.4Vt5Z / 7- / 7 . - / DRAFTINC:,QL,/U/IITL�� LL , CH ECKED:.0 T,44Otil/°,50A1 APPROVED ,4. �U ' SCALE: /" = SO DATE: ,06 7, 1976 ALMER HUNTLEY, )R. & ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS - P 12 PLEASANT STREET NORTHAMPTON, MASS. .--- '` ,�,,�• nned EET OAle' OF /S FSH O /l i lZ - -- - - Checked - OBI $ 6 4&,6 (j ,60A-) O/90 i- - i RESERVED FOR REGISTERS USF ONLY 4?/W '900 .� . O O a - ._ 4;/0" ol ,: - - •- - _ «,..z . _. °_ } - - - -ter Y!!P9 M 5 k 0l, Z -- �.-- - - . 2� Z . o �o.�oryy y.�9•�so�s - Ale. A00 z 7 c The Pianning Board has made no determin~ ti as to conformance of this lot with the provisiory of the Zoning Ordinance. 30- p Ce 4: 629 7 7 ' s79 ° S9' -za ''� - £ y / L,gNO /!I F FIELD WOft = . �"L - ftU"n ISM CO. n103 Scanned `-- _� _ Y i j w , . ,.- �.� Checked . , • , -- - -... - -" _- - _ _ i -.� ._ , L . -- _ ".- ,�. _ j.- y - - S . - .. _ . -- -.r Sik Js �y t 7. i o Me-Ae c. AJb 0,0* ✓OS��.� �. oicXi�v.�. O t rp o 47 0 ;0f 400.00' �O �o ,I � O 4 39 Be! /9�,3 ~Pa 076 f'L.4rt/ BiC! /OZ LPG. 27 o� � y �V 0 R (4 0� N Oh Qo Q t i i COWrOO"S TO ryE e'Ty /C PZOCCDU�?4,,4A0 TEC11A1 /CqL Sr -4A1, oW-.5 r0.P ;Wc PoeWr /CE o.Z,4AAg 7l,Ptle - l - I sw r,4r CamoyvAllyEAGT11 1 c eR7ZrY r,114 TWS �4AJ MOs 96eV x OA 77-16 G'O�ii�O�tlh%�4LTf� OF M.4SSACf/G',��"T T�: . NOR rX14MProw COO�o�it/14 a DRAWN: OW �-- •�'YSrE"M Al. Z8, U7 94 E: 7, 432.7. V .. - -_- C HECKED : o Al T C : D ,41e6,0 roe APPROVED: D. W. 7 DATE .111 9 /979 APPROvAI NOT 5O_CIATES, IN' �, •.,,�,�-' .,. REGI STERED LAND SUR'VEYOR5 & 69" �r X00 9'0 0 2 -TO 7x ioo 41 MEN TE Z3. D i0 zo -70 40 SO l "= %Oo' log /, UpUQo N <,& D DRAWN: OW �-- ' PLAN OF L ,IAIjO TRACED: S. B. W A10R r1 -141 RrOA /, M•4�S'S•4CyC�.SET TS C HECKED : o Al T C : D ,41e6,0 roe APPROVED: D. W. 7 DATE .111 9 /979 ALMER HUNTLEY, JR. $ AS 5O_CIATES, IN' �, •.,,�,�-' .,. REGI STERED LAND SUR'VEYOR5 & CIVii. ENGINEERS PLEASANT 5TREET •> •` '�' .;,` N ORTHAM PTO Ni, MASS . , .,r 5HEET OF s log /, UpUQo N <,& D PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON City Hall • 2i o Main Street, Room ii • No4ampton� MA o z o - 3 1 9 8 - (4 5 8 7 -1266 • rax: 5 87-1264 waNne Feiden, Director • pl anning @northampton I n 2 xv 0 w3 .northamptonplanning.org John J. Hanley, Trustee Beaver Brook Nominee Trust 150 West 56 Street, Apartment 5905 NY, NY 10019 RE: 3/14/03 ANR submittal at Map ID (per application) 5 -6, 5 -7, 6 -18 & 6 -19 Dear Mr. Hanley: At their meeting on March 27, 2003; the Northampton Planning Board voted unanimously to deny your application for a plan believed not to require approval. Specifically, the Planning Board found: 1. All of the lots appear to have frontage on the plans submitted on a public street (Haydenville Road) and no other frontage. 2. The frontage for Lots F, G and H is illusionary. The wetlands along the entire length of the frontage make it impossible to pass from the road onto the parcel. 3. The frontage for Lots I, A and B may also be illusionary. The wetlands and riverfront along the frontage may make it impossible to pass from the road onto the parcel. 4. No special permit or other means to provide access to the property other than along the frontage has been secured. 5. Without real useable frontage, the lots are not eligible for ANR endorsement. 6. Although the Planning Board routinely stamps plans "may not be a buildable lot" for lots than may not be buildable, this is adequate to cure the defect of an inability to show access over the front lot line. For your information, some of the governing cases for this denial are: Gifford v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801 (1978); Gallitano v. Board of Survey and Planning of Waltham, 10 Mass. Appl Ct. 269 (1980); Corcoran v. Planning Board of Sudbury, 406 Mass. 248 (1989); Poulos v. Planning Board of Briantree, 413 Mass. 359 (1992); and Gates v. Planning Board of Dighton, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 394 (2000) I certify that the Planning Board so denied your ANR application on 3/27/2002. By a copy of this letter I am so informing the City Clerk. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Director of Planning and Development p E W MAR 2 8 2003 CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 Cc: Northampton City Clerk planning board • conservation commission • zoning boardof appeals • housing partnership • redevelop mentautboritN • northampton GIS economic development • communitN development • historic district commission • historica[commission • central business architecture original printed on regded paper FORM A NORTHAMPTON, MA APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEMENT OF PLAN BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL File seven completed and signed forms and plans and one mylar with the City Clerk and the Planning Board in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.02. I (we) believe that the attached plan of property in the City of Northampton does not constitute division within the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law, and herewith submits said plan for a determination and endorsement that Planning Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law is not required. 1. Name of Applicant (print or type): Signature: Address: 150 West 56th Street, Apt. 5905, New York, NY 10019 (Phone: (212145 I-SS53 2. Name of Owner: John J. Hanley, Trustee The Beaver Brook Nominee MWt Signature: Address: 150 West 56th Street Apt. 5905 New York, NY 1001 U Phone: 1212) 451 -8553 3. Name of Surveyor (print or type): Heritage Surveys, Inc. Signatur ' Address: College Highway & Clark Street, P.O. Box 1 Phone: (413) 527 -3600 Southampton, MA 01073. 4. Deed of property recorded in Hampshire County Registry of Deeds or Land Court: Book 5493 Page 23, Book 5869 Page 6, Book 5917 Page 206, Plan Book 32 Page 38, Plan Book 33 Page 37, Plan Book 80 Page 80, and Plan Book 186 Page 192 5. Street Name, and Property Location and Description: Street Name: Haydenville Road Description: Parcel A. area= 6.305,acres, Parcel B. area =4.422 acres. Parcel C. area =2.452 acres, Parcel D. area =2.544 acres, Parcel E. area =2.216 acres, Parcel F. area =4.383 acres. Parcel G. area =5.297 acres. Parcel H. area =6.321 acres, Parcel I. area =10.71 acres. Parcel J. area =5.217 acres, and Open Space, area =6.92 acres, as shown on a Plan of Land surveyed for John J. Hanley, Trustee of The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust by Heritage Surveys, Inc., dated March S. 2003. 6. Assessor's Map ID: May 5 Lots 6 & 7 and May 6 Lots 18 & 19. 7. Number of newly created lotsfl0 Date Submitted fgfJann g Date Pl Bo Board pr al U Decision Field: a o� 6 '0 City Cl City Clerk (si re Attention: Re: Status of Grove Avenue, Leeds, and Beaver Brook Subdivision Dear Mr, Yac u=O and Platming Board Members: I am writing this letter on behalf of several residents on Grove Avenue, Leeds, Northampton, Massachusetts. wry clients request that the Pl status of Grove Avenue in Leeds, prior to decidin wh auamg Bowtennine the Proposed Beaver Brook Subdivision g ether of not to approve the I have reviewe4 the records understanding that at the May 22 of the Northam , 1934 meeting of ��, g uar Survey. Of uryey there was I i my a vote ptuporting to the accept Grove Avenue as a ublie wa . time required Public Notice of a muniei p Y T he lam' in effect at the However, review of the records of the Board of Survey indicates that street io notice b w ias ay published as required by the statute before the Beard acted on the request to accept Grove Avenue as a public way. If there was no publication, then the question is raised whether or not the Board acted legally to accept Grove Avenue. It ism c action of the Board did not comply with appli�ients t t'�a�� that the Avenue as a public way was not affective. cable law and the cp Grove The Massachusetts Appeals Court in the case of F v MIDDLEBOROUGd�, ? M App. CL80 {1979) Page 83 to 84 defined how a street can become a public way. In un genera it h as an bc existing way iu. a city or town in this Commonwealth is not a " „ corna p bVlic authority Public way by prescription. ty in the manner Prescribed by statute or If the R Car d of C,l ,ri A;A no � �t Avenue could b .�. . `,"j o %"%A u„� �oiI dio proper statutory procedures, then Grove iome s p ublic wa Y by " Prescriptive use ,,. waY by prescriptiv The creation of a public use depends en a showin uninterrupted continued for least a owing of actual public use, general and public way b Years. To determine if a atreet has become a Y Y Prescription requires an analyses of its historical use by the public. The historical use of Grove Avenue shows that use has been wi fxrozxr )~roo green Road. Street to Ever r traveled public way . Grove Avenue is not and has not been used by the general public from Evergreen Road west to the Beaver Brook Subdivision. Open and notorious use by the general public is nccess P The fact that the road has only been used he homeowners eyond by Evergreen Road, and perhaps by the former owners of the laird now c proposed subdivision, does not establish ` �g of the general public. The result of the historical use i Ptiv th _ comprising of Grove Avenue by the to Beaver Bro Estates from Grove Avenue ere is no public yehicular access MW Public pedestrian access probably has been established, a.ud my clients have no objection to such limited use. The general public has not established by prWription a public way for vehicular use. The records in the Depati4ent of Public Wofks indicate that Grove .Avenue was accepted for 1,000 feet from Front Street. If the road was properly accepted (which based upon the records of the Board of Survey+ is not the case), the subdivision should not be allowed vehicular access over the portion of Grove Ave that extends beyond the 1000 feet for purpose of connecting to Grove Avenue. The traveled portion of Grove Avenue between Front Street and Evergreen Road is the only portion of Grove that can be considered to be a public way for vehicular access, For reference, I have anclosed the following: Rules and regulations of the Board of Survey in effect on May 22, 1934; Copy of the Notice of the May 22, 1934 Board of Survey Meeting; Copy of Board of Survey meeting minutes, including newspaper articles. Copy of the case Fenn V. Marlborough. 10 On behalf of my client, I request an opinion by the City of N thatnpton.as io the actual status of Grove Avenue in Leeds. I request the opinion include the City's opinion regarding its length and its width, and the notice that was given prior to the Board of Survey May 1934, mecting purporting to accept Grove Avenue by the City. Consideration of these issues prior to the submission of the proposal for definitive subdivision plan will be in everyone's interest. Sincerely yours, TAM! Enclosures Wavne Feiden From: KATHLEEN BROWN [BROWNK @svahs.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:49 AM To: Wayne Feiden Cc: cheevers @crocker.com Subject: Beaver Brook hearing 4 -27 -06 23 Upland Road Leeds, MA 01053 Mr. Wayne Feiden, Director City of Northampton Planning Board Northampton, MA 01060 April 26, 2006 Dear Mr. Feiden: We urge you to reduce the size and scope of the Beaver Brook development planned in Leeds. As parents of a young child, living on Upland Road, we are deeply concerned about the effect that the anticipated increase of car trips ( +190 trips per day) will have on the safety of all the neighborhood children. Our streets (Upland, Chestnut, East Center) are narrow, have no sidewalks, are filled with children every day, and were not built years ago to accommodate more traffic. Of special concern is that, in winter, snow banks often make it necessary to stop to allow a car to pass in the opposite direction. High mounds of snow at intersections, particularly at the East Center - Upland and Chestnut - Upland intersections, can severely limit visibility for both cars and pedestrians. All the neighborhood children walk to and from Leeds school and there are also many elderly people who walk each day. Add a parent pushing a stroller or child on a bike and the situation is already hazardous without the increased traffic. Many of us have voiced these same concerns at previous public hearings on the development. We use these streets every day and know their limitations. Has a proper traffic study been conducted to show, with data, what we already know from experience? We will be unable to attend the hearing on Thursday, April 27. Please add our voices to the others who will be speaking out against the proposed development. We would hope that solely limiting access to the new development via Route 9 is another possible solution. We feel it is crucial to retain the quality of our neighborhood, in the interest of keeping with the city's planning goals and maintaining the quality of life we all moved here for. Please consider our deep concerns and your duty to protect the safety of our children. Sincerely, Nancy Cheevers Kathie Brown 23 Upland Road 1 Lora Sandhusen 32 E. Center St. Leeds, MA 01053 To the Planning Board: These materials are regarding the proposed Beaver Brook subdivision: Atty. Patrick Melnick's Notice of Project Change and request that the EOEA/MEPA requirement of an EIR be rescinded on the basis of these changes; and public comment from me. The changes Atty. Melnick proposes (moving houses farther into the upland habitat) do not mitigate the environmental problems this project will cause. He has not complied with any NHESP conditions (one of which is the preparation of an EIR). If your permitting process is at all dependent on coordination with state requirements, this should be of interest to you. Further, I urge you to look closely at his documentation supporting mitigation of environmental concerns (which he references, but which does not exist). Sincerely, fU. -("V, Lora Sandhusen Memorandum To: Carolyn Misch From: Duane Nichols Date: March 27, 2006 CC: Brian Duggan Re: Beaver Brook Estates In review of the plans for the proposed subdivision, the area of concern is the hydrant spacing into the development. It needs to be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association recommendations. Is the fire flow appropriate for the development? The common driveways for the project need to have appropriate signage depicting house numbers serviced by that common drive to help with emergency response to those residences. 0 Page 1 BOARD OF HEALTH MEMBERS ROSEMARIE KARPARIS, R.N., MPH XANTHI SCRIMGEOUR, MHEd, CHES JAY FLEI M. STAFF Ernest J. Mathieu, R.S., M.S., C.H.O. Director of Public Health Richard Meczywor, R.S., Sanitary Inspector Patricia Abbott, R.N., Public Health Nurse MEMO OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH CITY OF NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 01060 TO: Carolyn Mish Office of Planning and Development FROM: Ernest J. Mathieu, R.S., M.S., C.H.O. Director of Public Health DATE: April 27, 2006 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan Review — Beaver Brook Estates 212 MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 (413) 587 -1214 FAX(413)587 -1221 Please be advised, that on behalf of the Board of Health, I have reviewed the application and the Preliminary Plans for the proposed Beaver Brook Estates cluster subdivision plans. The project is to be serviced with the city water supply and the city sewer system. At this time there appears to be no Public Health Concerns and there is no objection to the preliminary plan. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Thank you. COTV94ONWIH -AL T H OF MASSACHUSETTS HIAMPSHIRE, S.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION CIVIL ACTION No. y JOHN HANLEY, TRUSTEE OF THE BEAVER BROOK �IOMNEE TRUST, I Plaintiff V. THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, ROBERT JEFFWAY Jr., THE CITE' OF NORTHAMPTON AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ACTING THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, Defendants COMPLAINT BACKGROUND Gzz vE l . John J. Manley is an individual who resides at 180 Riverside Boulevard, Apartment 29E, New Fork, New York 1006 and is the Trustee of the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust and hereinafter referred to as "Hanley ". 2. Robert Jeffway, Jr. is an individual who resides at 37 Front Street, Llceds, (Northampton), Hampshire County, Massachusetts and is hereinafter referred to as "Jeffway ". Jeffway is joined as a defendant in this action in compliance with M G. . Ch. 40A Sec. 17 but no relief is sought against Jeffway. 3. Hanle is the owner of real estate located off C rove Avenue and Haydenville Road (Route 9) in the City of Northampton which contains sixty acres of land, more or less. 4. Jeffway was an applicant in an application made to the Planning Board of the City of Northampton for site plan approval for a common driveway to serve three building lots proposed to be created by Jeffway, by application submitted on December 13, 2003. 5. At a hearing held on January 3, 2004, the planning Board of the City of Northam, pton approved the common driveway access through other than a front lot line to serve the three house building sites proposed by Jeffway. However, this approval was subject to conditions set forth in approval dated January 12, 2004. 6. A copy of the planning Board decision filed with the City Clerk is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A ". The planning Board of the City is acting through its members present, William Letendre, Paul Voss, Francis Johnson, Keith Wilson, Paul demand, Kenneth Jodrie and David Willensky. 7. The .plaintiff in this action contends that the decision of the Planning Board included conditions pertaining to the submission of a Conservation Restriction for review and approval by the Office of Planning and Development, Conservation Commission and City Council and also included a condition pertaining to easement access and snow plowing responsibilities. The Plaintiff contends that the conditions unposed by the Planning Board of the City of Northampton exceeded their authority and the approval should have been granted without such conditions. �. In addition to the dispute between ng the Plaintiff and the planni Board concerning the imposition of conditions on the common driveway approval, the Plaintiff, Hanley, has other matters of contro aersy that relate to the bull dability of this parcel and the authority of the Planning Board of the City of Northampton and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to prohibit or restrict development on this parcel. 9. The Plaintiff Hanley's complaints against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts relate to actions taken by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts acting through the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through its Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Fish and Game, Natural heritage Program, all as more particularly set forth in this Complaint. 10. Hanley also has a complaint against the City of Northam, pton, acting through its Department of P ublic Works, concerning the denial of the access to municipal water to serve the three house sites proposed by Jeffway. 1 i . The Plaintiff believes that it would expeditious that all matters pertaining to the development of this parcel, and the issues of controversy that he has against the City of Northampton and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts be resolved in this litigation. 12. Where applicable, as set forth in the following Counts of this Complaint, each paragraph of this Complaint shall be deemed to be restated in each Count of this Complaint as if originally stated therein. COUNT 1 APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF ZONING PERMIT 13. T he Plaintiff in this action appeals the decision of the Planning Board dated January 12, 2004 pursuant to the provisions of 1\/lassachusetts General T aws, Chapter 40A, Section 17. This is the only Count of this Complaint that pertains to the defendant 4 Jesvay and no relief is sought against Jeffway. He is joined i_, this action only as the applicant of the permit that is being appealed. 14. The Plaintiff alleges that the decision of the Planning Board exceeded its authority. The Plaintiff alleges that the conditions imposed exceed the authority of the board and should be annulled. 15. The plaintiff specifically alleges that the Planning Board of the City of Northampton has no authority to rewire a Conservation Restriction on land to be created as a condition of site plan appro - ; - al for a common driveway, nor does the Planning Board of the City of Northampton have the authority to limit or restrict the use of the Plaintiff's property to rewire a certain portion of the Plaintiffs property to be maintained available for a future bike path. Plaintiff further contends that this was not an application for Special Permit and only Site Plan approval was sought. No conditions should have been imposed by the Planning Board if the technical criteria for site plan approval had been followed. Plaintiff also alleges that the permit filed with the City Clerk did not state the conditions voted on by the Planning Board accurately. COUNT 2 ACCESS TO MUNICIPAL WATER COMPLAINT FOR DECLAR�AkTOR'Y RELIEF PURSUANT TO M.G.L. C. 231A. SECTION 1 16. The Plaintiff, Manley, further states that as part of his application, Jeff attempted to apply to the Department of Public Works of the Cit<y of Northampton for access to municipal water to provide municipal water to the three houses Jeffway -vas contemplating building on this site. 17. Although access to municipal water has been granted for new lots created in this neighborhood in the past year, the Department of Public Works of the City of Northampton indicated to Jeffway that it would not allow access to municipal water for the houses that I Jeffway was proposing to build. 18. Jeffway attempted to apply for a municipal water access permit but was refused the right to file an application by the Department of Public Works of the City of Northampton. 19. The Plaintiff alleges that the City of Northampton refused to allow Jeffway to apply for the municipal water hook -up because it was planning to attempt to implement regulations restricting municipal water hook -ups that could be applicable to Jeffway or other owners of Hanley's land at a later date. 20. The Plaintiff alleges that the City of Northampton, acting through the Department of Public Works, had no authority to refuse to allow Jeffway or Hanley or others to have access to municipal water, where such municipal water is available. 21. With respect to this Count of this Complaint the Plaintiff requests that the Court determine and declare under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 231A, Section 1 if the City of Northampton has to make available to the Plaintiff municipal water to residential house sites to be constructed on the Plaintiffs property. COUNT T 3 EXACTIOt�1 AND TAKE G OF LAND BY EMINENT DOMA N 22. The Plaintiff in this action alleges that the condition imposed by the Planning Board of the City of Northampton requiring a Conservation Restriction to be submitted to the Planning Department, Conservation Commission and City Council of the City of Northampton for approval, and that no Building Permit be issued on this site for any of the lots until such time as a Conservation Restriction is executed and recorded, and that such Conservation Restriction cover all the areas shown on the plan submitted, and that no restriction to use of the land for a future bike path be placed on the Conservation Restriction, was an unlawful exaction made by the City of Northampton upon the Plaintiff for which the Plaintiff has a right of action. The Plaintiff I alleges th aL the coy non driveway site plan approval has no connection w rftarsoevei to any proposed Conservation Restiichon proposed to be granted on this property. Any such Conservation Restriction is solely applicable to concerns of the Common�xealth of Massachusetts Executive Offlice of Environmental Affairs, Natural Heritage Program under the Endangered Species Act. The City of Northampton has no jurisdiction to make any decisions affecting the use of this parcel of land under the Endangered Species Act and cannot impose conditions upon the applicant which may be objectionable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as it administers the Endangered Species Act. 23. The action of the City of Northampton in imposing these restrictions on the Plaintiffs property is tantamount to a taping of thirty seven acres of the Plaintiffs' property for which the Plaintiffs have not received compensation. 24. The Plaintiff contends that this condition is an exaction which is tantamount to a taking for which the Plaintiff has a right of compensation under the State and Federal Constitution as a taking of real property without the payment of just compensation. Plaintiff seeks damages under M.G.L. Chapter 79. COUNT 4 CO1 FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PURSUANT TO T\/I.G.L. C. 231A A�11� T��E APPLICABILITY OF THE ENDANGERE1 SP C -IES AC TO THE HAXLEY PROPERTY 25. The Plainti further states that he has proposed various plans to develop his property to the City of Northampton but each of the Mans he has submitted has met objections from the Commonwealth of T\/Iassachusetts, Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish. and Game, Natural Heritage Species Program (hereinafter Natural Heritage) 7 26. Specifically, beginning in 1991, Natural Heritage advised 1 'anl°y that based upon information provided by trespassers on the Hanley property, Natural Heritage had determined that there were three vernal pools on the Manley property and one vernal pool on property of an abutter, two of which pools were alleged were to be breeding habitat for Jefferson Salamanders. 27. Previous to this notification only a small portion of the Hanley property was shown to be on Natural Heritage estimated habitat maps for rare species. The portion of Hanley's property that was on previous estimated habitat maps related to a siting of a Wood Turtle off the Manley site. None of the area on the estimated habitat map pertains to any of the area of the Hanley property that was proposed to be developed. 28. Based upon this information received from Natural Heritage, Hanley caused plans to be prepared to show a crossing of the wetland on the Manley property on Route 9 to reach the upland area of his site to develop fifty -four residential house sites. 29. This flan, proposed by Manley, showing a through street from Haydenville Road to Grove Avenue, received preliminary plan approval from the City of Northampton Manning Board. However, Natural Heritage, by letter to the Northampton Conservation Commission dated November 5, 2001 objected to Hanley's Notice of Intent to cross the wetland portion of the Hanley property to reach his upland developable parcel. Natural Heritage contended that the entire river front area of the Hanley property and the wetland area of the Hanley property were actual habitat of the Jefferson Salamander and the Wood Turtle. 30. Based upon this finding, the Northam, - pton Conservation Commission denied Hanley's application to cross the wetland and Hanley appealed the denial to the Department of Environmental Protection. 3 1. Subsequently, the Department of Environmental Protection also 8 .jeni °d Na��ley's application cross the wetland portion of i�is Live. L.) Vyach his upland due to the finding of Natural Heritage teat s'anity wo uld alter actual laultat tiaf file ,lefferson Salamander and Wood Turtle. 3?. s a result, a�ley negotiate the right to purchase other lard of an abutter to obtain access to the upland portion of his site that did not I ipact any wetlands, buffer Zones or river front. The entire development, including roadways, drainage and house sites. were proposed to be on the upland portion of the Hanley property. again, Natu� a1 Heritage, trough its Natural heritage Endanzgered Species Program.. objected to Hanley's proposal and indicated that Hanley's development could alter endangered species habitat and could be a violation of the Endangered Species Act, Massachusetts General Laws, Cha 131 A. 34. Hanley, subsequently filed an application with Natural heritage in order to obtain Conservation permit to allow development of his upland site and offered to restrict , by Conservation restriction, development on thirty -seven acres of the sixty acre site. 5. Hanley's application to Natural Heritage has not been approved by 11latural �seritage and it does not appear to Hanle,-' that Na0 -tral 3' eritage is taking any action towards moving towards = approval. Natural E Heritage is seeking details as to Douse location an d drainage proposed by Hanley but Hanley cannot supply this info_ nation unless and un it he knows horn Natural Heritage what -,arts c - i his property wil"Ll be allowed to be developed. i�an'_ey is seel<in: instinuction from this court to guide this process to a conclusion. 36. , eff�vay also proposed to Natural heritage to donate a thirty seven acre Conservation Restriction to protect the Wood Turtle and Tef erson Salmi ander In cxchange for a "'onservatioli 'ern=i? frmri natural Her_taae to be al?owcd to build three s:ncle tamIty souses r- on this Site. �,gaiTi, Natural ��:;I' taf- -e has taker= no action i.r. This application and appears not to be movi forvvae d to taking a, �y action on that application. 37. Hanley alleges that there has never been any "VTood Turtle on the Manley site, nor has any portion of the Manley site been determined to be actual habitat of Wood Turtle due to the observation of Wood Turtle on the site. 38. Even if Wood Turtles were on the Hanley site, the Wood Turtle habitat would be adjacent to Beaver gook and not on any of the upland portion of the site to which Hanley is proposing development. 39. Manley further alleges that no portion of the upland site which Manley proposes to develop has been shown to be actual habitat of the Jefferson Salamander and the JeArson Salamander has been found to be breeding on only one vernal pool on the Manley site which is not located near any of the area of the Hanley property that Hanley proposes to develop. Hanley alleges that Natural Heritage, in this case, has no jurisdiction to restrict the development of the upland portion of the Manley site and has not demonstrated that the upland portion of the Manley site is actual habitat. 40. In order to :Hove forward with his plans to develop this site, Hanley is asking this Court to determine and declare under the provisions of Massachusetts General saws, Chapter 231 A, Section 1, which portions of the Hanley property, if any, the Natural Heritage program has jurisdiction over and what conditions, if any, can Natizal Heritage impose on Manley in connection with the development of his upland property. Manley is also requesting this court to determine and declare whether or not his application for a Conservation Permit is complete and whether or not he should be entitled to a Conservation Permit. Hanley is also asking this court to determine and declare what authority, if any, the Plannin Board of the City of Northampton has to impose conditions on his proposed development that relates to wildlife 10 habitat under the endangered species act. endangered INJ T UNCTIVE RELIEF TO ISSUE CONSERVATION PERMIT 41, I'l, as a result of the determinations made by the court, the court finds that Hanley has submitted a proper application to the Natural Heritage Program to obtain a Conservation permit to be allowed to develop the upland portion of his property, Hanley is requesting this court to order the Natural Heritage program to issue him said Conservation Permit based on the application he has filed. COUNT 6 EXACTION EMINTENT DOMAIN — 1 AKING BY NATURAL HERITAGE 42. The Pla Hanley, further alleges that the Natural Heritage Plaintiff, 1 program has progressively exercised more domination and control over the Hanley property as Hanley has continued to attempt to develop the property. 43. Beginning in 2001, Natural Heritage contended that it had jurisdiction only over the river front and wetland portion of the Hanley property. Since that time Natural Heritage has contended that it "may" have Jurisdiction over the upland portion of the Hanley property. 44. In its most recent letter to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Natural Heritage has indicated that the entire Hanley property is habitat for species of special concern and that the entire Hanley property has been designated y I L i to be a priority subject to the control of the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program. 45. Manley alleges that Natural Heritage has come on to the Hanley J -- property and has occupied the property by way of placing signs restricting vehicular traffile, and through its actions, and its failure 11 to Issue Hanley a Conservation Permit, has effectively taken th�- Hanley property by regulatory taking. A 1 S + - Ii' Hanley alleges that he is entitled to compensation for Ll 2 pursuant to the State and Federal Constitution and also pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131 A. 47. Hanley further alleges that, to the extent to which Natural Heritacr�e is requiring Hanley to restrict development of a port of his ZD property in order to develop other portions of his property, Natural Heritage is exacting from Hanley land, and the use of land, to which Natural Heritage is not entitled, without paying ZD compensation to Hanley. 48. Hanley is seeking monetar damages for the loss of the use of his property and the damages caused as a result of the taking by the ZD Natural Heritage program under this Count of this Complaint. Int. COUNT 7 MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT M.G.L. CHAPTER 231 A REILIEF 4 Plaintiff had filed an Environmental Notification Form. (ENF) at the request of Natural i Heritage n connection with the ZD Conservation Permit sought by the Plaintiff. 50. As a result of the filing of this ENF, the Secretary of the Office of Environmental Affairs (The Secretary) determined that Hanley had to file and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by certificate dated July 24, 2003. 5 1 Hanley alleges that the Secreta:,--y in made IL assumptions about the impact of the project that were not applicable to the project and the requirement of the filing of an -17IR was based on these erroneous assumptions. For example, the 12 Secretary concluded that Hanley was reaul-red to obtain a Su Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act. In fact, no part of Hanley's proposed development impacts I wetlands or buffer zones or riverfront and does not require the filing of an Notice of Intent under the I/Vetland Protection Act. The Secretary also required Hanley to do awildlife study to obtain a Conservatin Permit from Natural Heritage and no such c requirement was made on Hanley by Natu heritag 5 %� - - he findings of the Secretary Hanley is asking this court to revi ew t and determine if any of the assumptions and findings made by the Secretary were erroneous. As a result of such determinations made by the court, Hanley is requesting this court to determine the extent to which Hanley must comp with the Environmental Policy Act and the extent to which Hanley must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under TVI.G.L. Ch. 30. This is a request for Declaratory Relief under M.G. L. ch. 23 1A See. 1. COUNTS REGULATORY TAKING FOR FAILURE TO ALLOW ACCESS TO UPLAND PROPERTY UNDER THE WETLAND PROTECTION ACT 53, Plaintiff Ha- Z� 1 1, i Hanley alleges that his on practical access to the upland portion of his property, without having to purchase other property, I and to comply with City of Northampton Planning ru requires access to his site via Route 9. 54. Plaintiff alleges that his application for access that was filed under I - ilig Order of the Wetland Protect Act was denied by Superced Conditions issued by the Department of Environmental Protection on August 8, 2003. 5 Plaintiff alleges that the actions of the Department of Environmental Protection, in denying his application for access, has denied him the reasonable economic use of his property and itutes a taking without compensation. such negulatorry action consti I'D 5c, Plaintiff is requesting Compensation for the monetary value of his land that was taken or not allowed to be used by Hanley as a result Of this action by the Department of Environmental Protection in this count of this corn COUNT ST AT OF GROVE AVENUE COMPLAFNT FOR D ECT —IARATORY RELIEF UNDER MGL CH. 231A. 57. Plaintiff further states that at various times it has been contended by the Department of Public Works of the City of Northampton, and others, that Grove Avenue is not a public way for its entire length and that the portion of Grove Avenue that abuts the Plaintiff s property is not a public way. 58. Plaintiff contends that Grove Avenue is either a Public Way or that the Plaintiff acquired the right to access the Public way portion of Grove Avenue by virtue of his deed to the Property from the Skibiski Realty Trust. Plaintiff contends that when Grove Avenue was accepted as a City street it was accepted for its entire length up to the point where it abuts the Plaintiffs property, and possibly beyond. 59. The Plaintiff states that it would be in the *Interest of justice that this issue, together with all the other issues relating to the ZD development of this property, be resolved by Declaratory Judgment under M.6. L. ch. 2.31 A. COUNT 10 i- E COMPL All T FO EC R D ARATORY RET IEF WITH RESPECI To CONDITTONS UMPOSED BY' -TAE BLANTNTNG BOARD FOR PRELTNfT I I NARY SUBDIVISION PLAN DENTAL 60. Hanley had - previously filed applications for preliminary subdivision approval for several variations ions of development 14 proposals for this site. The last two applications for preliminary subdivision approval were denied by the Northampton Manning Board by decisions dated April 11, 2002 and May 8, 2003. 61. In making the decisions for denial, the Northampton Planning Board imposed conditions on the decisions of denial that apparently would have to be met before final subdivision approval would be granted. 62. Among the conditions were conditions that Hanley install speed tables in various locations throughout the Yllage of Leeds as traffic mitigation devices and that Hanley conduct a habitat analysis to ensure the development does not infringe on the upland area alleged to be inhabited by rare species. 63, Hanley alleges that these conditions, and others imposed by Planning in its Preliminary Subdivision denial, are beyond the authority of the Planning Board to impose. Before Hanley prepares definitive subdivision plans Hanley is requesting this court to determine which, if any, of the conditions sought to be required by the Northampton Planning Board are within its authority pursuant to M. G. L. Chapter 231 A, section 1. Wherefore, the Plaintiff demands: 1. That this court annul the conditions placed on the jeffWay Site Plan Review Common Driveway Permit under M. G. L. Ch. 40A See. 17 as being in excess of the authority of the Planning Board to impose under Count I of this complaint. 2. That this court enter Declaratory Relief under M. G. L. Ch. 23 A, for the relief requested under counts 2,.4, 7,9 and 10 of this complaint. 3. That this court award the Plaintiff damages caused as a result of the taking of his property by regulation or otherwise under counts 3, 6 and 8 of this complaint. 1 15 4 . hat this court order the Commonwealth of Nfassac"I'lusett to issue a Conservation permit to the Plaintiff under M.G. L. ch. 131A to allo - ahe development of the upland portion of the Plaintiff s property. 5. Plaintiff demands TRIAL BY JURY on those counts of the com,plaint seeking damages. 4563como) 110 King St. Northampton, Ma. 01060 584-6750 BBO #342440 Planning Board - Decision Ci a c NcrtharnPtcn Hearing ;\l PLiV 200 ,;? -0055 Cate: January '12, 2004 APPLICATION TYPE: SUBMISSION DATE: P3 Intermediate Site Plan 12/18/2003 aloplieant's ;dame: Cwner's Na,7ie: Surievor's N'arne: N AME: Robert Je- f'Nay. Jr. NAME: HA,jILEY JCHN J TRUSTEE COMPANY NANIE: i ,ADDRESS: 37 Front Street ADDRESS: 110 KING ST ADDRESS. TOWN: Leeds, STATE: MA ZIP CODE: 01053 TOWN: I t10P?Tr?AIIHPTO,�I STATE: IRA ZIP CODE: 01060 TOWN: STA -E: ZIP CODE: PHONE NO.: I FAX NO.: PHONE ND.: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: Site Information: STREET NO.: HAYDENVILLE RD SITE ZONING: SR URA TOWN: NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 SECTION OF BYLAW: Section 5.2: Ta ble of Use Regulations MAP: 06 BLOCK: 020 LOT: 001 MAP DATE: ACTION TAKEN: Approved With Conditions Book: 3103 Page: `29 NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK: Common driveway access from other than a front Ict line to three house sites. Maps listed are Map 5 parcels 6, 7,12 and .Hap 6 parcels 18 -21 a 58. Use allowed under Northampton Zoning through site plan approval. Use is not subject to special permit. HARDSHIP: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit on any of the lots, the applicant shall submit DRAFT Conservation Restriction (CR) Documents for review by the Office of Planning & Development and approval by the Conservation Commission and the City Council. The CR shall cover all of the area shown on the plans submitted with this application. Language shall not prohibit the improvement of the rail right -of -way fcr use as the future bike path or the area of the future bike path shall be excluded from the CR entirely. The CR must be fully executed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for any of the lots. 2. Final Plans shall snow only one access to Lot 1 from the common driveway. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either lot 1, 2, or 3, proof of recording of an easement document showing joint maintenance responsibilities for the driveway and all utilities within the easement area shall be provided to the Office of Planning a Development Maintenance snail include clearing snow to provide passable access by emergency vehicles. The applicant may provide a turn around on the property for the City snow plow trucks. If the applicant does provide such a turn around, then easement documents shall include language granting such permission and which also indemnifies the Cit for its use and access. if a turnaround is not provided, the applicant/owners association is responsibie for clearing all snow that may be plowed by the City at the driveway entrance off of Grove Avenue. .'. Prior to issuance of a certir"tcate of occupancy, for any of the lots, the applicant shall submit an as- built plan showing that driveway construction is substantially in compliance with the approved plan. The Planning Board approved the Site Plan based on the following plans and information submitted with the application: "Jefnray Residence at Grove Avenue General Site Plan, Common Driveway Site Plan" Sheets No. L -100 and L -101, prepared by William Canon, dated December 17, 2003. in Granting the Site Plan Approval, the Planning Board found that this driveway provides access from Grove Avenue, which is a way on which the public has the right to pass and repass as determined by information from the City Solicitor. in addition, the Board determined that: GeoT1ASe 2004 Des Lauriers iVlunicipal Solutions, inc. an n' i r r :tea..., - 1a Hearing NO.: PL N-2004-0055 Date: January 12, 2004 1, Carolyn Misch, as agent to the Planning Board, certify that this is a true and accurate decision made by the Planning Board and certify that a copy of this and all plans have been filed with the Board and the City Clerk on January 12, 2, 1 certify that a copy of this decision has been mailed to the owner and Applicant GeoTMS® 2004 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions, Inc. V 0'i: « A n DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD r r (Fl r ; fl�77 1� MAY 1 01989 U h At a meeting held on February 23, 1989, the Planning Board of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to GRANT the Application of Joseph C. Dickinson for a Special Permit under the Provisions of Section 6.13 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of creating a Flag Lot on the northerly side of Audubon Road, Leeds, more specifically Parcel 18 of Sheet 5 of the Northampton Assessor's Maps. Present and voting were Acting Chair Andrew Crystal, Marion Mendelson, Judith Hale, John Cahillane, James Holeva, E. John Care, III and Dr. Josef Arnould. The Findings were as follows: The parcel in question contains 46.79 acres, and is to be used for the construction of one single- family dwelling. Frontage is approximately 65 -70 feet. The Chief of the Fire Department of the City of Northampton has approved the plan, so long as there is only one house built on the parcel. The use requested is allowed by Special Permit under the Provisions of Section 6.13 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. The requested use bears a positive relationship to the public convenience or welfare, in that it preserves a very large parcel as a buffer to the Hampshire County Hospital, a direct abutter. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage or sewer systems, or any other municipal-systems to such an extent that the requested use or any developed use in the immediate area or in any other area- -of-the city will be unduly subjected to hazards affecting health, safety, or the general welfare. The requested use will not unduly impair the integrity or DECISION OF THE NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD MAY 1 0 W9 JOSEPH C. DICKINSON REQUEST FOR A SPEC PERM _. PAGE TWO `. I j character of the district or adjoining zones, nor be detrimental to the health, morals, or general welfare. The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. The following conditions shall apply: -The driveway shown on the plan is to be the only access to the lot. i - Utilities must follow the right -of - way of the driveway. -There must be only one house built on this 96.79 acre parcel. Andrew Crysta Acti g Chair J Marion Mendelson ��- Judith Hale John_ L. Cahillane James Holeva i7 E. John Gare, III Dr. Josef,Arnould - ° -- I, Adeline Murray, City Clerk of the City of Northampton, hereby certify that the above Decision of the Morthampton Planning Board was filed in the Office of the City Clerk on March 6, 1989, that twenty days have elapsed since such filing and that no appeal has been filed in this matter. Attest Adeline Murray, City Clerk /City of Morthampton H S}tite " ��) . 1989 atLo'cloek ands 5 minutes Y.M., Rec'd ent'd and c orvrro town �� exam'd with Hampshire Reg. of Deeds, Book V Page gis er ®f Deeds Attes PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Citp Hall • 2 r o Main Street, Room i i • Nortljampton, MA o i o - 3 1 9 8 • (4 587 -1266 • Fax: 587 -1264 Wapne Feiclen, Director rvww. Nor thamp ton Ma.gov Northampton Conservation Commission Comments Regarding Cluster Subdivision Plans for Beaver Brook Estates Dear Members of the Planning Board, The Northampton Conservation Commission confirmed the wetland delineation for Beaver Brook Estates at the August 25, 2005, public hearing. The Conservation Commission noted that although the applicant has proposed a project that does not fall within the statutes and regulations under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission, the proposed development would have adverse impacts on valuable natural resource areas. The Commission identified four certified vernal pools and a significant amount of associated upland habitat that are critical to the survival of two state - listed rare species (Wood Turtle and Jefferson's Salamander). The Commission believes that the Beaver Brook Estates project would fragment a fragile ecosystem and interrupt the complex distribution and population dynamics of these state - listed species. The Conservation Commission requests that the members of the Planning Board consider the amount of fragmentation of critical habitat when reviewing the applicant's subdivision waiver request. The Commission believes that due to the sensitivity of this habitat area, there should be no waiver granted to extend the maximum length of the cul -de -sac allowed under the City's zoning regulations, and that, in fact, the length of road should be minimized. Additionally, the Commission requests that the Planning Board require the applicant to provide an alternative plan that proposes a smaller footprint and less fragmentation of the critical upland area. The Commission strongly feels that the current proposal is too intensive for the site, and in order to preserve the environmental and ecological integrity of the area, development should not extend into the area of proposed lots #20 -26. The Conservation Commission also requests that the Planning Board review the proposed Conservation Restriction before accepting the Cluster Subdivision Plan. The Conservation Commission is not satisfied with the current Conservation Restriction (CR) proposal of extending the restriction over multiple individual house lots, and has requested that the applicant provide a CR over a single large open space lot. In a letter dated February 27, 2006, The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program ( NHESP) commented on this project by stating that, "The NHESP requires a letter from a qualified "Grantee" expressing willingness to monitor and enforce the proposed CR. We note that the proposed CR extends onto multiple individual house lots, potentially complicating long- term enforcement. Therefore, we recommend that the project proponent explore the feasibility of obtaining a lot size variance from the City of Northampton, which would enable the CR to be placed over a single large lot open space lot." The Conservation Commission contacted the NHESP and informed them that the applicant could achieve the desired single lot open space without a lot size variance by simply changing planning boa rd • conservation commission • zonivng boa niof appeals • bon sing partnership • redevefopmentauthoritp • nortbampton GIS economic,levelopment - comrnnnitpcleve ( opment - bistoric , list rictcommission - bistoricalcommission- centralbusinessarcbitectnre oriq ma [pririteclon lots 20 -26 to condominium lots. In return, Jonathan Regosin, Senior Project Analyst at NHESP, has informed the Conservation Commission that NHESP has required the applicant to pursue the condominium option to meet the NHESP minimum criteria for project approval. The Conservation Commission believes that due to the sensitivity of this habitat area, the applicant should provide a single large lot open space Conservation Restriction to the Planning Board before approval of the proposed Cluster Subdivision Plan. Thank you for your time and support. Respectfully submitted, Bruce Young, L /Use Conservation Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Jodrie, Chair, Planning Board FR: Ned Huntley, City Engineer Department of Public Works DA: January 8, 2004 RE: File: End of Grove Ave — Common driveway for three lots CC: file The Department of Public Works has reviewed the above referenced application for the following items: Traffic: • Volume & Impact on City Street • Roadway Capacity • Adequacy of City Road Construction • Site Distances Parking x Driveway Openings Utilities: Drainage Into City Stormwater System Capacity of Stormwater Line x Sanitary Sewer • Water • NPDES Phase II Compliance Other: The Department of Public Works has the following comments: No Concerns, project will not have an impact on any items reviewed Traffic Study is required Roadway does not have adequate capacity to handle the additional traffic Roadway is not adequately constructed to handle proposed increase in traffic Site Distances are not adequate for proposed project Parking spaces do not meet minimum requirements Parking spaces are too close to driveway opening x Driveway openings are not adequate for proposed use: DPW will have problems plowing the end of Grove Avenue, as there is no turn -a -round (hammerhead or cul -de -sac) provided for City vehicles. DPW will not plow a private driveway. A dedicated turnaround area with easement and indemnification is required for plowing. City stormwater system is not adequate to handle increase in drainage • Stormwater system does not meet minimum requirements for reduction of Total Suspended Solids (TSS): More than I acre ofland will be disturbed with the development of this site, therefore the site is subject to NPDES Phase H requirements. Copy of all information should be submitted to the DPW for their records and for compliance monitoring. Maintenance issues should be addressed within homeowner's association documents. • Sanitary Sewer line is not adequately sized for proposed use: Not addressed in submittal • Sewer line connection is not properly shown: Not addressed/shown in submittal Water line is not adequately sized for proposed use E:\Documents and Settings \cmisch \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK19 \Grove Ave (end of) - common drive rev.doc 1 of 2 Water line connection is not properly shown x Other Comments: Will 30 foot drive right -of -way be used to run utilities? Ifyes, should be shown on the plans and easemendright of way language should be submitted for review. • No common driveway easement language was submitted. Common driveway must follow proposed grading plan so that catch basins at end of Grove Avenue will not become overloaded. E:\Documents and Settings \cmisch \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK19 \Grove Ave (end of) - common drive rev.doc 2 of 2 r 05-003-001 PRATT JAMES N 97 MOUNTAIN ST FLORENCE, MA 01060 05-008-001 CHEVERETTE DANA V & LINDA A 637 WESTHAMPTON RD FLORENCE, MA 01062 05-011-001 BOISVERT JOSEPH G 14 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 05-014-001 JAC OB S DEBORAH L 82 GROVE AVE LEEDS, MA 01053 05-031-001 PRUZYNSKI BERNARD 6 BROOKWOOD DR FLORENCE, MA 01060 C� 05-067-001 FIELDS GARS ON R & ROBIN H CO - PTRS P 0 BOX 326 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-016-001 RYAN MARGARET M & 339 HAYDENV ILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-019-001 HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE 110 KING ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 06-022-001 BRAMAN DAVID R 44 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 #101 06-022-004 REUTENER DONALD B JR & 401 SYLVESTER RD FLORENCE, MA 01062 05-006-001 HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE 110 KING ST NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 05-009-001 HALL MARY JEAN, SUSAN MCCARTHY P 0 BOX 686 NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061 05-012-001 SKIBISKI JOHN F REALTY 110 KING ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 05-015-001 ZALTA NISA & ELAN BARNEHAMA 77 GROVE AVE LEEDS, MA 01053 05-032-001 BERKSHIRE ELECTRIC CABLE CO P 0 BOX 306 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-008-001 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS,, MA 01053 06-017-001 RYAN WILLIAM J & LORRIANE M& 357 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-020-001 HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE 110 KING ST NORTHAMMPTON, MA 01060 06-022-002 LEB LAN C LESLIE A 46 EVERGREEN RD # 102 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-005 OSTBERG ROBERT K 48 GREENLEAF DR FLORENCE, MA 01062 05-007-001 HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE 110 KING ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 05-010-001 SKIBISKI JOHN F JR P0 BOX 381 NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061 05-013-001 BOOKBINDER AMY & HYMAN H 6308 BANNOCKBURN DR BETHESDA, MD 20817 5404 05-028-001 AUDUBON PARTNERS LLP P 0 BOX 326 LEEDS, MA 01053 05-034-001 MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY 25 RESEARCH DRIVE WESTBOROUGH, MA 01582 06-009-001 MEEHAN JOHN T & SUZANNE B 420 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-018-001 MATREGRANO RALPH R & NANCY L P 0 BOX 60455 FLORENCE, MA 01062 06-021-001 HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE 110 KING ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 06-022-003 MANSFIELD PATRICK J & 46 EVERGREEN RD UNIT 103 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-006 JAKOBEK JOHN C JR 46 EVERGREEN RD #201 LEEDS, MA 01053 06 - 022 -007 WILLARD CAMILLE R 44 EVERGREEN RD #202 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-010 KITCHEN JOANNA F 44 EVERGREEN RD #205 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-013 RAMSAY MARY J 44 EVERGREEN RD #303 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-016 ZELLEN KURT & REBECCA REZNIK 48 EVERGREEN RD #216 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-019 CZERAPOWICZ JOHN S P 0 BOX 60232 FLORENCE, MA 01062 06-022-022 AKEY DANIEL J 800 FEDERAL ST BELCHERTOWN, MA 01007 06-022-025 LYNCH BROCK 46 EVERGREEN RD #209 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-028 JANOCHA JANICE A 46 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-031 ZIMA TIMOTHY P & 46 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-024-001 LY HONG T 60 LEONARD ST LEEDS, MA 01053 #307 #310 I* 06-022-008 YANKEE HILL CONDO P 0 BOX 46 AMHERST, MA 01004 06-022-011 PEQUIGNOT SARA J 44 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-014 MAZZA WENDY A 44 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 #301 #304 06-022-017 COHEN CAROLYN BENSON P 0 BOX 341 GOSHEN, MA 01032 06-022-020 HEAFEY BRIAN & VIRGINIA 76 BLACKBERRY LN NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 06-022-023 GUERRIERI- LEBEAU DONNA 46 EVERGREEN RD #207 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-026 GRIMES BARRY 46 EVERGREEN RD #210 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-029 YANKEE HILL CONDO P 0 BOX 46 AMHERST, MA 01004 06-022-032 YANKEE HILL CONDO P 0 BOX 46 AMHERST, MA 01004 06-025-001 REYNOLDS ROSE & SUSAN DOLORES 58 LEONARD ST LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-009 SUCHECKI EDWARD C & MILDRED G 46 EVERGREEN RD #204 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-012 YANKEE HILL CONDO P 0 BOX 46 AMHERST, MA 01004 06-022-015 EVER ELIZABETH RUTH 17 CHESTNUT AVE LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-018 MCGRATH BRADLEY T & 226 KING ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 06-022-021 MILCH KAREN R 46 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 #110 06-022-024 YANKEE HILL CONDO P 0 BOX 46 AMHERST, MA 01004 06-022-027 CLARK ELIZABETH W 46 EVERGREEN RD #306 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-022-030 ARNAB OLD I ALLAN C 18 GOLDEN DRIVE EASTHAMPTON, MA 01027 06-023-001 RYAN JAMES M & BRENDA M 56 LEONARD ST LEEDS, MA 01053 06-026-001 CAISSE SUSAN D 62 LEONARD ST LEEDS, MA 01053 06-027-001 KEITH DANIEL T & JANE M POWER 68 LEONARD STREET LEEDS, MA 01053 06-030-001 BANAS ANNA R & DAVID A BANAS 71 LEONARD ST LEEDS, MA 01053 06-033-001 HARDING NANCY J 214 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-036-001 SKIBISKI JOHN F REALTY P0 BOX 381 NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061 0 06-039-001 TUPERKEIZSIS THOMAS J JR & GLO 311 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-043-001 GIRL SCOUTS OF WEST MASS INC 271 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-047-001 KANUS LOUISE A 221 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-054-001 EWING LLOYD F & ANN MARIE DERE 423 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-058-001 HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE 110 KING ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 IOB- 021 -001 MASSACHUSETTS REALTY CORP 510 BROAD HOLLOW RD #205 MELVILLE, NY 11747 06-028-001 POWER JANE M & DANIEL T KEITH 68 LEONARD ST LEEDS, MA 01053 06-031-001 CHIAMIS DANNY & PO BOX 66 WILLIAMSBURG, MA 01096 06-034-001 ANDREWS RANDY K & LAURIE A 232 HAYD ENV ILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-037-001 TUPERKEIZSIS GLORIA H 311 HAYDENVILLE ROAD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-040-001 LUTZ KIMBERLY A & JOHN F 291 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-044-001 WESTERN MASS GIRL SCOUT COUNCI HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-050-001 RYAN WILLIAM J & LORRAINE M 264 ELM ST AGAWAM, MA 01001 06-055-001 LINDA MANOR LLC 349 HAYD ENV ILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-061-001 HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE 110 KING ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 IOB- 026 -001 MIAS JAMES & ROBIN FORSYTHE -MI 60 GROVE AVE LEEDS, MA 01053 06-029-001 CORBETT FREDERICK T JR & BARBA 252 HAYD ENV ILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-032-001 ROCKETT JOHN P & JOAN E 59 LEONARD ST LEEDS, MA 01053 06-035-001 GINGRAS LOUIS J 246 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-038-001 MARDAS PAUL A & 5 -7 EAST ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 06-042-001 WAGNER PATRICK W & JOYCE M P.O. BOX 488 LEEDS, MA 01053 06-045-001 CRAIG PAUL R & KAREN A 217 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-053-001 SERIO PAUL A & AMY D 439 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-057-001 BIERWERT KIM G & LOU ANN 297 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 06-062-001 HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE 110 KING ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 IOB- 027 -001 DANIEL JOHN W & JULIE AKERET 69 GROVE AVE LEEDS, MA 01053 lOB -028 -001 - • KIROUAC GUY H & RACHAEL J 10 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 lOB -096 -001 MONTGOMERY WILLIAM J & LINDA 74 GROVE AVE LEEDS, MA 01053 11 A- 002 -001 NORTHAMPTON CITY OF EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 1IA-005-001 GEORGE ADRIENNE B 46 CHESTNUT AVE LEEDS, MA 01053 I IA- 008 -001 KOHOUT GEORGE & ORGERA DEBRA 37 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 l 1A- 013 -001 ARCHAMBAULT JOAN M & WILLIAM R 135 NORTH MAIN ST FLORENCE, MA 01062 I IA- 017 -001 BAUVER HAROLD S & JUNE F 42 EAST CENTER ST LEEDS, MA 01053 I IA- 023 -001 ROND INA DAVID C 32 UPLAND RD LEEDS, MA 01053 1 l A- 064 -001 URSIA GEORGE E & KATHLEEN M 208 HAYD ENV ILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 lOB- 030 -001 MIAS SETH 63 GROVE AVE LEEDS, MA 01053 1 OB -110 -001 LEVAY BRADLEY J JR & ROSELYN S 15 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 11 A -003 -001 KELLEY ROBERT J 110 KING ST NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 I IA- 006 -001 HIMMELMAN ISABELLE B & SUSAN E 35 CHESTNUT AVE LEEDS, MA 01053 11 A- 009 -001 SAMSON NEIL R & DEANNE L 59 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 11 A- 014 -001 HARDING NANCY J 214 HAYDENVILLE RD LEEDS, MA 01053 I IA- 021 -001 SKANTZ LESLIE & MARILYN J 5 8 UPLAND RD LEEDS, MA 01053 I IA- 024 -001 GLYNN SANDY GARTENBAUM 24 UPLAND RD LEEDS, MA 01053 11 A- 089 -001 LEARY RICHARD T & JANE M 72 UPLAND RD LEEDS, MA 01053 lOB- 034 -001 DIETRICH JON W & DEBORAH W 16 UPLAND RD LEEDS, MA 01053 I IA- 001 -001 GREENWOOD RICHARD E & ALICE I 14 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 11 A- 004 -001 HOBBS DAVID B & LYNN SCHUMANN 17 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 11 A- 007 -001 HIMMELMAN ISABELLE B & 35 CHESTNUT AVE LEEDS, MA 01053 11 A- 012 -001 EMRICK JOEL C & MARY LEE 47 LEONARD ST LEEDS, MA 01053 11 A- 016 -001 HOWARD GREGORY W & PAIGE A 48 EAST CENTER ST LEEDS, MA 01053 11 A- 022 -001 HELEMS JOHN W SR & KATHRYN G 54 UPLAND RD LEEDS, MA 01053 11A- 063 -001 MERRIAM MARTHA A 61 EVERGREEN RD LEEDS, MA 01053 r7T f 01 060 -319 . 4 -1266 • Tax q87-1-96/, PLANNING AND VELo -P- INT e CITY NORTHAMPT ®� N��� PT Ci09 Hall( . X10 Main street, lZoorn 1 • Nort a rnnton .tom Wane re�den� Director J — • Plan northampton lanni .or P g g • www- northamptonp(anning.org NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APP ROVAL To: City Clerk The Planning Board o September 28, 2006 b preliminary subdivision I by 4 -o APPROVED the followi ng pan. "Mixed Residential Clust for er, Beaver Brook Estates " John J. Hanley, Trustee ' prepared by Herita e Su Beaver Brook No T rust, Patrick J g �eYs, Inc. August 28, 2006, J. Melnik. Dated Submitted by: orthampton, MA 01060 Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patric k J. Melni 110 King Street k N 3 Signed Chair, Date: 9/28/06 ampton Planning Board The Planning Board found that the preliminary subdivision, as submitted with a cluster with waivers requested. See Attachmen open space the criteria in the subdivision rules met Conditions. nt 1 for Waiv and This vote of the Planning Board is duly recorded in the minutes of fiheir C. C. Applicant Police Department meefiing. Building Inspector Board of Public Board of Assessors Works Fire Department Register of Voters Board of Health File Conservation Commission After twenty (20) days without notice of appeal, endorsed blueprints, if a Applicant -- 1 mylar Re pproved, will be firansmitte City Engineer -- 1 m tar Police of Voters -- 1 print d to. y Department - -1 print Assessors -- 1 print Fire Department -- 1 print Planning board • conservation commissio - -� �oning board o f appeals . �jousing artners i economic development . community deve�o me bistoric P h P redevelopment authorit - nort P nt dz s tr �ct comm ission - ist � hampton GIs h or�cal commrss�on - central bu s architecture original printed on recvvcled paper 0 Attachment 1 The Planning Board voted to a long as Department of P app the Plans with requested waivers for Public Works also approves waivers r the preferred option so � . and the following conditions: All submission requirements under subdivision rules shall be met. 2. As shown on the plans, a bike at h connector shall be made to meet requirements and p connectivity requirements under site both traffic mitigation development. plan and special permit for a clu 3. A private booster pumps stem for or both fire protection and potable w ater shall be required if prior to filing for the definitive °t be met. All technical details s q 500 ve subdivision. sh ould be determined 4. Catch basins shall be spaced in accordance to subdivision rules. 5. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance with National Fire Protection Recommendations. Association 6. If there is high groundwater, a sub . division -wide system for installation of and addressed at the footing /foundation drains must be submitted comprehensive) considered on a lot -by -lot basis. Y definitive stage and will not be 7. A stormwater permit ap plication must be submitted to the De artm submission of the definitive subdivision, p ent of Public Works prior t o p 8. The detention ponds should bed designed for easy implementation of maintenance n ance and the 9. Catch basins shall be connected wi th manholes. 10. Stormwater management must achieve 80% TSS removal. 11. Stormwater structures outside the ' right of way shall be owned and maintained Homeowners Association by the 12. In accordance with concerns of th Board of Health, the applicant shall s definitive subdivision, soil logs for all d ubmit as part of the mottling. Dependin u etention basins showing the highest ob g pon results, mosquito control may be ne r served water and accordingly through bio /eco- remediation or other methods. cessary and shall be desi ned ethods. g 13. Definitive plans must show the total area planned for cutting trees. Tree saved to the extent practicable. from the edge son site must be 14. The bike path connection ge of the cul -de -sac will be access to open space standard and connectin required as part of meeting the broader network. This has to meet g a dead end street to other streets /bike at ADA requirements. 15. The connector from p h the rail -trail to Grove Avenue extension must meet ADA requirements. 1 6. The Board reserves the right to a subdivision data an g stage. on pplY other conditions and or evaluati d technical information required at that upon review of definitive 0 IT All waivers from the subdivision rules must be specifically requested at subdivision plans are submitted. q the time definitive 18. CR boundary should be clearly marked. 19. Definitive plans should show clear cutting envelopes for the area to be cut. 20. A right of way /easement from the Cul -de -sac to Haydenville Road be shown on the plan 21. Common driveway should have turnouts, one -way or have sidewalks. i .r� 'N TF;RO FFICE MF aR T ND UM 1 ! ( }Pv P1.:1N IN ,lac STIBJF,CT: BI:,: 'I :R t;) zt )()K i•:,ti'1`,t'i'1�;.4 28. 2006 CC: 111,1; 03 sSprn f , 002 � }1 ` -�'j = �31,I(: 1 le K 1 "kill _..- ._..�.. � `[�(1hi 'i "i Ti: I:tJ.I.J r} T WAKE A �CCl1�JiT]f�� kt,IflTtifl�i;�R�' MA �Ia1� TO AP1'IIUVE OR A � .Z� ;1�tf;IV � K )�I►;I� �� �').4]E PI.r�� 1. WATER: a. fasei nen t lines fo»_- the crass -c ()utltt'yr ware .r j1 ��verc= s how" as h. T'lle applicant, 111rou r aPPrOxi-n -iate. su fficien t inf ormation t�rher a�hcatfons fo c�n to that adequate ersiluatc water is�; r �rc�lects ol) th land has tic pre.,. z an - • Pt'evic)us info t J'Iven altojv thi s�.1� d ax e flc3U, .a�-c _vLot...�n. t _ ���� suh�t,,,, shr, : ioyl to C"lnc,•ct to th i - R. ]..he-- Northaryip n l�P��:_ Pal wa -•• will not C. d. . � . Pro"r1 i )"s try Pro';ide suPPl�'- _ c�tlzi ,� �1c era rC1- m.tis t hc• addrGsse - If/w a, � _ din fu��c rcv 9S1(�n4 10 �n�i p u air i.« tie -,n to the (�;i t �a . s - , - l aris . Will be aIlc�wed iInle5s th.(_, - tc,r s�,S te.� is even tuall - dcad - cnd Y appx - ()vc d, no dead -ends �ex'rnsssto fro die I jI?�! occurs at a hr,� dr an t: ,��rj , allowed after the '�'atcr dI 181 n that alloLV - hay received written last htidrant. , this_ No rle -zas to tvat rlin e will 13 i;�e�n�itivcy plan] 17�L1St ,sll0 - wall shut- c and date valy , tShall tie into each lr�t. c:�, and w here i ri di v I d u J s civi No water sef�'' was s r Status . howl, !a tlic lot. off () f the corxiril _ can c�r2vc�vay'. What is their 2 ' Street Constructi a. No borin,.s for. Defna s freer co . , t Vero sill�rnitted. I� °L1st t�ve Plans. be s . t�l�nntrtcd tivith h. Is it P-ce -S rned that s th cc and not a - ro e a0adw-ay''; cast of station 6+75 S P �t�scd street. � 1n�:' traffic stud a pZi�Tate, cc�r�m dri�t � - froi the fir. c�pr)scd house, y that t is conducted cu a� as the c)zl access to these Lin- cru M lode unpacta .(�r.c'l�otiicl ��l�div- ts.tc�n r {�ac1. is E�,�1j 1�c from the (: date' 4118Z0,3 9 z: r j a i _ 1 `r : ��j; ` "t \ \� t •` tit \: ;: \t�� ,:: �� .` ,\�`�\:�1,' �, :\ , • t • . , tE.• , t \ L� '\ i \ t . \ h 2, \ `��� `'�'� „y:'x1 <� \ \ \,lt � \t.. C} } t .1 \� �l,` :� l .,� It I • �\ , `,� t l ` , `,`� ' f \tC\ \ \`C ^.1`�\ \t��.t ,h \�� } ;, \cE; rft•. r \t„l`C \t „ti . \t , „1 , \:�\ j `, ��,;`,�}� `�`� :', t, \ `,. \�; \,� � 3 \ 1 1 L L :•.\ ' ,.\ ,\ _` \ \C \t `` \`'C�!` ` 1 • -�r y }...v \10, \.O,k:, ti \•., r •at, \'.,..Lx.. , .`.\.0 ?} ,, \S•,r':C \t.r C\ `, ,l'.. \t''' ?,.}�..,.t,.•, ,.L; , , `,�.. ,., , l@ l \r,\ . ,. `\ \1 „ } \,, t �,� ,..\ \,” .1 •, ,c \ @�: �•t ,.: \•,` •\„ \.. \.t ,, a _,�\ , ,, \.. .t,,, , \.`•\ ., ,:,,: - \ ..,t , \ . ` h, a ,t 3\t ,. , \, , \` @ \' ., \� ^,, .t, 3 ., \. tl ,. \. , L .\ . \„ t \ \i. , .., \) t L , ` 1,•; t t. , t ., , l., .,.., .` �'` \ \l. i`@\ \� f•, y, \ \t .�• -. , \:` ,` ! -,.,. •.i . c \)\ L , \,,, ..,\ @ .t ..,., .,,. `,x \` @R . 1 \ , ,. ,.t \t: :..�i,, ..,. \�., .Lp, , 1 -. , R ., 1„ L, ,` R,: .�.t . h. , y,•\ „\ , l \ R 1 E. .,. �`,`.\ \„ , \`, L , . \ . 1 <',,: �`�1: \. ``t,�., 1: ••`,`�' ,� •, `';i `, \ .` \, \ - , .�.1,. \.,e .}, .,., \} ._, i..` 41 �!, t - \.. \„ \,1 ,•. \, �, \„ r \., .�, `.\ .♦ t _� \, \t e,l .. 1•. .,, '.. t �l1 \, . .,\ ti•., , k \ ,� \.,. n 1 lt. t\ ,` Z., d •,:•. L,., `.\ ,. �\ ,.t _,`♦ v J:, },.,\ `<1i:LNa',,.L:`• `.`t \ , ,.,, ,,}, , t\ ,., \'�`.:,, .\ '.. „} ,pl „\ C �11 ,, - , , Yr • }.. ,`1). \, - ., `..� a •" \t`. 3` \ ,. \L \ , x \ . L } -•'�• .\\`� L \Lf- \. x, x ` ,2 , t t t r \ `i ` \ \ > \'•- \ , \ t "t r .\; let •. , Q, . 1 , l :.,.L c•\ .Y ;l,ll \, ..,. , " `1 t Jt`n , . 1, e l ` , , 1 - ..t �` , \.r,t -., , - , t,.Y :•: -t: 211 t` , t :Y .,t \ , \ , , } .♦ \.`•!\ -„ .0 \ � h , ,l' - C` ` r V ` c ;,. ',. \i.` , .ti t `}7 , •t;.Y,,t ,tcl t ft, t \, ,r \t l 1 •:'\ ` 1 , -t ;t 'it, , , 1 ,,S`, . V;.., t�•i ., : li ". \ti , , n \ , , •.\ ..\ c , \ , \ ,\ , ,'`� • •t 1 :, .< :), .L @• L ;,1 \,.,} ,t\ \ \ ,• , 1,- . , n:.. , t \ . ` }.. \ , \1C r. }.0 }` ` ,. , t ,. \ \+,t .Y .. ,•} , t• t` .. ,, ,'` n, ,., ,•,t• JY ,o `, n , r 1 ,, }', r , `.r `, t \ \ E r \Z., ,� `,. vim, ,.\`- \.. <: i `,R< tl t .,'.n•t - , t i`. , t..1 C. t \t ,.. ,h "l • \, ,. ; '`CA C.. . C E > , \ :•t x r }•. �':•.�, • ,.t ��•, e1);: ,.. \, ,,L, ,.t :� 1 t,` }� �. \� .1 1 ,\ l,. '1C �. `` .,.j, - r : `,S t. - .\•t - , .1' - \, ttt' ,a } ` }.. , 1 1 ', , , :`,J, .( c - ) \,. 1 „�C Cam. ,� ..Q ` J.: _,.J' 2 ; , .L, , . -t. t'i , t,. t ,:a.. r 1 , f t C• \- \ c t - t.' ,_ ._Qc�..._, _.. ., } ` ,\ Li ,`. \ ` 1<• , - }t , �t, ` ., ` 'K - , , ,, ,' \� , 1 t .., `, , , \ • 1 - , 1 '.r ,;`. .,.. . \ .� `\al. r ` } •� Y. \', ;Q�i• \ . t )e, .i,. �,.� 1 i , ,i _ .t i" t1,•., �R , t., , \ .,t,. ,i. `�1.� t, t .t iC, ,t t�` � t, } ` , t„ ... ,,1, a, -.. 1, , -1' !: ..}. `` „} ,- l'a' \C.e.: , 1.. 1.. } Y ,. „t .21@ )) L ,• - x, �LQx .,0 \ `',n) \`•�, �. � _.... 1. � °\ C. , ., .t \• ,.12 \ ., i `. - \'. gil 1, O t t , .,,• , - }C ,•1 .,TL }, Ca c t l , a.t: , \� `` •`, `, : r \•,,hC ., e... .2i: :. -� ,..ti `) , t.0 ., .1 \ ,.. R„ � ,�l l� ,.1 \C: „t,: 1;..\ „t , 1 ,,•. ., .Y .,LT lr 1 � , _ - .t .\,}• -,. ��. \. , .LC �C\ , r \t E.\, d \. l ivv .0 �L, :., t,' \;iC� } tt,' .,1,., L' -` „ \, -, ,al :,\ .� � } \t } .,. , ,,. ,} �, �.,� \,)„ \R,� t. , .rat `, } .}:A`�.�T"' }' \.. } ,:C t• , ., .. }: }t \t�: U .....,..... --, , l,. , t'. .. , lr - , \.., � - .,:} ., R.: .' 2 � , , ,, },: t. 7t.,. , lit•.. `, 1„ _ }„ `,: \`: ,� �: \\ -t •t :, , } 1 .\.1 ., .,, , le \..,: , R , Y , ..p N .,_...� �. \�4:,1` ,.t , ` ,•1, ., 1 .• }-., } Y�},. „ �.. \..,!)c, a-C „\. < ,., }) \ \.t \,,.41v p,,; t -1c;` � -�1 , ?Y .,,}' ,. \r`C at 1. ,�.}� � `, -Y ., \T t' • ?tt. . � ,t �. , - Y \\l ��C t-,), \' a - . �c , .,U`_:�\f. \ t z, �.. .i \t °.,, 1 t ,'SY ,1,� ,. }: .,l, �itc` J ,:, C 1 `;4, ''h?_� , 1c =� `. <�.i,'\'.. ,�., �} .. \o.\,.i , •?r \ .,;t ,, ., t4 -, , } 1';' `':\1.. ,`t -ap to - ,.\ - .Y -C .x - :` -,' .�_, ,..J]a..Y,1c;:) , , c •)•- , ;zl :, ,C ., ) :`i,•r,.. ,.,t t 5, }, lt,.. ;.�, t: ,, �) \ , tv.\ -`�} ` �. }. \ \`tt 2 -\ ` ;. t.., � - „} ncic.a ` `' � ,,,\Lr.\ `, t'`Yt, :,,., C1Y 2 `. '.t .,L.` _ {> 1 ....a.�}; .`.1Y �,._C':� )1,`:1, ` 1 >.(1 \C1 � ,.- 1 j.lYt 'it` .. i l,`. ..1 �,t1 ``L. \•. \t @, : d 1 c , C` . \ } � ^1 }1:E`t c`t -, \ t:1 �` ? n, \�` �� ,\ , ),.� `c ,Ll Y .•t,.. , l,.Y `:`� \` �',�>.�� �:1 : \ a \t >� �� Y ]a � ��s,i,�,a \: 1 \'\ \\ I \Rc `L � � �� \ f C c \ \ i.. �l \\�, ` ?. c. applicant needs to scibl?I.it profile ( s) Of 2 • c. tilities for further evaluat on- d- All proposed utility easemet)ts must: be shown on a I of niti��e Plan..�All r_c� os s and elc-ctt-ic )ine locatiOns must be show i 1� P ec.l locations, n Ielat"n to Proposed ut J c. I.sJand at the center Of the. cul-de-sac shou uld be o wned and ma t3 homeo`vxlcrs as,SC�ciatioz� and Should I� - � the IV sty stated wtl:htn all legal home( aSs0C.l.1i:1(3fi doCLl1I3E12t,S. f Ts1aIZd at the cealter of tlac u .ro sed circle, � � cu) -dc sac shou.l - h ave a tesu-dre� sha � fie, not a g• As available l)ersonncl res�)ttx de cxcas _ c and budget constr utlts tighten, the DF_ w 111 recommend to the Beard of Public - rc'Cluested to bo A ccepted , r Works the street rema a laxi way ' - y the f: iq , If h- Where will the electrical set art major uii)ittcs� an d/or as set - vices be .1 catc(.l - re.laric)n to other I. 3. lthou 1i the DPXYV supports th, a,. r� the I�I'W , . , I ? lent of the new road with C:hestilut A— enue . doe not l�tlir.� c C:,hesttzut .Avenue shr} a >rtters 7:'h tc) osed 5trtcr should � Id eon�nue through tl�tc -� �- uld l�a�-c z separate name. Sto rmwater System: a. No stot'nwRter c were sub Math the DPW. mated, n or was a S tormwa ter - Permit a pplied ed for •I�.ra.in;tgc,• Calculations must be sea bzni teed to rhc• D IA', sgain . cad by a p'. _ [t storl;�ctcr manage�ncnt Sj�Stelns rnusr meet "I'1 -�- I�jj �e Storrnwater Ordinance. c- All stormuratcr detention /retc;nti <�n sv� - z toms must be Owned and maintained 1a J r.I�e h()Mf!()wner,; aEssociati Detailed mai ntcnanc;e plan sh be submitted for all ciralnage structUre to be owned and rc, atntarined by the l _1ornecO%V ice 11 s llssocaatio d. L�riti�c:� =at.- runoff will ilc�t (�c allow . _ ed to s h ec t our n o t e road.- ay and must addressed on �:ach lot, i t be J e. C:atchb sins should have deep si,x71Ps Installed. All details for catcxbasins Ponds must be subrrlittecl fc�r rc�ricy�, ��,� l and detention th definitive pl ` Sewer System :t. No 9 c:r use c1 ns were su hrn C tte-d- No details of scorer s Iste anttat ealuat �'e. C;leannuts roc c�id at - � zn submitted. 1 Property I1-ne -. i "mi x 7 C 5. Proposed Waivers: a- Length of street ( §7 :01, 5(a)) — DPW has no. ol)jections to the gr anting of this waiver, b. C;enterlive of intersecting street ( §7:01(4)(b a not be 1 T he DPW does not re commend - }) shall _ less than 101 feet — cc.nmmend the .�1-at�t�izp.� ()f t:1).�s �va.tvcx. The 1pclievcs that site a.nd stc>Pp.i��g distances on they pro poscd roadway 1-nat- be com .ro p romised. mised. C. Minimum centerline radius ( §7:01(9)) of less than 250 feet granting -- reca�.nmc�nd rh�� m of this wain -er. The � The does nab- €� I�l't� has not approved a ho radius of this length and beli that site and stopping i dista - C0 - M c�mised. 1 P n ,g nccs mad 1:)e Planning Board - Decision _ City of Northampton Date: January 12, 2004 Hearing No.: PLN- 2004 -0055 APPLICATION TYPE: SUBMISSION DATE: PB Intermediate Site Plan 1211812003 NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK: Common driveway access from other than a front lot line to three house sites. Maps listed are Map 5 parcels 6, 7, 12 and Map 6 parcels 18 -21 & 58. Use allowed under Northampton Zoning through site plan approval. Use is not subject to special permit. HARDSHIP: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit on any of the lots, the applicant shall submit DRAFT Conservation Restriction (CR) Documents for review by the Office of Planning & Development and approval by the Conservation Commission and the City Council. The CR shall cover all of the area shown on the plans submitted with this application. Language shall not prohibit the improvement of the rail right -of -way for use as the future bike path or the area of the future bike path shall be excluded from the CR entirely. The CR must be fully executed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for any of the lots. 2. Final Plans shall show only one access to Lot 1 from the common driveway. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either lot 1, 2, or 3, proof of recording of an easement document showing joint maintenance responsibilities for the driveway and all utilities within the easement area shall be provided to the Office of Planning & Development. Maintenance shall include clearing snow to provide passable access by emergency vehicles. The applicant may provide a turn around on the property for the City snow plow trucks. If the applicant does provide such a turn around, then easement documents shall include language granting such permission and which also indemnifies the City for its use and access. If a turnaround is not provided, the applicant/owners association is responsible for clearing all snow that may be plowed by the City at the driveway entrance off of Grove Avenue. 4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, for any of the lots, the applicant shall submit an as- built plan showing that driveway construction is substantially in compliance with the approved plan. The Planning Board Approved the Site Plan based on the following plans and information submitted with the application: " Jeffway Residence at Grove Avenue General Site Plan, Common Driveway Site Plan" Sheets No. L -100 and L -101, prepared by William Canon, dated December 17, 2003. in Granting the Site Plan Approval, the Planning Board found that this driveway provides access from Grove Avenue, which is a way on which the public has the right to pass and repass as determined by information from the City Solicitor. In addition, the Board determined that: GeoTMS® 2004 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions, Inc. Owner's Name: Surveyor's Name: Applicant's Name: COMPANY NAME: NAME: NAME: Jr. HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE Robert Jeffway, ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: 37 Front Street 110 KING ST STATE: TZ1P CODE: TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE: TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE: TOWN: Leeds, MA 1 01053 NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 FAX NO.: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: PHONE NO.: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: Site Information: STREET NO.: SITE ZONING: SR /URA HAYDENVILLE RD TOWN: SECTION OF BYLAW: NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 Section 5.2: Table of Use Regulations MAP: BLOCK: LOT: MAP DATE: ACTION TAKEN: 06 020 001 Approved With Conditions Book: Page: NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK: Common driveway access from other than a front lot line to three house sites. Maps listed are Map 5 parcels 6, 7, 12 and Map 6 parcels 18 -21 & 58. Use allowed under Northampton Zoning through site plan approval. Use is not subject to special permit. HARDSHIP: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit on any of the lots, the applicant shall submit DRAFT Conservation Restriction (CR) Documents for review by the Office of Planning & Development and approval by the Conservation Commission and the City Council. The CR shall cover all of the area shown on the plans submitted with this application. Language shall not prohibit the improvement of the rail right -of -way for use as the future bike path or the area of the future bike path shall be excluded from the CR entirely. The CR must be fully executed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for any of the lots. 2. Final Plans shall show only one access to Lot 1 from the common driveway. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either lot 1, 2, or 3, proof of recording of an easement document showing joint maintenance responsibilities for the driveway and all utilities within the easement area shall be provided to the Office of Planning & Development. Maintenance shall include clearing snow to provide passable access by emergency vehicles. The applicant may provide a turn around on the property for the City snow plow trucks. If the applicant does provide such a turn around, then easement documents shall include language granting such permission and which also indemnifies the City for its use and access. If a turnaround is not provided, the applicant/owners association is responsible for clearing all snow that may be plowed by the City at the driveway entrance off of Grove Avenue. 4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, for any of the lots, the applicant shall submit an as- built plan showing that driveway construction is substantially in compliance with the approved plan. The Planning Board Approved the Site Plan based on the following plans and information submitted with the application: " Jeffway Residence at Grove Avenue General Site Plan, Common Driveway Site Plan" Sheets No. L -100 and L -101, prepared by William Canon, dated December 17, 2003. in Granting the Site Plan Approval, the Planning Board found that this driveway provides access from Grove Avenue, which is a way on which the public has the right to pass and repass as determined by information from the City Solicitor. In addition, the Board determined that: GeoTMS® 2004 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions, Inc. Planning Board - Decision - City of Northampton Hearing No.: PLN- 2004 -0055 Date: January 12, 2004 A. The requested use, for a common driveway and access over a side lot, protects adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses because it minimizes the number of driveways. In addition, the applicant has made adequate provisions for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, and preservation of views as depicted on plans and information submitted to the Office of Planning & Development. The access across lot lines other than the frontage eliminates wetland crossings, allows wooded views to be preserved along Route 9, and avoids the need for potentially dangerous access from Route 9. B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets, minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area because the proposed driveway will reduce the potential conflicts that could be created by accessing the property from the Route 9 frontage. No new curb cuts on Route 9 will be created and only one driveway will be created from Grove Avenue. C. The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings and other community assets in the area because the driveway will follow the contours of the land and the preservation of the natural landscape vegetation will be maximized. The site consists of large lots that will allow 37+ acres to be permanently preserved as undeveloped land with a conservation restriction. D. The requested use will not overload, and will mitigate adverse impacts on, the City's resources including the effect on the City's water supply and distribution system, sanitary and storm sewage collection and treatment systems, fire protection, streets and schools because the driveway drainage will be directed on site an not onto the street and adequate provisions in accordance with section 5.2 have been made for emergency vehicle turnouts and passing areas. E. The requested use meets all the special regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance as listed in Sections 5.2 for common driveways including width, grade, and driveway turnouts. Adequate street addressing at the end of Grove Avenue shall be located to cleary identify access to the proposed house lots for emergency vehicles. F. The Planning Board found that the application complied with the following technical performance standards: 1. Curb cuts will be minimized since a single cut will be used to serve three lots. 2. Pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle traffic are separated on -site to the extent possible. Through its action, the Board made no determination as to public water availability and made no representation as to requirements that might be necessary under other boards orjurisdictions including EPA for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits. The Planning Board voted 5:2 to Grant the waivers as requested in the application. COULD NOT DEROGATE BECAUSE: FILING DEADLINE: MAILING DATE: HEARING CONTINUED DATE: DECISION DRAFT BY: APPEAL DATE: 1211812003 11112004 votes to 112212004 Francis Johnson REFERRALS IN DATE: HEARING DEADLINE DATE: HEARING CLOSE DATE: FINAL SIGNING BY: APPEAL DEADLINE: 1212512003 212112004 11812004 11812004 21112004 [FIRST ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING DATE: VOTING DATE: DECISION DATE: 1212512003 11812004 11812004 111212004 SECOND ADVERTISING DATE: HEARING TIME: VOTING DEADLINE: DECISION DEADLINE: 11112004 7:25 PM 41712004 41712004 MEMBERS PRESENT: VOTE: William Letendre votes to Grant Paul Voss votes to Deny Francis Johnson votes to Grant Keith Wilson votes to Grant Paul Diemand votes to Grant Kenneth Jodrie votes to Grant David Wilensky votes to Deny William Letendre Paul Diemand MINUTES OF MEETING: Available in the Office of Planning & Development 2 -5 DECISION: with Conditions GeOTMS® 2004 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions, Inc. Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton H earing No.: PLN- 2004 -0055 Date: January 12, 2004 I, Carolyn Misch, as agent to the Planning Board, certify that this is a true and accurate decision made by the Planning Board and certify that a copy of this and all plans have been filed with the Board and the City Clerk on January 12, 2004 I certify that a copy of this decision has been mailed to the Owner and Applicant GeoTMS® 2004 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions, Inc. P­4P - C� r rL-, 66. La_o cl � r� SECTION 3:00 GENERAL 63:01 Waiver of Compliance The Planning Board may, in special and appropriate cases, waive strict compliance with such portions of these Rules and Regulations, as provided for in Section 81 -R, Chapter 41, of the General Laws, where such action is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Control Law. Limited waivers may be granted when appropriate to encourage development which is in keeping with the character of traditional neighborhood development design, similar to that of Northampton pre -world war II development and outlined in the "Traditional Neighborhood Development" publication by ITE and to encourage a permanent pool of affordable housing. A request for a waiver of a requirement, rule, or regulation shall be made in writing by the applicant, and submitted, whenever feasible, with the submission of the Preliminary Plan. If the Planning Board approves the request for a waiver, it shall endorse conditions of such waiver (if any) on the plan or set them forth in a separate instrument attached to and referenced to the plan, which shall be deemed a part of the plan. The Planning Board shall notify the applicant in writing of its approval, disapproval, or approval with conditions. (Amended 6/26/2003) -63.02 Amendments These Rules and Regulations or any portion thereof may be amended from time to time in accordance with Section 81 -Q of the Subdivision Control Law. 63:03, validity The invalidity of any section, paragraph, clause or provision of these Rules and Regulations shall not invalidate any other section, paragraph, clause or provision therein. 63 :04 Coordination with Municipal Departments and Other Aeencies In the City of Northampton certain services are provided to subdivisions under the jurisdiction of various City departments and other quasi- public agencies. Compliance with the applicable regulations and requirements of these agencies and departments shall be required before a plan is approved by the Planning Board, and certification of performance relative to the proper construction and installation of respective utilities shall be required before the performance guarantee can be reduced or released. x,3:05 Forming a, Subdivision No person shall make a subdivision within the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law of any land within the City, or proceed with the improvement or sale of lots in a subdivision, or the construction of ways, or the installation of municipal services therein, unless and until a definitive plan of such subdivision has been submitted to, approved and endorsed by, the Planning Board as hereinafter provided, and recorded at the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds. 83:06 Effect of Prior Recording of Subdivision of Land The recording of a plan of land within the City in the Registry of Deeds of Hampshire County prior to the effective date of the Subdivision Control Law in the City of Northampton, showing the division thereof into existing or proposed lots, sites or other divisions and ways furnishing access thereto, shall not exempt such land from the application and operation of these Rules and Regulations, except as specifically exempt by Section 81 -FF of the Subdivision Control Law. $3:07 Compliance with Zoning Ordinance No plan of a subdivision shall be approved unless all of the building lots shown on the plan comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts. (See also §6:01.) 63:08 Requirements for More Stringent Standards Northampton Subdivision Regulationsm -4w - -PAGE 5 0 The Tradition al Neighborhood Development How Will Traffic Engineers Respond ? BY FRANK SPIELBERG n October 1988 a group of 80 archi- tects, engineers, public officials, and one lone transportation planner assem- bled in Seaside, Florida, for the Second Seaside Symposium. The symposium ad- dressed the concept of the traditional neighborhood development (TND), a model ordinance that has been proposed as a successor to the planned unit devel- opment (PUD) with the goal of correct- ing the perceived failings of current sub- urbia. TND would supersede the layers of codes and regulations inadvertently inhibiting projects that provide the scale, ambience, and sense of commu- nity of the traditional American town. TND strives to recapture the attrac- tive and appealing aspects of traditional towns and neighborhoods. The model TND ordinance summarizes these fea- Lures as: • Dwellings, shops, and workplaces lim- ited in size and located in close prox- imity to each other. • A variety of streets that equitably serve the needs of pedestrians and au- tomobiles. • Well - defined squares and parks de- signed to accommodate informal so- cial activities and recreation. • Well - placed civic buildings that pro- vide places for social, cultural, and re- ligious activities, and that become symbols of community identity. • Private buildings located along streets and squares that form a disciplined edge unbroken by parking lots. The model ordinance seeks to create SUBURBm SPRAWL • i l ess 0 0 ° e • o a oil a s O O HOUM O O � o ° Figure L Community developed as "Traditional Neighborhood Development (bottom ham versus that developed under existing development guidelines (top half)* these features by addressing such topics as: • The maximum and minimum propor- tions of land that may be devoted to specific uses including housing, retail, commercial, service, and light indus- try; • Lot sizes, layout, and street frontage; • Requirements that specific proportions of the street facade be on the build - to- line; • Specifications of building envelopes; and • Sidewalks and pedestrian ways. Figure 1 illustrates how the plan for a new community to be developed under such guidelines might differ from the de- velopment patterns of the past 40 years. ITE JOURNAL - SEPTEMBER 1989 • 47 TND proposes to address the exten- sive suburban congestion problems found across the nation. True mixed -use development and a street environment conducive to pedestrian traffic are in- tended to reduce the number of auto trips generated. A continuous, fine - grained street grid reduces arterial loads by permitting local trips made by car to travel on the internal network; only longer distance regional travel would need to use the arterial system. Although the TND concept is de- signed to assist in resolving traffic prob- lems, those responsible for implement- ing the projects have frequently found themselves in direct conflict with traffic engineers, highway agency officials, and the many codes, regulations, and stan- dards adopted by our profession. TND proponents note, with justified annoy- ance, that such praised and valued com- munities as Old Town Alexandria in Vir- ginia, Beacon Hill in Boston, and Society Hill in Philadelphia could not be built under current development codes and regulations. Many of the best features, as regards pedestrian ambience, and worst features (from a traditional traffic engineering viewpoint) of the historic American town are reproduced in a TND. This leads to conflicts with existing traffic planning guidelines. The areas of con- flict are: street width, on- street parking, street trees, curb radii, street layout, and intersection spacing. Street width The guiding principles of TND planning embody the concept that streets should be in scale with abutting buildings and should not act as barriers to pedestrian movement. Streets are therefore as nar- row as possible. The constraint is in- tended to slow traffic to an acceptable speed. The actual traffic width would be no more than 20 feet for two -way streets and as little as 12--14 feet for a one -way street, exclusive of parking lanes. On- Street Paridng The street area, bordering the traffic lanes, 8 feet on each side, is allocated for on- street parking. Rather than being discouraged, with the goal of improving traffic flow, on- street parking is encour- aged because it serves as a buffer be- tween pedestrians and moving autos. The on- street space, while not allocated to a specific dwelling unit, is counted as part of the overall parking supply. To in- crease the amount of on- street parking space, driveways and curb cuts are dis- couraged. Rear alleys --a forgotten con- cept -rare provided, and owners are en- couraged to locate garages for entry by way of the alley. The street facade of endless garage doors is replaced by at- tractive building fronts. Curb Radii As the streets are designed for low - speed traffic, the intersections are de- signed for low -speed turns. Since long radius curbs make for long pedestrian crossings, radii of 8 to to feet are used. The effective turning radius, due to the on- street parking lanes, is 16-18 feet. Street Layout Street space is not just intended to pro- vide access to a few individual lots; it is also intended to accommodate internal circulation. Gone are the cul -de -sacs and the tree -like structure of roads in PUDs. They are replaced by a traditional grid that promotes and provides circulation among all the uses in the community and is bordered by sidewalks that give pe- destrians the same opportunities as cars. Intersections are at (or near) right -an- gles, and streets flow from one block to the next without the need to jog along the connecting streets. The streets are not, however, straight and unbroken to the point of monotony. Rather, they are visually terminated by civic structures and monuments. In contrast to current practice, these protrude into the right - of -way and require the street and traffic to flow around them. Steady rows of street trees are included both to enhance the appearance of the streetscape and to complete the feeling of spatial enclosure. Since the tree canopies must be clear of the building line, which is as close as possible to the sidewalk, the trees must be placed as close as possible to the curb. Intersection Spacing Blocks are small in order to conform to the pedestrian scale, to provide many al- ternative paths for auto traffic, and to accommodate on- street parking. A 1200-foot maximum perimeter is sug- gested. For square blocks this yields an average 304 -foot intersection spacing with a 200 -foot minimum- --much closer than permitted under the standards and guidelines of many agencies. Since traffic is dispersed over many streets ' the de- mand at each intersection is lower. All of the concepts presented are drawn from examples of successful exist- ing urban places. Most are designed to stimulate pedestrian activity while ac- commodating local service auto travel within the local road system. These con- cepts are, however, frequently in direct conflict with state or local codes. How will these conflicts be resolved? The standards of the traffic engineering profession have been developed both to facilitate traffic flow and to enhance the safety of motorists and pedestrians, yet rapidly moving traffic creates an envi- ronment that is both dangerous and un- pleasant for pedestrians. Will the stan- dards for traffic flow determine the shape of future communities or will we be able to achieve accommodation and compromise? Can we, in the auto age, build communities in which the auto's needs are equal to the pedestrian's, rather than dominant? Should we recon- sider standards for width, on- street parking, and the like, or are they so well founded that change is unwise? It is clear that society is dissatisfied with suburban gridlock. It is also clear that at least some portion of the popu- lation is dissatisfied with the form of sub- urban communities. The attributes of existing traditional urbanism stand as an example of good places to live. Some imaginative and innovative developers are willing to experiment. The conflicts described above will arise. How they are resolved may determine the form of 21st century America. Frank Spielberg is a principal of SG Associates, Inc., a transportation consulting firm lo- cated in Annan- dale, Virginia. U.S received an M. S. C. E. from the Univer- sity of California, Berkeley, in 1965, and then spent three years with a major met- ropolitan area transportation study and eight years with a major consulting firm prior to founding SG Associates, Inc., in 1977 Spielberg is a Fellow of the Institute. 18 - ITE JOURNAL - SEPTEMBER 4989 rt ii Engineers, ITE Journal, :1� ��..� :£�����_�_ ,� ��.��� �1 l'r ..�� ., Institu of Travis o _ _. Che . i - tilLi n. C"'hester An IT p E Proposed Recommended Practice by ITE Transportation Planning Council Committee 5P -8 Comments due by August 15, 1997 This is a summ a ry proposed of the Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design p G uidelines developed b ITE Technical Council G p Y Committee 5P -8. The full report ,. discussion of the concepts of Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Includes a p (also i referred to as The New Urbanism) as they relate to the role of streets n TND communities a discussion of the community design parameters under which the Guidelines apply, i elines would a 1 presentation of the design principles underlying the Guidelines, specific guidance on geometric street design, and an appendix that summarizes some recent findings on the relationship between urban design and travel demand. OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND The neighborhood � rhood street layout and design standards embodied in the development codes an communities ( based, in large measure, on work by ITE, ASCE and other ofm y ... professional organizations) are intended to provide the transportation facilities p g appropriate for the conventional suburban development patterns common over the past 40 yeas development r . Those patterns featured separation of land uses (e.g. residential, retail, o ffice ), assumed that each household would have one or more autos available for use and that all travel other than short visits to nearby neighbors, would involve use of a motorized vehicle. The street layouts and streets deemed appropriate under these conditions featured minimization of connectivity, in order to channel traffic to major streets and geometric designs that permitted rapid auto movement. Architects, urban planners and developers are now proposing and building communities Arc p . . in accord with the principles of The New Urbanism. These communities feature de p . e int eg r ation rather than separation of uses with the intent that a significant proportion of int gr p trips will be retained within the community and that walking or biking rather than an automobile will be used for many of these trips. Even where an auto is used, the shorter trip lengths make lower speeds acceptable. street layouts and geometric features appropriate under these conditions are different The y g than appropriate for conventional development. These Guidelines are intended both n those a pp p i to educate traffic and transportation engineers and public works professionals about design of streets for The New Urbanism and to provide an accepted professional document that can be used by engineers ' neers to support their designs and by public officials to support design approvals. CONCEPTS e the most visible and most important public spaces in neighborhoods. Streets in Streets ar p New Urbanism communities are designed to encourage and support use of nonmotorized modes for travel to local destinations. The street network and individual streets are considered to be shared spaces in which the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists are given or equal eater priority than those of auto drivers. The street layout is intended to q � p provide rovide man alternative p aths from origin to destination. The street design is intended to require slow autos speeds and to give clear notice to drivers that these are places where q p slower speeds are required. The street plan features connectivity and small-blocks, but not necessarily an orthoWal grid. Streets are designed to serve t. _ .post frequent uses- pedestrians edestrians bikes, local traffic. Necessary but infrequent users (e.g. moving vans, emergency dated but their requirements do not control the street g y vehicles ) are accommodated i design. alleys . The use of s for access to parking and as utility corridors s permitted and y encouraged. Onstreet parking as a buffer between pedestrians -on adequate sidewalks --and g p g moving traffic is encouraged. GEOMETRIC DESIGN design The of all streets in areas to which these guidelines are applicable is intended to to slower auto travelspeeds (about 20 mph), reducing or eliminating the need for promo p subsequent ith traffic calming measures. Each street is designed to serve q uent retrofittin g the h expected mix of uses, includin g pedestrians, rather than being selected from a limited set p of accepted designs. The factors to be considered in the design of each street are p � enumerated. Streets are designed to serve the expected mix of uses rather than to accommodate a given number of traffic lanes of a given width. Cartway widths are not prescribed, but examples of areas with s of 25 to 28 feet (traffic and parking in two directions) p cartwa Y and 22 feet (parking in one direction) are cited. The use of short curb return radii at intersections to reduce auto speeds and to reduce pedestrian crossing distances is encouraged. EFFECTS ON TRAVEL BEHAVIOR A summary of recent findings documenting reductions in vehicle trip generation rates (from those observed in conventional communities) is included as an Appendix to the Guidelines. _ 0 -\ 6 ) PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Citg Hall • 2i o Main Street, Room ii • Northampton, MA o i o60 -3198 ' (413) 587-1266 • Fax: 587 -1264 WaNne Feiden, Director • planning @nortbamptonp[anning.org www.nortbamptonplanning.org 1-a �B ,,&&&AA AA4 D r s " To: Tony Patillo, Building Inspector e - Ned Huntley, DPW (2 copies) Brian Duggan, Fire Chief Captain Michael Wall, Police Dept. pe� 7 Board of Health From: Planning Department Re: Permit Application Review Please review and return the enclosed application(s) or additional information for either Planning Board or Zoning Board so we can advise the Boards of any concerns you may have. The tentative Meeting Date is January February March April May June Or other scheduled date: 2nd Thursday ✓ ; 4 Thursday of ��, July August 4 - 5 September October November December �r�rPo cfL'� ,6 Please return your comments to Carolyn Misch. 60 IW4 Thank you. / 16 � 200` - p [an ning board • conservation commission • zoning board of appeals • housing partnership • redevelopment authoritN • northampton GIS economic deve top men t • communitNdevelopment • historicdistrictcommission - historicaI commission • centraI business arc hitecture original printedon rec2gded paper u roto �O O ` 430 10E 4 23.3 CD fl ti° a � x I � / c-::i I 9 do RO AO �p`AND'R�,o � UPLAND �a 0 '�tpcj t�o X o a� f � ❑ o � � —��` Ci ,o • 9. Street Standards Type II Streets and Major and Collector Streets Local Streets Horizontal Alignment Minimum radius of center line (in feet) 500 250 (See also §7:01(4)(b)). Vertical Alignment Minimum stopping sight distance at three and 275 200 one -half (3.5) feet above pavement (feet) Grade Maximum (percent) 5 Minimum (percent) 0.75 0.75 Intersection Intersection angles (degrees) 90 90 Minimum sight distance (in feet) 550 (at stop- controlled or obstructed -view inte rsection) Minimum radius at edge of roadway (in fe et) 30 25 10. Traffic Calming: The Consistent with the above standards, the design shall make every effort to reasonably calm the traffic within the subdivision and on surrounding streets to ensure pedestrian and bicycle revent a decrease in traffic safe as �resu t o the additional traffic the roject will generate. friendly design and to ra is ca mmg may utilize methods detailed in ITE's "Tra eig or ood Development" or "Traffic Calming: State of the Practice," but must utilize methods that will not make snow plowing or road maintenance especially burdensome for the city. 7:02 Easements For municipal utilities easements shall be thirty (30) feet in width, except that wider easements may be required by the Planning Board where necessary. Utilities shall be located as close as possible to the center line of the easement. 7:03 Open Space Before approval of a plan, the Planning Board may also, require the plan to show a park or parks suitably located for playground or recreation purposes or for providing light and air. The park or parks shall not be unreasonable in area in relation to the land being subdivided and to the prospective uses of such land. The Planning Board may, by appropriate endorsement of the plan, require that no building be erected upon such park or parks for a period of not more than three years without its approval. Where the subdivision constitutes an approved- Cluster Development under the Zoning Ordinance of the City, the disposition of the open space under such approval shall be designated as part of the subdivision plan. 7:04 Fencina Fencing shall be required in subdivisions abutting limited or controlled access highways or expressways, or other limited or controlled access roads. Fencing may be required in other areas where physical features require such safety. 7:05 Protection of Natural Features. All natural features, such as large trees, watercourses, scenic points, historic plots, and similar community assets shall be preserved, if, in the opinion of the Planning Board, they will add attractiveness and value to the subdivision. 7:06 Guard Rails. Guard rails shall be provided at points of hazard along the roadway, such as fixed objects and the pavement edge, high fills, fills on sharp curvature, along water courses, steep cliffs, along deep ditches in cuts and similar locations as required by the MA Highway and Bridge Standards (4:1 slopes). Type and installation of Northampton S ubdivision Regulations - - - - -- -PAGE 28 Page 1 of 16 ERIT EiE SURVEYS, INC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com Deena Observation Vest Holes Por Use in l oadwcy Design Deep Hole Number: 1 Date: 8/8/01 Time: 9:05 Weather: SUNNY/HOT Location (identify on site plan): T.P. #1 @ 0+50 25' f WEST OF CENTERLINE OF ROAD Land Use: WOODED PARCEL DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LQG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Bouldersb Surface Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) Consistency, % Gravel) ( Inches) 0" -8" dip SANDY LOAM COBBLES, STONES & BOULDERS ! ORGANIC TOP COMMON ON SURFACE SOIL 8" -26" Bw SANDY LOAM I 26" -102" C1 SAND 10YR 6/1 NONE i MEDIUM TO FINE SAND NO OXIDE W /GRAVEL, COBBLES, STONES & OR MOTTLING BOULDERS (COBBLES & STONES COMMON) VERY FIRM Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Depth to Bedrock: NONE @8' -61 Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: BELOW 102" Weeping from Pit Face: NONE ii Page 2 of 16 Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com Deep Observation Vest Holes For Use in RoadWay Design Deep Hole Number: 2 Date: 8/8/01 Time: 9:35 Weather: SUNNY/HOT Location (identify on site plan): T.P. #2 @ 1 +00 CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED ROAD DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Bouldrs, Surface Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) Consistency, % Gravel) ( Inches) 0 " -7" dip SANDY LOAM COBBLES, STONES & BOULDER ORGANIC TOP COMMON ON SURFACE SOIL 7 -22" Bw SANDY LOAM I 22 C1 SAND 10YR 6/1 NONE MEDIUM TO FINE SAND NO OXIDE W /GRAVEL, COBBLES, STONES & OR MOTTLING BOULDERS (COBBLES & STONES COMMON) VERY FIRM Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Depth to Bedrock: NONE @9' +4" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: BELOW 112" Weeping from Pit Face: NONE HERITAGE SURVEYS, INC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers Page 3 of 16 College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 Website: heritagesurveys.com Deep Observation Vest .Doles For Use in Roadwn Design Deep Hole Number: 3 Date: 8/8/01 Time: 10:25 Weather: SUNNY/ROT Location (identify on site plan): T.P. #3 @ 3 +50f CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED ROAD 7 n T'i D n12QT'i DAT A T7/1 nT V T n Depth from Surface ( Inc es Soil Horizon Soil Texture (USDA) Soil Color (Munsell) Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Boulders, Consistency, % Gravel) 0" -6" dip SANDY LOAM COBBLES, STONES & BOULDERS ORGANIC TOP COMMON ON SURFACE SOIL 6" -27" Bw SANDY LOAM 27" -96" C1 SAND 10TR 6/3 NONE MEDIUM TO FINE SAND W /GRAVEL, NO OXIDE COBBLES, STONES & BOULDERS OR MOTTLING (COBBLES & STONES COMMON) VERY FIRM 96" -120" C2 SANDY LOAM 10YR 4/2 @96" MEDIUM TO COARSE SANDY LOAM W /GRAVEL & COBBLES FIRM >tanding Water in the Hole: NONE ?stimated Seasonal High Ground Water: @96" Depth to Bedrock: NONE @10' Weeping from Pit Face: NONE )TE: C2 LAYER MAY BE WET DURING S.H.G.W. PERIODS Page 4 of 16 HERITAEiE SURVEYS, INC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys. com Deep Observation Test Holes P ®r Use in 1 oadwg DesL'gn Deep Hole Number: 4 Date: 8/8/01 Time: 11:05 Weather: SUNNYMOT Location (identify on site plan): T.P. #4 @ 6 +00, 25 SOUTHERLY OF PROPOSED ROAD (RIGHT OF CENTERLINE) Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Depth to Bedrock: NONE @8'6" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: BELOW 102" Weeping from Pit Face: NONE DEEP OBSERVATION BOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Boulders Surface Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) Consistency, % Gravel) Inches 0" -8" dip SANDY LOAM COBBLES, STONES & BOULDERS ORGANIC TOP ARE FEW ON SURFACE SOIL 8 -24" Bw SANDY LOAM 24" -102" C1 SAND 10YR 6/4 NONE MEDIUM TO FINE SAND W /GRAVEL, NO OXIDE COBBLES, STONES & BOULDERS OR MOTTLING (COBBLES & STONES COMMON) VERY FIRM Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Depth to Bedrock: NONE @8'6" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: BELOW 102" Weeping from Pit Face: NONE Page 5of16 IIERITA6E SURVEYS, INC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com Deep Observation Test Holes For Use in Roaxdwsky Design Deep Hole Number: 5 Date: 8/8/01 Time: 12:00 Weather: SUNNY/HOT Location (identify on site plan): T.P. #5 @ 9 +81 (PC) CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED ROAD DEEP OBSERVATION BOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Boulders4 Surface horizon (USDA) (Munsell) Consistency, % Gravel) Inches 0 -8" X p SANDY LOAM COBBLES, STONES & BOULDERS ORGANIC TOP ARE FEW ON SURFACE SOIL 8 -26" Bw SANDY LOAM 26 "44" C 1 SAND 10YR 6/4 NONE MEDIUM TO FINE SAND W /GRAVEL, NO OXIDE COBBLES, STONES & BOULDERS OR MOTTLING (COBBLES & STONES COMMON) VERY FIRM Water in the Hole: NONE Seasonal High Ground Water: BELOW 84" Depth to Bedrock: NONE @84" Weeping from Pit Face: NONE RY LARGE ROCK @84" Page 6 of 16 H E R I'T'AGE SURVEYS, INC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com Deep Observation Test Holes les F ®r Use in Road wcky Desig Deep Hole Number: 6 Date: 8/8/01 Time: 1:45 Weather: SUNNYMOT Location (identify on site plan): T.P. #6 @ 13 +00 CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED ROAD Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Depth to Bedrock: NONE @10 ' Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: @68" Weeping from Pit Face: NONE DEEP Depth from Soil Soil Texture Surface Horizon (USDA) Inches OBSERVATION Soil Color (Munsell) HOLE LOG Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Boulders, Consistency, % Gravel) 0 - 8 " Ap SANDY LOAM STONES & BOULDERS ARE FEW Old SURFACE 8 " -24" Bw SANDY LOAM 24" -68" C1 SAND 10YR 6/2 NONE MEDIUM TO FINE SAND W /GRAVEL(LESS THAN T.P. #1), COBBLES, STONES & BOULDERS (COBBLES & STONES COMMON) � VERY FIRM 68" -120" C2 SANDY LOAM 10YR 4/2 @68" MEDIUM TO COARSE SANDY LOAN GRAVEL & COBBLES FIRM Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Depth to Bedrock: NONE @10 ' Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: @68" Weeping from Pit Face: NONE _ Page 7 of 16 HERITAEiE SURVEYS, INC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com Deep Observation Vest Holes For Use in Roadwem Design Deep Hole Number: 7 Date: 8/8/01 Time: 2:20 Weather: SUNNYMOT Location (identify on site plan): T.P. #7 @ 8 +75 =16 +15 CENTERLINE OF INTERSECTION OF PROPOSED ROAD DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Boulders Surface Horizon (USDA) (Mu' resell) Consistency, % Gravel) (Inches 0" -8" Ap SANDY LOAM STONES & BOULDERS ARE FEW OIN SURFACE 8"-24" Bw SANDY LOAM 24" -56" C1 SAND 10YR 6/2 NONE MEDIUM TO FINE SAND W /GRAVEL(LESS THAN T.P. #1), COBBLES, STONES & BOULDERS (COBBLES & STONES COMMON) VERY FIRM 56" -120" C2 SANDY LOAM 10YR 4/2 @56" MEDIUM TO COARSE SANDY LOAM W /GRAVEL & COBBLES FIRM I Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Depth to Bedrock: NONE @10' Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: @56" Weeping from Pit Face: NONE OTE: THE C2 LAVER WAS DRY, E.S.H.G.W. MAY BE @56" HERITAGE SURVEYS, INC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com Page 16 of 16 Deep Observation Test Holes For Use in .Roadwgy Design Deep Hole Number: 16 Date: 9/26/01 Time: 3:35 Location (identify on site plan): T.P. #16 @ 11 +00 HANLEY PLACE Weather: SUNNY DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Boulders, Surface Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) Consistency, % Gravel) ( Inches ) 0 - 8 " Ap SANDY LOAM ORGANIC TOPSOIL 8 -30" Bw SANDY LOAM 30" -120" C1 SAND 10YR 6/3 I MEDIUM FINE SAND VERY FIRM GRAVEL, COBBLES & STONES ARE COMMON Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: BELOW 120" Depth to Bedrock: NONE @101 Weeping from Pit Face: NO UPLAND RD December 17, 2003 City of Northampton Planning Board Main Street — City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Re: Site Plan Approval for common driveway @ Haydenville Road & Grove Avenue, Northampton, MA Dear Planning Board, I ANDS( \ 1' [ \ R ( ki I r [ ( [ l K I N VI R()N N, - \I (() t1 Ni 1, N I I Y I' I\ 1 N I N (, 0 0 0 I�R N()RI[I \N11' ()N 11 RFLI I\ S 1 11 A %I P[ () N' \1 A 11 1 0 1 F 1 J i _ On behalf of Robert Jeffway, I am pleased to submit an application for site plan approval pursuant to Section 5.2 of the zoning ordinance, pertaining to common driveways and site plan review submission requirements. The applicant is herby requesting approval of a common driveway to access three house sites as shown on attached site plan. The driveway will connect at the terminus of Grove Avenue. Included in the submission package are the test hole reports that were used in the original subdivision roadway design. The test holes revealed that no ledge was present and this data was used in determining the location of the proposed common driveway to minimize potential disturbance. The following is enclosed for your review and consideration: 1. Planning Board Application for Common Driveway 2. Zoning Board of Appeals Denial Form 3. Site Vicinity Map 4. Deep Observation Test Hole reports (1 -7, 16) 5. Site Plans (Two (2) sheets - 24" x 36 ") 6. Self Addressed envelope to owner and applicant. 7. Checklist indicating that all required information has been included in submission. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal and the information submitted, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sinc ely, William A. Canon Landscape Architect CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD APPLICATION All of the following information is required. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. If you wish to review application materials with the Senior Planner prior to submission, please call 413 -587 -1266 1. Project Type (Check Box) Information is located on Building Inspector's Review Form, which is a prerequisite to, filing this application Intermediate Projects ($185.00) ar- Major Projects ($335.00) • New construction or additions of 2,000 - 4,999 • gross square footage (excluding single family New construction or additions of 5,000+ gross sq. ft. Y • Commercial Parking lots and parking garages homes and agricultural uses) • Take -out restaurants and convenience stores (Except • Projects requiring 6 -9 additional parking spaces in the Central Business District) • Planned Village Projects that are not a Major • Automobile service stations Project • Projects that require 10+ additional parking spaces • Flag lots (additional fee required) • Residential Incentive and Planned Business Park projects ® Site Plan (complete 1 -8F) ❑ Site Plan (complete 1 -13) ❑ Sp Permit wi th Site Plan com lete 1 -8H ( P ) ❑ Special Permit with cite Plan !r•mm�lo , , �. 2. Permit is Requested Under Zoning Ordinance Section(s) and Page(s) From 5 12 Building Inspector's Review Form Section/Pa a Section/Page Section/Page Section/Pa a Section/Pa e 3. Parcel Information Address: Haydenville Road & Grove Ave., Northampton, MA A ddre rldentification Map #:6 Parcel #: s,7,12 Zoning ;R-SububanResitlential Recorded in Hampshire Registry of Deeds or Land Court 18 19 20 21 58 Book: 5493, 5869, 5917 URA -Urban Residential -A Page: 23, 6, 206 4. Applicant Information 5. Owner Information (ifdiffereat from Applicant) Name Robert Jeffway Jr. John J. Hanley, Trustee, The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust do Patrick J. Melnick Esq. Address 37 Front Street, Leeds, MA 01053 150 West 56th Street, Apt. 5905, New York, NY 10019 Telephone 413.585.8819 212.451.8553 Email bob @jeffway.com Fax 413.665.2339 (bus.) Status of 13 Owner ®Contract Purchaser '❑ A ant Lessee ❑ Other St nature Date Si nature Date I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Further, rant the Planning Board and its auents nermiceino t., onto.. «w ^_�_. I l V �, w review ims a lication. 11 /21 /2003 1 1:54 AM 1 003.pdf 6. Check boxes below indicating that you have provided the following documentation: ® Site Vicinity Map/Plan ® Site or Plot Plan at I" = 40' or greater Filing Fee (which includes the advertising fee) made Payable to the City of Northampton ($185 or $335) Owner's Signature on Application Form or letter from owner authorizing applicant to sign on behalf of owner Applicant's Signature on Application Form 21 Self Addressed (to owner and applicant) Envelope(s) 21 Certification that you have obtained an abutters list from the neighboring town's Assessor for property located within 300' of said town ® 16 complete packages collated & stapled (original and 15 copies) ® Zoning Permit Review Form with Building Inspector's endorsement and Application ® Folded Plans- all plans 11" x 17" or larger must be folded and collated with each application (If 24 "x 36" plan sheets are included, they may contain 7 full sets with the remaining 9 at 11" x 17" size.) ❑ Site Plans for major projects prepared and stamped by a Registered Architect, Landscape Architect, or Professional Engineer (At least 1 plan must have an original stamp; remaining plans must either have an original stamp or copy of original stamp.) ❑ Traffic Study (Applicable to major projects) ❑ Stormwater Management Plan, including soils information and depth to groundwater (Applicable to major projects) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Lighting, if applicable ❑ Detached Affidavit of Service (from application) to be sent to Office of Planning & Development after abutters have been notified ❑ WAIVER REQUEST. All items below are required unless a waiver is requested. To request a waiver for an item, check the item and provide your reason for requesting a waiver. ❑ Site plan(s) at a scale of 1 " =40' or larger ❑ Name and address of the owner and the developer, name of project, date and scale plans: ❑ Plan showing Location and boundaries of: a. the lot, with adjacent streets or ways b. all properties and owners within 300 feet c. all zoning districts within 300 feet ® Existing and proposed: a. buildings b. setbacks from property lines c. building elevations Application is for common driveway construction. All building locations and depictions are conceptual only. d. all exterior entrances and exits (elevation plans for all exterior facades structures are encouraged) same as c. ❑ Present and proposed use of a. the land 11/21/2003 11:54 AM 2 003.pdf b. building ❑ Existing and proposed topography (for intermediate projects the permit granting authority may accept generalized topography instead of requiring contour lines) showing: a. two foot contour intervals b. wetlands, streams, surface water bodies c. drainage swales and floodplains d. unique natural land features ❑ Location of. a. parking and loading areas b. public and private ways C. driveways and walkways d. access and egress points e. proposed surfacing ® Location and description of: a. all stormwater drainage /detention facilities See site plan. b. water quality structure Not anticipated that driveway will have measurably impact the project area. c. public and private utilities /easements Utilities- subject to individual building permit. Easements - see site plan. d. sewage disposal facilities Subject to individual building permit. e. water supply facilities Subject to individual building permit. ® Existing and proposed: Items listed below are not applicable to the project construction requested under this permit application. a. landscaping, trees and plantings (size and type of plantings) b. stone walls c. buffers and/or fencing ® Signs: existing and proposed: Items listed below are not applicable to the project construction requested under this permit application. a. Location b. dimensions/height c. color and illumination ® Provisions for refuse removal, with facilities for screening of refuse when appropriate Not applicable to the project construction request under this permit application. ® Lighting: Items listed below are not applicable to the project construction requested under this permit application. a. Location b. Details c. Photometric Plan showing no more than 0.5 foot candle at property line ❑ An erosion control plan and other measures taken to protect natural resources & water supplies (major projects only) ❑ Estimated daily and peak hour vehicles trips generated by the proposed use, traffic patterns for vehicles and pedestrians showing adequate access to and from the site, and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site (major projects only) 11/21/2003 11:54 AM 3 003.pdf 7. Describe proposed project/work below: Construction of common driveway access to three (3) house sites within lots shown on attached site plan. The driveway will connect at the existing terminus of Grove Avenue. 8. Site Plan and Special Permit Approval Criteria. (If any permit criteria does not apply, explain why.) All permit criteria is in conformance with Section 5.2 pertaining to common driveways. A. How will the requested use protect adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses? How will the project provide for: i. surface water drainage: The runoff from the driveway will be directed to undisturbed, vegetated areas via a 1/4 "/ foot cross pitch driveway construction. ii. sound and sight buffers: Driveway will be constructed with minimal disturbance to existing vegetated areas and buffers will remain between the existing neighborhoods and proposed construction. iii. the preservation of views, light and air: Proposed common driveway location is designed to minimized disturbance to existing undeveloped land. B. How will the requested use promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets? i. How will the project minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area? Three residential units will not have any significant impact on local traffic flow. ii. Where is the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets? The driveway will connect with an existing dead end street (Grove Avenue). iii. What features have been incorporated into the design to allow for: a. access by emergency vehicles: The driveway will be constructed 15' wide with turn -outs every 300' to accommodate access of emergency vehicles and to conform to the zoning regulations. b. the safe and convenient arrangement of parking and loading spaces: N/A - residential use only c. provisions for persons with disabilities: N/A - residential use only 11/21/2003 11:54 AM 4 003.pdf C. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to: i. the natural landscape: Minimal disturbance to the natural landscape will occur during the construction of the driveway. Borings were performed to determine depth to bed rock and driveway was located accordingly. See attached test hole reports. Location of driveway connection will also eliminate the need to cross wetlands that exist on the project site along Haydenville Road. ii. to existing buildings: The driveway will not be visible to surrounding residences and will have no impact on them. iii. other community assets in the area: The addition of three residential units will not have profound effect on community assets. D. What measures are being taken that show the use will not overload the City's resources, including: water supply and distribution system: Single family residences will not have adverse effects on water supply and distribution system. ii. sanitary sewage and storm water collection and treatment systems: Single family residences will not have adverse effects on sanitary sewer system. Storm water run -off from the road will be shed over land and collected in level spreaders in high volume areas to mitigate erosion along the driveway. iii. fire protection, streets and schools: Three residential connections will not adversely affect fire protection, streets and schools. How will the proposed project mitigate any adverse impacts on the City's resources, as listed above? The project will not have any adverse impacts on the city's resources. E. List the section(s) of the Zoning Ordinance that states what special regulations are required for the proposed project (flag lot, common drive, lot size averaging, etc.) Table 5.2 How does the project meet the special requirements? (Use additional sheets if necessary) The common driveway is designed in conformance with all specifications set forth by the zoning ordinance. F. State how the project meets the following technical performance standards: Curb cuts are minimized: Curb cuts will be minimized by providing a common driveway for 3 residences and connecting to an existing dead end street. Check off all that apply to the project: ❑ use of a common driveway for access to more than one business M use of an existing side street Grove Avenue ❑ use of a looped service road 11/21/2003 11:54 AM 003.pdf ii. Does the project require more than one driveway cut? ® NO ❑ YES (if "yes ", explain why) iii. Are pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic separated on -site? ❑ YES ® NO (if "no", explain why) Common driveway provides access to private residences. No separation is required. Applieway I terinediwe Site Man Approval ON LY, stop Ireiwe SPECIAL PERMIT Applications and MAJOR PROJECT applications MUST also contain the G. Explain Explain why the requested use will: i. Not unduly impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining zones: ii. not be detrimental to the health, morals or general welfare: iii. be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance: H. Explain how the requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and will not adversely affect those objectives, defined in City master study plans (Open Space and Recreation Plan; Northampton State Hospital Rezoning Plan; and Downtown Northampton: Today, Tomorrow and the Future). 11/21/2003 11:54 AM 6 003.pdf SITE VICINITY MAP ROBERT JEFFWAY, JR. - COMMON DRIVEWAY HAYDENVILLE ROAD AND GROVE AVENUE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AMY BOOKBINDER, PLAINTIFF V. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, DEFENDANT I, Amy Bookbinder, Plaintiff, hereby notify the Planning Board of the City of Northampton that an Appeal has been filed on this day of January 2, 2004 of the decision of the Planning Board granting approval of the site plan of Robert Jeffway Jr., applicant and John J. Hanley, Trustee, The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust, parcels owner, as filed with the City Clerk on January 12, 2004, for the construction of a common driveway for 3 residential lots located on a parcel of land between Haydenville Road and Grove Avenue. t myvy okbi nder FEB2 2004 CIVIL ACTION Dok _ NO.(S) �a—,I Court of Massachusetts COVER SKEET Superior Court Departmen t �rI P County: PLAINTIFFS) DEFENDANT(S) �r ��'v r � b "L P, OQ�� ATTbRNEY, FI M NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE ATTORNEY (if know ) P �e_. ` Board of Bar Overseers number: Origin code and track designation Place an x in one box only: ❑ 4. F04 District Court Appeal c.231, s. 97 &104 (After 10 1. F01 Original Complaint trial) (X) ❑ 2. F02 Removal to Sup.Ct. C.231,s.104 ❑ 5. F05 Reactivated after rescript; relief from (Before trial) (F) judgment/Order (Mass.R.Civ.P. 60) (X) ❑ 3. F03 Retransfer to Sup.Ct. C.231,s.102C (X) ❑ 6. E10 Summary Process Appeal (X) TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See reverse side) CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE? )Yes ( )No The following is a full, item zed nd detailed statement of the facts on which plaintiff relies to determine money damages. For this form, disregard double or treble damage claims; indicate single damages only. TORT CLAIMS =:S: (Attach additional sheets as necessary) - _-zi� A. Documented medical expenses to date: r-ri -c= 1. Total hospital expenses ............................... �`'� i ....m�+� ............. 2. Total Doctor expenses ................. ............................... N - ) M & g 3. Total chiropractic expenses ............................... ...... ...... .............. :: � 4. Total physical therapy expenses ................... ............. ....................... W .. .. . ... ...... 5. Total other expenses . = describe P (describe) ...... ........ ............. ............. _ B. Documented lost wages and compensation to date $ ................... C. Documented property damages to date $ .................. D. Reasonably anticipated future medical and hospital expenses . ............................... $ ............ . E. Reasonably anticipated lost wages .......... . .... $ ........................... F. Other documented items of damages (describe) G. Brief description of plaintiff's injury, including nature and extent of injury (describe) f` TOTAL $ ........... . ( l I7 .. 1 L'� �✓ F �� �'./ � _ I CONTRACT-'CLAIMS (Attach additional Provide a detailed description of claim(s): e a!Fnessgryr004 _ CITY C:L [ ' 0 F!CE TOTAL $. .......... . PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND COUNTY, ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT "I hereby certify that 1 have complied with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Supreme Judicial Court Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution (SJC Rule 1:18) requiring that I provide my clients with information about court- connected dispute resolution services and discuss with them the adu n ges nd disadvantages of the various methods." Signature of Attorney of Record DATE: A0 AMY BOOKBINDER, ABUTTER, Plaintiff V. PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, Defendant COMPLAIN i E E S - 2 2004 I, Amy Bookbinder, am an individual who resides at 88 Grove Avenue, Leeds, Massachusetts. This property abuts property of John J. Hanley, Trustee, The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust, parcels owner, including land involved in a site -plan decision which is the subject matter of this complaint. 2. The Planning Board of the City of Northampton is the Defendant in this action. It is acting through its members, namely William Letendre, Paul Voss, Francis Johnson, Keith Wilson, Paul Diemand, Kenneth Jodrie, and David Wilensky. 3. Site Plan Approval was made by the Planning Board for the municipality of Northamptm. under the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance proposing to construct a commofp driveway for 3 residential lots located on a parcel of land between Haydenville Road ar4 Grove Avenue. 4. The name of the applicant for the site -plan is Robert Jeff Jr., who resides at 37 Front Street, Leeds, Massachusetts. C 5. Such activity would include the construction of a common driveway connecting to Grove Avenue, at its existing terminus, in order to provide access to three house lots on land to be purchased by Robert Jeff Jr., site plan approval applicant. In its decision, the Planning Board refers to Grove Avenue as "a way on which the public has the right to pass and repass as determined by information from the City Solicitor." r D Fern _n �o y 7. Thomas Miranda, attorney for Grove Avenue residents, prior to and at the Planning Board's public hearing, January 8, 2004, notified the Planning Board that the status of Grove Avenue as a public way for vehicular use is not supported by historical record, including records of the Northampton Board of Survey and Northampton Department of Public Works. 8. A copy of above notification, with supporting document references, and request for an opinion, as stipulated by the request prior to and at the January 8, 2004 hearing, as to the actual status of Grove Avenue is attached to this complaint. 9. Based on the above, the traveled portion of Grove Avenue between Front Street and Evergreen Road is the only portion of Grove Avenue that can be considered to be a public way for vehicular access. 10. The Planning Board has exceeded its authority in granting Robert Jeffway Jr. vehicular access. over a private way, as described above and in attached documents and references. 11. The Planning Board has exceeded it authority in granting Robert Jeff Jr. vehicular access over my property, which extends to the center of Grove Avenue, on the side which includes my line of frontage. 12. The Northampton Planning Board itself, in its (attached) Answer to Complaint, John J. Hanley, Trustee, Plaintiff V. Planning Board of the City of Northampton, Defendant Department of the Trial Court Superior Court Division Civil Action No. 03 -067, denies the allegation contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, which reads, "There is access via Grove Avenue as shown on the aforesaid plan, which could be utilized to create a common driveway for access of the upland area to the three lots challenged by the Planning Board." 13. The Planning Board determined that T. The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to the natural landscape, existing buildings..." based on the applicant's statement to the question, "C. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to: ii. to existing buildings: The driveway will not be visible to surrounding residences and will have no impact on them." 14. The driveway will be visible to my residence and the Planning Board has exceeded its authority with respect to acceptance of this claim. 15. I will be impacted additionally through (vehicular) trespass of my private property and private way. I 16. This Appeal is filed pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 17, as amended. WHEREFORE, I, Amy Bookbinder, the Plaintiff, demand that this Court annul the decision of the Planning Board voted on 1/8/ 2004 and filed on January 12, 2004 and deny approval of the Site - Plan for common driveway at Haydenville Road and Grove Avenue, Northampton, Massachusetts. r_ Planning Board - Decision City of Northa mpton Hearing No.: PLN- 2004 -0055 Date: January 12, 2004 APPLICATIONTYPE: SUBMISSION DATE: PB Intermediate Site Plan 1211812003 Applicant's Name: Owner's Name: NAME: Surveyor's Name: Robert Jeffwa y , Jr. ADDRESS: NAME: HANLEY JOHN J TRUSTEE COMPANY NAME: ADDRESS: 37 Front Street 110 KING ST ADDRESS: TOWN: STATE: ZIP CODE TOWN. STATE ZIP CODE: TOWN: Leeds, MA 01053 NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 STATE: ZIP CODE PHONE NO._ FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO.: PHONE NO.: FAX NO-: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: Site Information: STREET NO.: SITEZONING: HA RD SR /URA TOWN: SECTION OF BYLAW: NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 Section 5.2: Table of Use Regulations MAP: BLOCK: LOT: MAP DATE: ACTION TAKEN: 06 020 001 [Book Approved With Conditions : pan NATURE OF PROPOSED WORK: Common driveway access from other than a front lot line to three house sites. Maps listed are.Map 5 parcels 6, 7, 12 and Map 6 parcels 18 -21 & 58. Use allowed under Northampton Zoning through site plan approval. Use is not subject to special permit HARDSHIP: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit on any of the lots, the applicant shall submit DRAFT Conservation Restriction (CR) Documents for review by the Office of Planning & Development and approval by "the Conservation Commission and the City Council. The CR shall cover all of the area shown on the plans submitted with this application. Language shall not prohibit the improvement of the rail right -of -way for Use as the future bike path or the area of the future bike path shall be excluded from the CR entirety. The CR must be fully executed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for any of the lots. 2. Final Plans shall show only one access to Lot 1 from the common driveway. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either lot 1, 2, or 3, proof of recording of an easement document showing joint maintenance responsibilities for the driveway and all utilities within the easement area shall be provided to the Office of Planning & "Development Maintenance shall include clearing snow to provide passable access by emergency vehicles. The applicant may provide a turn around on the property for the City snow plow trucks. If the applicant does provide such a turn around, then easement documents shall include language granting such permission and which also indemnifies the City for its use and access. If a turnaround is not provided, the applicant/owners association is responsible for clearing all snow that may be plowed by the City at the driveway entrance off of Grove Avenue. 4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, for any of the lots, the applicant shall submit an as- built plan showing that driveway construction is substantially in compliance with the approved plan. The Planning Board Appro ved the Site Plan based on the following plans and information submitted with the application: "Jeffway Residence at Grove Avenue General Site Plan, Common Driveway Site Plan" Sheets No. L -100 and L -101, prepared by William - Canon, dated December 17, 2003. In Granting the Site Plan Approval, the Planning Board found that this driveway provides access from Grove Avenue, which is a way on which the public has the right to pass and repass as determined by information from the City Solicitor. In addition, the Board determined that GeoTMS® 2004 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions, Inc. j . Planning Board - Decision City of Northampton Hearing No.: PLN- 2004 -0055 Date: January. 12; 2004 I, Carolyn Misch, as agent to the Planning Board, certify that this is a true and accurate decision made by the Planning Board and certify that a copy of this and all plans have been filed with the Board and the City Clerk on January 12, 2004 I certify that a copy of this decision has been mailed to the Owner and Applicant GebTMS® 2004 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions, Inc. 1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAMPSH S.S.' DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 0� r 00 JOHN J. HANLEY, TRUSTEE, Plaintiff V. COMPLAINT PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, Defendant 1. John J. Hanley is an individual who resides at 1725 York Avenue, Apartment 2C, New York, New York. He is also the Trustee of the "Beaver Brook Nominee Trust" and as such owns land located on the westerly sideline of Road in the City of Northampton that is the subject matter of this complaint. 2. The Planning Board of the City of Northampton is the Defendant in this"action. It is acting through its members, namely Kenn d Jodrie, George Kohout, Paul Diemand, Francis Johnson, Da Wilensky, Keith Wilson, Julie Hooks Davis and Paul Voss, who all reside in the City of Northampton. 3. On or about March 21, 2003 the Plaintiff in this action submitted a plan for endorsement "Approval not Required pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts Genera-l Chapter 41, Section 81(P). A copy of the plan is attached to this Complaint and marked Exhibit "A ". 4. The plan submitted to the Planning Board showed a layout of nine parcels of land all of which have at least 125 feet of frontag e on Haydenville Road. 2 5. Haydenville Road is a public way in the City of Northampton and is also known as State Highway Route 9. b. All of the lots on the plan proposed have frontage in the "SR Zone District" of the City of Northampton. 7. Lots in the SR Zone are required to have at least 125 feet of frontage. All the proposed lots have at least 125 feet of road frontage on Route 9. 8. All the lots in an SR Zone District in the City of Northampton have to have at least 30,000 square feet of area to comply with the size requirements of the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Northampton if public water and sewer are available at the site. Public water and sewer are available on Route 9 and could be utilized to provide services to each of the nine lots in question. All of the lots shown on the Hanley plan have at least 30,000 square feet of size area and comply with the area requirements of the SR Zone District. 9. There are no curbs, guardrails or other traffic barriers that would restrict access to the proposed lots from Route 9. 10. In a decision filed with the City Clerk's office for the City of Northampton, and received by the City Clerk on March 28, 2003, the Planning Boar of the City of Northampton through its directo denied endorsement of the7plan "Approval Not Required ". �A copy of the purported decision of the Planning Board is attached to this Complaint and marked Exhibit `B ". 11. Houses with frontage in the SR Zone District are required to have a 30 foot front yard set -back and 20 foot side yard set -back in order for a single family residence to be constructed. 12. For the three lots that the Planning Board determined had "illusionary" access, there is at least 50 feet of distance from the r 3 frontage line on Route 9 to the wetland area delineated on the plan within which a single family home could be constructed without any direct impact on the wetlands. 13. A single family home, not to exceed 20 feet in width, could be constructed on each of the lots depicted on the plan submitted for approval without impacting the wetland area as shown on the plan and without the need to cross the wetland to construct the home. 14. Even if the wetland area depicted on the plan had to be altered in order to construct a single family residence, the Wetlands Protection Act, Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 13 1, Section 40, allows for up to 5,000 square feet of wetland area to be altered, provided the same square footage of wetland area is replicated in another location on the site. 15. Each of the sites has sufficient area on the site where up to 5,000 square feet of wetland area could be replicated if the wetlands on the site were altered. 16. Even if a home was not constructed within the building envelope of the site located on Route 9, a driveway could be constructed across the wetlands on each site which would not exceed 250 feet in lengtli and would not require the alteration of more than 5,000 square feet of wetland area in order to gain access to the remaining upland areas on the site. 17. The Zoning Ordinances of the City of Northampton also allow access to building lots to be gained through other than front yard driveways. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton also allows for Common Driveways to be constructed to allow access of up to three building sites. 18. There is access via Grove Avenue, as shown on the aforesaid plan, which could be utilized to create a common driveway for access of the upland area to the three lots challenged by the Planning Board. 19. No provision of the Zoning Ordinances of the City of 5 V 0 Northampton requires a Special Permit for a Common Driveway, or access to a lot other than through a front lot line, to be obtained before .the creation of the lot. 20. In fact, until a lot is created, a Special Permit to obtain access to the lot via Common Driveway and not through the front yard line cannot be obtained. 2.1 _ The Plaintiff alleges that the decision of the Planning Board exceeded its authority. 22. This Appeal is filed pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 81, Section (BB). 23. The Plaintiff further alleges that no decision of the Planning Board, or vote of the Planning Board, was ever filed with the City Clerk of the City of Northampton. The only document filed with the City Clerk of the City of Northampton was a letter to the Plaintiff in this action signed by Director of Planning and Development which purported to memorialize a vote of the Planning Board. -��s.. °:ems?_ WHEREFORE , the Plainti demands that lis Court a 11 the .. ....4....T- «.. <_....,, decision of the Planning Board March7, 2003 and that the Planning Board of the City of Northampton be compelled to endorse the plan "Subdivision Approval Not Required" pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 41, ScAon 81(P). April 8, 2003 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. 110 King Street Northampton, Ma 01060 (413) 584 -6570 BBO# 342440 bbcomplainto) y NYPSH!RE SUPERIOR CRT C�..Gltlt HAMPSHIRE, SS. JOHN J. HANLEY, TRUSTEE, Plaintiff V. F MASSACHUSETTS , r"` DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 03 -067 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT PLAT INN B0ARD OP TISE CITY n? NORTHAMPTON, Defendant The defendant, the Planning Board of the City of Northampton (the "Planning Board "), answers the complaint of the plaintiff, John J. Hanley, Trustee of the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust (the "Trust "), as follows: 1. Upon information and belief, John J. Hanley is Trustee of the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust which owns land near Haydenville Road in Northampton. The Planning Board is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. The Planning Board admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. The Planning Board admits that on or about March 21, 2003, the Trust submitted a plan for endorsement "approval not required" to the Planning Board. The Planning Board denies that the plan complied with the requirements of M.G.L. c. 41, §81(p). sH: \PA1Lid15979114811W0626385 DOC) 4. The Planning Board admits that the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint in that the plans purport to show 125 feet of frontage on Haydenville Road. Further answering, the Planning Board states that the frontage is illusionary. 5. The Planning Board admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 6. The Planning Board admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. Further answering, the Planning Board states that the frontage is illusionary. 7. The Planning Board admits that lots in the SR Zone are required to have at least 125 feet of frontage. The Planning Board denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. S. The Planning Board admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 9. The Planning Board admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. Further answering, the Planning Board states that there are other impediments that restrict access. 10. The Planning Board admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. The Planning Board admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 12. The Planning Board denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 13. The Planning Board denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. t H: \PA\U1kI5979k 1481 I W0626385.DOC1 2 14. The Planning Board is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. Further answering, the Planning Board states that it defers to the Northampton Conservation Commission on all matters involving wetlands. The Planning Board states that construction of a single- family residence is not permitted on the plan submitted to the Planning Board by the Trust. 15. The Planning Board is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. Further answering, the Planning Board states that it defers to the Northampton Conservation Commission on all matters Involving wetlands. 16. The Planning Board denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 17. The Planning Board admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the - Complaint provided that an applicant seeking such access secures an appropriate special permit. 18. Upon information and belief, the Planning Board denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19. The Planning Board admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint only if the lots at issue have adequate frontage. 20. The Planning Board denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 21. The Planning Board denies that it has exceeded its authority in any way. 22. Paragraph 22 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which the Planning Board is not obligated to respond. JH APMU615979\13811 \AO626385.DOC) 3 OEP Please type or print Dearly all information requested on this form. '-N= 3 G Co +� G Z o W rJ O O � 1= R1 r) N � rr u N G G CJ O .0 -^+ 3 C C o � U u G *--i O G L CN G f1l� O W U O W O o � � +.J ­4 u a. a w I? o r,1 U to � c C .� Z w O c U L Rev. 10/98 J"3=07asarss uapanrmanr of cnvironmanrai rroracrion Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 1 - Request for Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G. L. c. 131, X40 Generallnformation 1. Applicant: Beaver Brook Nominee Trus 12. Representative (if any): John J. Hanley, Trustee Patrick J. Melnik Es Name 150 West 56th Street 115905 Mau+ng q. fum Patrick J. Melnik, Esq, Adorers New York Ciry/IDwr, 110 King Street New York 10019 Marling Adoress scare Z+D c" e Northampton Northampton (212) 451 -8553 Cay/Town Pnane P✓,rmoe, Massachusetts 01060 sle!� Z +p C-05 Far Numoer (rl aoA ++[a0 /eJ (413) 584 -6750 Phone Numoer c " "- MaJAOdress (Aaoor +caCre) (413) 584 -6750 I- NumDer (i1 aoplrOaD /e) pmelnik @rcn.com f - ad Aodress (if aoohCaDle) Determinations 1. As the applicant, I, request that the Conservalron Commission make the following determination (s) (check any that apply) X A. whether the area depicted on plan(s) and /or map(s) referenced below is an area subject to jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. 8. whether the boundaries of resource area(s) indicated and depicted on plan(s) and /or map(s) referenced below are accurately delineated. C. whether the work described and /or depicted on plan referenced below is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. 3 '� D. whether the area and /or work described and /or depicted on plan referenced below is subject to the jurisdiction of any municipal wetlands protection law or bylaw of City of Northampton ha+ne of Municroarily E. the scope of alternatives to be consldereo for work (described below) that is located in the Riverfront Area. Project Description 1. The project location is described as follows. (Use map(s) and /or plan(s) to Identify the location of the area subject to this request.) a- Location: off Route 9 Sneer 1 .70ress City of Northampton Cdy/rOWn Map 5 -6 and Map 6 -19 Assessors Mdo/Plal/ (REQUIRED) b- Area Description (use additional paper If necessary): Area depicted ast Vernal Pool 412018 on attached Plan c. Plan and /or map reference(s) (list title and date): Area depicted as Vernal Pool Parcer/L o/ 412018 on Beaver Brook Estate Plan dated 02 b Heritage Surveys Pag 1 of 3 i A Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands . WPA Form 1 - Request for Determination of Applicability pp ability N1�ssaPusetts Wetlands Protection Act MG. L. c. 131, X40 it Nham ton' P (coot.) 2. The proposed work is described below. (If needed, provide 3. a. If this application is a Request for Determination of plan(s) of work.) Scope of Alternatives for work in the Riverfront Area, indicate the one classification below that best describes the a. Work Description (use additional paper, if necessary). project. No work proposed in this Single family house on a lot recorded on or before area of the site. 8/1/96 Single family house on a lot recorded after 8/1/96 = Expansion of an existing structure on lot recorded after 8/1/96 b. Exemptions. Identify provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act or regulations which may exempt the applicant from having to file a Notice of Intent for all or part of the described work (use additional paper, if necessary). Rev. 10/98 Project, other than a single family home or public project, where the applicant owned the lot before 8/7/96 - New agriculture or aquaculture project Public project where funds were appropriated prior to 8/7/96 Project on a lot shown on an approved, definitive subdivision plan where there is a recorded deed restriction limiting total alteration of the Rivertront Area for the entire subdivision Residential subdivision; institutional, industrial, or commercial project Municipal projects District, county, state, or federal government project - Project required to evaluate off -site alternatives in more than one municipality in an Environmental Impact Report under MEPA or in an atematives analysis pursuant to an application for a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or 401 Water Duality Certification from the Department of Environmental Protection. b. Provide evidence (e.g., record of date subdivision lot was recorded) supporting the classification above. Use additional paper and /or attach appropriate documents, if necessary. V Page 2 of 3 A SRI nation of APPlicability Massachusetts Wetlands Prftection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 City of North ton s Wet and ■n -- - - -- - - - - -- Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands WPA Form 1 - Request for Deter - - D �u Signatures and Submittal Requirements Rev. 7 o/98 I hereby certify under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing Request for Determination of Applicability and accompanying Plans, documents, and supporting data are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that the property owner, if different from the applicant, and the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see Appendix A) were sent a complete copy of this Request (including all appropriate documentation) simultaneously with the submittal of this Request to the conservation commission. Failure by the applicant to send copies in a timely manner may result in dismissal of the Request for Determination of Applicability. The name and address of the property owner: Beaver Brook Nominee Trust John J. Hanley, Trustee Name 150 West 56th Street, #5905 Maibn; Address New York City/Town New York 10019 Zip Cnae Signatures: I also understand that notification of this Request will be placed in a local newspaper at my expense in accordance with Section 10.05(3)(b)(1) of the Wetlands Protection Act regulations * * ** April 3, 200, gnature o pliCant Date John J. Hanley Pnnt Name * ** *The filing fee of $20.00 includes this cost. I Page 3 of 3 Patrick J. Melnik Esq. Attorney at Law 110 King Street MAY Northampton, Ma. 01060 email:pmelnik@rcn.com Telephone (413) 584 -6750 Fax( -6789 April 30, 2003 David Foulis Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 436 Dwight Street Springfield, Ma 01103 Re: DEP Wetlands File Number 246 -495 - Dear Mr. Foulis: This letter is in response to the April 8 1 " letter addressed to me from Robert J. McCollum, Wetlands Program Chief and to the more recent April 22 letter. As I indicated to you on the phone, I have not previously made a response to any of your correspondence and, therefore, must conclude that your reference "to your most recent letter" was an error and was a reference to a letter or letters written by others that I am not aware of. In any event, there have been attempts to avoid the need to cross the wetland to reach the upland area of this site. The February 4, 2002 plan that you referred to was one such attempt, but that lan wa s denied approval by the Northampton Planning Board and, as such, is not a viable option. (See Exhibit 1) The more recent plan, dated March 14, 2003 referred to in your letter, is yet another attempt to try to reach the upland area of this site and avoid the need to cross the wetlands. However, this most recent plan includes not only the acquisition of an abutters' property to obtain access, but also involves the destruction of the abutters' 4 unit building. The exact terms of the agreement are 1 confidential and cannot be disclosed without the consent of the owner but I can assure you that the cost of this access may be prohibitive even if this plan is approved by Northampton Planning. This most recent plan also depends upon the approval by Northampton Planning to reach 6 other lots that have been proposed to have frontage on Route 9 with access via common driveways from the new subdivision and Grove Avenue. (See Exhibit 2) This "Approval Not Required" plan has been rejected by Northampton Planning and is currently in litigation. Unless that plan is somehow approved with Planning approval, or court order, the project is not viable. It may not even be viable with such approval. Therefore, since the access to the property through the alternative route has thus far been denied by Northampton Planning, and because the access to 6 of the proposed building lots is in litigation, the applicant submits that the alternative plans you refer to, thus far, are not viable economic alternatives and the applicant requests that you render a decision on the access from Route 9 as previously requested. This is the only access that Northampton Planning has approved to date and appears to be the only economically viable alternative. The balance of this letter is in response to your first April 8 letter. In that letter Mr. McCollum "reiterates" requests for information. The only request for additional information that I had ever received was the sheet given to the applicant on May 30, 2002 by Karen Hirschberg, a copy of which is attached. (Exhibit "A ") I do not fully understand your request number I in the April 8" letter since the wetlands on this site, in the area of the proposed wetland crossing, were previously delineated by a Superseding Order issued by your department in 1999. The applicant had requested a Determination of Applicability delineating the wetland resource areas in 1998. The Northampton Conservation Commission certified the boundaries of the wetland areas and that certification was appealed by George Kohout. (Exhibit `B ") As a result of field work done by Karen Hirschberg in 1999, a Superseding Determination Order was issued, essentially confirming the wetlands boundaries delineated by the Northampton Conservation Commission with minor modifications. The plans that have been prepared in connection with the proposed wetlands crossing are exactly consistent with the delineation that was previously 2 made. The field work done for the applicant was done by Charles Dauchy. The applicant would be willing to follow up with additional information you might request pertaining to items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of your letter. However, the fundamental issue that must be addressed by the applicant, and approved by your department, before any other wetland documentation becomes relevant pertains to item number 4. The Northampton Conservation Commission was prepared to issue an order of conditions approving this wetlands crossing, except for the adverse determination made by the Natural Heritage program pertaining to endangered species. (See Exhibit "C ") The applicant was prepared to modify his plan to pull the detention basin away from the riverfront area of the site, even though that intrusion into the riverfront was a de minimus intrusion that essentially related to the outfall pipe of the detention basin. The detention basin itself was entirely outside the riverfront area of the site. Also note that the riverfront area in question, with respect to the detention basin, is traversed by the old railroad bed, and, as such, the area where the detention basis was proposed was not genuine 44 nverfront" area, but was more akin to railroad front area. If the wetland crossing is allowed, the intrusion into the riverfront area will be eliminated with a redesigned detention basin. The applicant does not feel it is productive to spend more thousands of dollars in engineering fees to address the technical requirements of your April S` letter, or redesigning the detention basin as an academic exercise, if the issue with respect to endangered species cannot be resolved. If you determine, as a result of this letter and the information provided, that the "adverse effect" determination made by Natural Heritage has been overcome, the applicant will proceed to provide any additional documentation you may request pertaining to items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of your letter. Therefore, I would like, in this letter, to address what the applicant believes is the evidence that overcomes the adverse determination made by Natural Heritage. First, the information relied upon by Natural Heritage was generated by an illegal, clandestine trespass on the site by an abutter to the site whose property is alleged to contain one of the vernal pools where Jefferson Salamander eggs were found. That abutter, along with several other neighbors in the area, have been 3 ME involved in a coordinated attempt to prevent any utilization of this site that has been in the past as a playground for the neighborhood for dirt bike derbys, hikin g and camping. The other vernal pool on the site where Jefferson Salamander e were found is over 1,000 feet from the proposed wetlands crossing. gg The vernal pool of the abutter is over 500 feet from the wetlands crossing. No vernal pool is within 100 feet of the proposed wetlands crossing and there were no Jefferson Salamanders found in or about the vernal pool closest to the proposed crossing. The applicant hired Alan Richmond, PhD and Herpetologist, to do further site evaluation after the illegal field study was performed. As a result of Mr. Richmond's research, he found that vernal pool 2017, in the March to April, 2002, season contained 21 eggmass of Jefferson salamanders. However, Mr. Richmond concluded that this pool was not capable of supporting a population of Blue Spotted Salamanders without occasional genetic input from a larger more stable population nearby. (Exhibit "D ") Mr. Richmond was denied access to vernal pool 2019. This is the site that is on the land of the abutter who performed the illegal field study. The only information I have pertaining to this site was a report of information provided to me by Natural Heritage which indicated that 3 egg mass locations of Jefferson Salamanders were found on this site at the time vernal pool 2019 was certified. (Exhibit "E ") The application filed a request for information from Natural Heritage pertaining to the identification and location of the Jefferson Salamanders found in or about the site so that the concerns raised in your letter of April 8" letter could be addressed. Natural Heritage denied the applicant the right to obtain or review this material. (Exhibit "F ") The material that is being submitted to you is the only material that was submitted to the applicant to date by Natural Heritage. Therefore, since the applicant has been denied access to the Leonard Street pool, and has been denied the right to review the supporting scientific documentation held by Natural Heritage, it is impossible for the applicant to fully address the determination made by Natural Heritage. The applicant can only 4 speculate as to the rationale for the determinations made by Natural Heritage. What we do know from the information provided to the applicant to date, however, is that there has been no evidence of utilization of the Jefferson Salamander of the vernal pool closest to the site, and no evidence of observation Of the Jefferson Salamander in any resource area found on the site within 500 feet of the proposed crossing of the wetlands. ( "Exhibit G ") We also know from the habitat material provided to us from Natural Heritage that the Jefferson Salamander utilizes wetland areas for breeding purposes but, after the breading season is over, the adults and juveniles migrate to "upland" areas which is their preferred foraging habitat. ( "Exhibit H ") There is no indication in any of the literature provided by Natural Heritage that Jefferson Salamander would likely use the wetland corridor in question for any of its life cycle and we know from at least two seasonal observations that no breeding is done in any vernal pool near the proposed crossing. I respectfully submit that the making of the determination by Natural Heritage that all the wetlands on this site are "actual" habitat of the Jefferson Salamander is an assumption made by Natural Heritage that is not supported by scientific fact, and is not sufficient to overcome the plain presumption of 310 C.M.R. 10.59. The Wetlands Protection Act provides that the finding of a rare species on a site "shall not be considered sufficient evidence in and of itself that . such project is, in fact, within the habitat of rare species. " I would further suggest that the finding made by Natural Heritage, that all of the wetlands on this site are actual habitat of Jefferson Salamander and the Wood Turtle, is primarily an accommodation to the personal agenda of the abutting neighbor who made the initial trespass on to the site. Specifically, previous to this trespass on this site, the only portion of the site that had been determined to be "estimated habitat" of rare species was the most northwesterly portion of the site near the intersection of Beaver Brook and the Mill River. This was the most remote estimated range of the Wood Turtle that resulted from the 1993 sighting of the Wood Turtle near the Williamsburg town line. None of the proposed activity on the site, either under the current plan or any previous plan, was near any of the portion of the site to be determined estimated habitat to the Wood Turtle. In fact, that area included in the estimated range of the wood turtle has always been proposed to be protected as permanent conservation land. 9 ME Nevertheless, as a result of the certification of the vernal pools on the site, Natural Heritage has revised its Estimated Habitat Map to include the entire perimeter of this site. (Exhibit I) Also, the new Bio -Map shows the entire si "core" habitat for rare species. te to be Significantly, however, no area outside the boundary line of the applicant site has been included in the Estimated Habitat Map. Certainly, the Wood Turtle and the Jefferson Salamander cannot know where someone's boundary line begins and ends. Presumably, the Wood Turtle, if it utilized the Beaver Brook as habitat, would use both the north and south side of the Beaver Brook as habitat. Also, if the area of Beaver Brook to the west of Route 9 is habitat, why would the area of Beaver Brook to the east of Route 9 not be habitat? Natural Heritage has also indicated they utilize a 1,000 foot "radius" around vernal pools when considering for inclusion habitat for Jefferson Salamanders. It is significant that this "1,000 foot radius" has been drawn not as a full radius but only an "arc" that zeros in on the applicant's property and affects no one else's land. Even though much of the land to the south has been developed, there are several hundred acres of land to the North of the applicant's site that have been omitted for inclusion in the estimated habitat maps. The applicant, as a result, feels he has been singled out for regulatory attention, not through science, but through the willingness of Natural Heritage to appease the abutting neighbors. There has been repeated referral by Natural Heritage to this site as habitat for the Wood Turtle. I have repeated requested the Natural Heritage to provide me with information that would justify the inclusion of the proposed area of development of this site as the habitat of the Wood Turtle when the site was never previously included as estimated habitat to the Wood Turtle as a result of the 1993 sighting. To date I have been provided no evidence that would justify an expansion of the original Estimated Habitat Map. Specifically, the sighting that was made in 1993, almost ten years ago, was a single sighting of a wood turtle located near the Williamsburg town line. This is almost a mile from the site proposed for development. There have never, to my knowledge, been any other sightings of a Wood Turtle on the site or near the site. Further, even if the Beaver Brook were habitat for the Wood Turtle, again, I do not understand why its habitat would only be on the south side of the brook and not the north side, nor do I understand why the habitat would be confined only to the Hanley property and not to any properties upstream of the Hanle property Beaver Brook. Even if the Beaver Brook were actual habitat, the Wood Turtle on range is primarily along the banks of rivers and streams and the literature does not suggest that the habitat would extend into the area of the proposed wetland crossing. I would appreciate it if you would consider the material contained in this letter in making a determination if the applicant has overcome the "adverse effect" determination of Natural Heritage as outlined in Paragraph 4 of your April 8 1h letter. If you determine that the finding has been overcome please let me know so that the applicant can prepare the additional materials you requested by your May 30`' deadline. If you determine that the Adverse Effect Determination made by Natural Heritage has not been overcome, there does not seem to be any point in making any additional expenditures that would be necessary to address your concerns outlined in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of your letter. If you need further clarification with respect to the issues addressed in response to Paragraph 4 please let me know as soon as possible. Y , PJM /jn trick J. Melnik enc. Hanleydep cc. Northampton Conservation Commission, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Ma 01060 cc. Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Nancy Putnam, Star Route 135, Westboro, Ma 01581 cc. Department of Army, New England District Corp. of Engineers, 696 Virginia Road, Concord, Ma 01742 -2751 VA ME U PLAZgNING AND DEV'EL T • CITY OF NORTI-TAMPTON CitN Fall • :!10 Main Street, Roorn r , • .Nbrti)antpton, MA n [ oGo -3 1 g$ • (4.13) 5 1 -[ ±(G TtL� 57 [ 26 wm)ne fe?,.icn, director plctrurin:7t� rlltrlCilllr7 (rin"i�t,i.urg „ • m , a;rurtlrcnnrfro" nlanning.or,i FORM F NORTHAMPTON, MA April 11, 2002 Date NOTICE OF AMENDED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION DISAPPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS (ATTACHMENT A) To; City Clerk The Planning Board on April 11, 2002 by Date vote DISAPPROVED the following subdivision plan: Name or description Beaver Brook Estates New street names Hanley Place Submitted by Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Address 150 Nest 56 Street Ant 5905 New York NY 10019 On ,January 23, 2002 with requested extensions pending termination of the statutory twenty day appeal period. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS----PAGE 64 piann ingboard • conservationcontmissio>f • z0ning board of appeais • bousigt)arcnerslltrr • ►edevelop nlentawc[ a rity • n ortl74rmrl ton CIS ecmMiedavelopmem • coot M unity developmem • bistoricdistrictcomrr7ission • distoricalcornnsission • cenrr ME Signed 17 itC. � f hair, Northampto Plannin Board This vote of the Planning Board is my recorded in the minutes of their meeting. c.c. Applicant Police Department Building inspector Board of Assessors Board of Public Works Register of Voters Fire Department File Board of Health Conservation Commission After twenty (20) days without notice of appeal, endorsed blueprints, if approved, will be transmitted to: Applicant— 1 mylar Register of Voters— 1 print City Engineer— 1 mylar Police Department - print Assessors 1 print Fire Department_ 1 print Bldg. Inspector— 1 print File- 1 print Filed with the City Clerk's office on April 17, 2002 04 -02 Oi:O�PM P02 Attachment A Beaver Brook The preliminary plans filed do not show that traffic concerns can be mitigated nor that the requirements of open space cluster under §10.5 of the zoning ordinance have been met. Therefore, in order for definitive subdivision plans to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board the applicant must comply with the conditions identified below. Waivers: The following waivers 1,2, 3: 1. Request under §6.3 for a reduction of frontage for lots at the end of a cul -de -sac; 2. Reduction of right -of -way width from 60' to 50' for 350 linear feet from the existing terminus of Grove; and 3. Reduction of right -of -way width from 60' to 58' for 20 linear feet from the intersection of Chestnut and Evergreen; are approved if, in accordance with §3.02(2) of the Subdivision Rules: a. 10% of the lots or dwelling units are dedicated to the City for affordable housing to be created in accordance with §2.1 of the zoning ordinance. and b. A 10' wide pedestrian right -of -way and trail is developed from the planned Chestnut Street cul -de -sac to Grove Ave extension. 4. Reduction of the minimum radius of 250' to 125' north of the intersection of Chestnut and Evergreen is approved. 5. Waiver from 7:01(4)(b) centerline of all intersecting streets shall be a straight line from the point of intersection for a distance of 100' is approved. 6. Waiver request for a cul -de -sac longer than 850' and creation of a "dead -end" street is denied for Phase 1 of this project. 7. No details for utilities or stormwater are shown in this plan. No waivers from the subdivision rules and regulations will be granted for these systems TRAFFIC & PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 1. Snow removal on sidewalks within the subdivision that abut open space will be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association. Snow removal on all sidewalks abutting individual building lots will be the responsibility of individual owners or the Association, whichever is determined by the applicant. 2. The paved road width should not exceed 22' throughout the subdivision. 3. Grove Avenue extension should have a 20' paved width (or equal to the existing paved width of the Grove Avenue stub) starting at the Grove Avenue entrance and extending for at least 300' north into the subdivision. At this point, it should widen to a maximum of 22'. 4. Maximum design speed for streets within the subdivision should be 25 miles per hour. 5. A full traffic study showing projected traffic patterns in and out of the subdivision with proposed mitigation throughout the existing neighborhood shall be submitted. Traffic volumes using a 7 -day count, speed analysis and crash data shall be incorporated into the analysis. Applicant shall consider all necessary off - site traffic calming and safety improvements including sidewalks as a means to ensure safety on surrounding streets due to the increased traffic impacts generated by this project. Specifically, a speed table at the Grove Avenue entrance and a speed table at intersection of Chestnut and Evergreen should be 04 -29 -02 01:03FM P03 III .. T, incorporated. Speed tables at Leonard and Evergreen, Chestnut and Upland, Upland and Leonard and Evergreen and Grove will also be required as off -site analysis. mitigation, unless other measures are shown to be appropriate through the traffic 6. Speed limit signs and Pedestrian crossing signs should be placed on Grove Avenue at Evergreen Street. 7. Dead end of Hanley Place must be removed, as it does not meet the standards in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Lots with frontage at the end of this street must be eliminated. DETENTION PONDS & OPEN SPACE 8. Detention basin A should only be located in this area if absolutely necessary to meet stormwater management standards. Further, this basin should be designed to the extent practicable entirely out of the 200' riverfront area. Any outlet should flow through a $wale before entering the wetland area. 9. Detention areas must be designed and located outside the 100' wetland buffer. 10. The detention ponds should be designed for easy enforcement of the maintenance requirements and these requirements shall be listed in the covenants. 11. Catch basins shall be connected with manholes. 12_ Stormwater management must achieve 80% TSS removal. 13. Stormwater structures shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association 14. The calculation for Open Space should not include the portion of detention _U ds that require regular maintenance. 15. The reserved open space, being donated to the city as shown on the plans, should be dedicated to the City before any construction begins. The City reserves the right to take this in fee simple or through a right -of -way and conservation restriction. 16. The amount and configuration of open space should fully comply with the cluster provisions in the Zoning Ordinance §10.5. If slopes greater than 8% are included in the open space calculation, then a trail system, and /or possibly a playground should included in the design to meet the active recreation criteria in this section. 17. The applicant must include on the plans a revised table that shows that the open space meets all the requirements under §10.5. The table should show separate calculations for slopes, wetlands, 10 -year detention areas etc. 18. If the railroad right -of -way is part of the open space calculation, the applicant must demonstrate that they own this portion of the corridor. 19. The applicant must demonstrate a functional access to the open space from all lots. This could be accomplished by providing a 10' wide pedestrian connection from the cul -de -sac to Grove Ave. The Planning Board would consider a special permit request under §6.3 of the zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in lot size to achieve this connection. WETLANDS 20. Prior to the submittal of a definitive plan, all issues related to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program and Conservation Commission must be addressed and plans revised if necessary. 21. The property listed as "Lot reserved for owner' area= 33,500 square feet should be open space, as it falls entirely within the 200' riverfront area and cannot be a future building lot. 04 - 29 -Q2 01:03PM PO4 • 1. �t III 22. Lot 31, adjacent to the vernal pool should be eliminated. Flag lots 33 and 34 should be eliminated, but may be combined to create 1 conforming lot with lot depth no greater than that shown for lot 35. 23. A 100' buffer line should be drawn around all Vernal Pools located within the vicinity of the site. No disturbance should occur within this 100' buffer of the Vernal Pools. Permanent "no build" bounds should be placed along the 100' buffer of the Vernal Pools. ti 24. All lots that have property boundaries that fall within the 100' buffer should contain language in the deeds indicating that no disturbance is allowed within 100' of wetlands or Riverfront Area without permits from the Conservation Commission. 25. All construction for lot 49, including lawn area, must be located outside of the 100' buffer. No disturbance should occur within this buffer. 26. The remaining slash within the planned open space should be collected into small piles outside the vemal pool. OTHER 27. DPW requirements regarding water service tie -ins and adequate pressure must be met. No dead -end lines will be approved unless DPW permits tie -ins to hydrants. 28. The landscaped cul -de -sac island will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. 29. The other land owned by the applicant on the south westerly edge of the project, along Grove Avenue should be incorporated into the subdivision and the overall calculations for open space and total buildable lots. 30. All maintenance and ownership responsibilities for infrastructure and other open land identified in the subdivision must be clearly documented in a covenant to be approved by the City. 31. The City makes no representation that the streets shown will become public streets. The City Council ultimately determines this and all streets must be maintained by the homeowner's association until and unless such time as the City Council accepts the street. 32. Prior to the submittal of a definitive subdivision plan, the applicant must provide a legal brief to the Office of Planning & Development in response to Attorney Miranda's claims, explaining that the applicant has legal access to Grove Avenue. 33. The applicant must document on the plan sheets that all lots meet the definition of lot layout. 34. Lot 49 must be eliminated unless the Planning Board agrees to a smaller project on this lot. Such a project must meet the provisions in §8.9 of the zoning ordinance showing parking in the rear and providing only one curb cut. shwa ✓ 0� -29 -02 01 03PR P05 35. If Lot 49 is approved under condition #32 above, a sidewalk must be provided along the entire frontage of this lot and must continue along the property bordering Route 9 to [ eonard Street. 36. Prior to submittal of the definitive plan, the applicant must discuss street names with Department of Public Works, Office of Planning & Development and Planning Board to determine appropriate confusion throughout the City. names that will result in the least 37. All phasing of this project must meet all the requirements of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations as though the phase were a separate filing. 38. Definitive plans must show the total area planned for cutting trees. Trees on site must be saved to the extent practicable. 39. Definitive plans must show a construction traffic access. 40. Full water pressure and fire flow analysis must be performed prior to submittal of definitive plans. _ 04 02 01 Ppb PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Citq Hull • z c u Main Street, Rcu »n [ c • Nort6""IPttm, MA o t oho - 1 • (4 t S) 5 266 • rvx 587 Wo,hne Vciclen, Director p @nordiamptonl c nni c . r r i itno►Cliumptonli(c�nnin,y.ori March, 2 aa� John J. Hanley, Trustee Beaver Brook Nominee Trust 150 West 56` Street, Apartment 5905 NY, NY 10019 RE: 3/14/03 ANR submittal at Map ID (per application) 5 -6, 5 -7, 6 -18 & 6 -19 Dear Mr. Hanley: At their meeting on March 27, 2003, the Northampton Planning Board voted unanimously to deny your application for a plan believed not to require approval. Specifically, the Planning Board found: 1. All of the lots appear to have frontage on the plans submitted on a public street (Haydenville Road) and no other frontage. ?. The frontage for Lots F, G and H is illusionary. The wetlands along the entire length of the frontage make it impossible to pass from the road onto the parcel. I The frontage for Lots I, A and B may also be illusionary. The wetlands and riyerfront along the frontage may make it impossible to pass from the road onto the parcel. 4. No special permit or other means to provide access to the property other than along the frontage has been secured. 5. Without real useable frontage, the lots are not eligible for AINR endorsement. 6. Although the Planning Board routinely stamps plans "may not be a buildable lot" for lots than may not be buildable, this is adequate to cure the defect of an inability to show access over the front lot line. For your information, some of the governing cases for this denial are: Gifford v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801 (1978); Gallitano v. Board of Survev and Planning of Waltham, 10 Mass. Appl Ct. 269 (1980); Corcoran v. Planning Board of Sudbury, 406 Mass. 248 (1989); Poulos v. Planning Board of Briantree, 413 Mass. 359 (1992); and Gates v. Planning Board of Dighton, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 394 (2000) I certify that the Planning Board so denied your ANR application on 3/27/2002. By a copy of this letter I am so informing the City Clerk. Sincerely, / Y V Wayne Feiden, AICP Director of Planning and Development Cc: Northampton City Clerk,, Ll l L ` ► MAR 2 8 200 � + Oa 1 CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 p among r • coMervatiorrco►nnnssiow. zuning6aardof appeals • lrousingpArtnership • redevelopmentauthoritg • nonjiarnpton ecowmiedevelopment • Comm" "itgdrue(01"" et . 6toricdistrict cam mission • fiis torica l conf,"ission- central business a rrbitecture GIS N rr $+� IK1 11'r \� 1•« 1 11�+W I In.r. I j/■ �-., _.. BEAVER U, Ir \ \ l //✓ j 'r =. r "s •1 s ! ■ T_ lt ►, � ,` pKll y, nrol ,T '-' r P t ';s GI ZONE DISTRICT fi t • b D i ACM I I 1 1 \ �� Drroi , tOtrr4 lnb 1 •a.° . ', , ' r />u , /: ..- '� arrot ,T — � ' _ ..,r fly o � ' ARtA "I ACIRES ' I �, I f 7 y k Y �1 ,I.T ►AACLI [ f r ry As rr �' PNICtI 1 Cii H 7 ► q ti PAA q ar r,atri — t rl7 I \ I/ff AREA AR[A AiMll 0 k PARCH P r 1 PARC[L 0 >ae SS7, I 10.71 ACM 1371 ACM &"7i ACK3 7 v �e y g ✓ , Allis r C ir::. I I S r rx'ot . bM'IIT r. PAREA 0 ■ 1 r,A f >e I �tfr lS r, � •S 1 �R 1 i~ PAR MQ J Tl P 5,.�A a� ait s,c f 4A22 ACRD ���: tom• f'Cp+aIr1O°S SL* r 1 d u ` ►J r'LT 7J. Isovc se61, r•.y 6, / f - wAa 7 � rr � �� �• + , ; >♦ • � r+r1 7'Ot. fl/tl PJO. J), rct Je, /'r - _ _ _ - - + ICIf71 � � S r � 6 . - Y scar tee. n.q /f) j wr'ro�... ° l I n _ ° «. «'.SI s 'w' • •°• a• SR ZONE DISTRICT ' -- -- -- " •o - �,,,,.� >• IAnat ur n m .ti .• w r l $ k • _ s r :►. '� MvSRK f rrrrf surronn0 or L- j --- � �'� °' - i - -- -- w�.: ..� �r : .�r°�+.e' �-` Q` j ft'J OM RlIRt1Pr 1 i [ �' r - _ J . 7000 M PAACf1.A a� "P . ter " S.R1.M MlfRpr a F;�p( ��1� k � - I RI SOVItf ARCAf f; ftr APt 8 txrM I r ra 1a1D'T IMAS _ {.lOS ACNE1 f . - 1 r f �� . ell.W AS'STLU rfti � + ,I tN A PIM[D IMtt at AI R t ?7. Ifee. r ( 1 �� � : v �' .sAa co�mL� r jf an ttowstuw ^' 41 : 7 , a! IA77. M JIN[ 2" e w. . I —t.rnm —rnra► nvv - �� .rss . / A . AW AS CtPrr s' ••.., e..n, ' r "� i I URA ZONE DISTR IRIrIRAC rR *1.Q AND tMogrfR[D ►n !>C w° x 1 bo, S�i1S rV I ICT Rn r.Rr� A WMrq II li - M,ry Pry lM j r0 ,'� = i I Mr m, nr •y lr � � r1 KMMbb OrrRY bu rl"InM K. mm f AKA I MORS14WntOM Sr(µM�,.�D ,��n r•Y Sv V S[� Sr. � 1 �_ � �_ L171 AL11[S NOR nSWnfON, S r/5 > ry , r 1 .O RM. IR. rn r.q 1r tlC I !1 i f� wt. fUbtgry, rprROl W I!ry:•$r11RC CC,�INrr hµ r�s nm -v,..n » «or . a. NORTHAA/PTON, AIASMd%% t 1 ( I � yay As r° rrrwon.r..,r, wnl 7o�r•¢ rcu.n,r: StARYLI'tD tOR 1 I — YI,rQ7• r.0 Pr. I JOHN J. HANLEY, 1 r THE B I ', EAVER 6R00 NOW � ArvrT a rt Dr .mn ISr MrV A N D ?W r•a D nr' a 'w rrt Pa�.cnrt Or r.vn r S^CMKC7rT VAQ IpRCIr e, 7003 EVERGREEN ROAD ^- /IFRITACE SURt'EYS. INC li l" / Rr CIS rcRtu rRUrns,D t,sMp �,� CFIESTN AVENUE f �svD ° p "A �a wD rr sn1[[T samsureroM 1 J Dp0eJ1 .H7 i pea veer Fr-ook NI?w►.u ZL ` REQUEST OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -DEP FILE # �y - � _ _ DATE APPLICA LOCATION Please submit the following information: a..�/ plan of areas subject to reg ulation under the Act - Bank, Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), Land Under Water LUW Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF), Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (ILSF), Riverfront Area (RA); Buffer Zone ) b. data sheets and other supporting information for the pro osed wetl than the Massachusetts DEP Handbook was used, provide a description of the analys s to ne he boundary) and the locations of sample plots and test pits; c._ calculations of the quantity of each resource area proposed to be altered; d._ documentation that the topographic contours shown in the floodplain are based on a bench mark or reference mark that corresponds to a USGS datum; e._ property line locations using metes and bounds (lot line distances and angles); f._ locations of existing and proposed structures /activities on plan, including areas to be cut or cleared; g._ existing and proposed topographic contours (2 -foot intervals, 1 -foot intervals for work in LSF); h._ location of adequate sedimentation and erosion Controls and limit of work line shown on plan; i._ site plan must be to scale, no more than 1"= 50', must be dated and bearing the stamp and signature of the registered land surveyor, engineer or qualified environmental professional responsible for preparing the plan; j._ cross - section drawing of proposed replication area, compensatory storage area or detention /retention basin; k._ documentation (including test pit data) that soils in the proposed replication area will provide adequate hydrology for the success of the replication area; I._ planting plan for m._ alternatives analysis demonstrating that the requirements of limited project status under 310 CMR 10.53(3 (e) have been met (Wetlands Protection Program Access Roadways Policy, DWW Policy #88 -2, issued February 29, 1988; n._ explanation of how impacts to resource areas have been avoided, minimized and mitigated; O._ a more detailed description of the construction methodology and schedule of work activities; P. filling and /or construction within BLSF requires calculations of the volume of flood storage displacement at each incremental foot elevation (provide a tabular comparison Of volumes displaced vs flood storage provided at each incremental elevation); q._ Stormwater Management Form and explanation of how the project design will comply with the DEP Stormwater Management Standards; r._ worksheets used to prepare hydrologic calculations for curve numbers, time of concentration, etc. Please include an outline of the watershed used in hydrologic calculations; s._ soils and groundwater information to support the Best Management Practices proposed; t._ alternatives analysis for work proposed in the Riverfront Area, in compliance with 310 CMR 10.58x4 Irl— L'� INFORMATION REQUESTED ABOVE IS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED BELOW: Appellant Conservation COmmision Send he required information to: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, WESTERN REGION, WETLANDS PROGRAM, 436 DWIGHT STREET, SPRINGFIELD MA 01103 -1317, s (unless otherwise noted) As he Department continues to review this project, further additional information may be requested. ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED MUST ALSO BE COPIED TO THE LOCAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND OTHER PARTIES. DEP REVIEWER AOSREQ(5199) WHITE - APPLICANT /OWNER YELLOW -APPELLANT PINK - CONSERVATION COMMISSION GOLD - FILE III __ i-3 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Governor 'JAN 2 2 1999 George Kohout 37 Evergreen Road Northampton, MA 01053 TRUDY COXE Secretary DAVID B. STRUHS Commissione RE: Request for Superseding Determination of Applicability, Beaver Brook Realty Trust Delineation of Wetland Resource Areas, 80 Leonard Street, Northampton Dear Mr. Kohout: This office is in receipt of your appeal of the Northampton Conservation Commission's Determination of Applicability, issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L c. 131 X40 (the Act), for the project referenced above. The Department will determine if your appeal is valid under the regulatory requirements of 310 CMR 10.05(7). As part of the Department's review of this project, a representative of this office will conduct an informal on -site meeting. This informal meeting will be held at the site on February 3, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. All interested parties are invited to attend. A Request for a Determination of Applicability (RDA) was filed for this project on October 28, 1998. The RDA included a plan titled "WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS, John J. Hanley Trustee of the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust" by Killam Associates, dated October 21, 1998. The Department received a plan revision dated November 24, 1998 depicting changes in the wetland boundary delineation. The Conservation Commission issued a Determination of Applicability on November 25, 1998, approving the delineation as revised. In order to facilitate its review, the Department requests that the applicant submit the following information: 1. a plan showing the property boundaries, 2. documentation of how the wetland was delineated. Copies of any data sheets, soil logs or other information used to determine wetland boundaries; and 3. narrative description of site resource areas. The appellant is advised to provide additional information in support delineation. Evidence of the existence of vernal pool habitat should also be submittedesired in the This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at (617) 574 -6872. 436 Dwight Street - Springfield, Massachus 01103 FAX(413)784 -1149 - TDD (413) 746.6620 Telephone (413) 784 -1100 0 m Printed on Recycled Paper (20% Post consumer) • G. Kohout Page 2 Please be advised that no work may proceed until the Department issues a final decision for this project. Correspondence must be copied to all parties in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Karen Hirschberg at (413) 784 -1100, ext. 240. Sincerely, l Lawrence Golonka Watershed Chief Connecticut River Basin Certified Mail Z 148 009 357, return receipt requested. CC: Northampton Conservation Commission Certified Mail Z 148 009 358, return receipt requested. John J. Hanley, Trustee, Beaver Brook Nominee Trust, 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060 Certified Mail Z 148 009 359, return receipt requested. Killam Associates New England, 8 Goffe Street, Hadley, MA 01035 KADAHANLEY.26 ON CHARLES H. DAUCHY, Environmental Consultant 24 Old Long Plain Rd. RFD #3, Amherst, MA 01002 Phone (413) 548 -8005, Fax 548 -9987 Karen Hirschberg Mass. DEP, Western Region Wetlands & Waterways 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 01103 April 19, 1999 Re: Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Superceding Determination of Applicability 80 Leonard Street, Northampton Wetland Boundary Revisions Dear Ms. Hirschberg: Based on our recent phone conversation I have reviewed the subject wetland delineation in those areas where you noted possible changes were needed, based on your independent site visit. Thank you for your careful review. Your observations of meltwater ponding, flow - paths, and high flows in Beaver Brook were generally confirmed by my review. Above average precipitation in Marchand a 1.32" storm (Amherst College records) created flow lines in the leaf litter and made low areas more evident than during the original delineation and local review last fall. In general, my changes are intended to include areas of apparent surface flow or innundation, even where soils are non - hydric. Mapped wetlands also include minor areas where the predominant vegetation is not clearly hydrophytic or where the balance is tipped by Hemlock (FACU) being considered a wetland indicator. The changes in delineation are summarized below, with ties to the original flaggin been reset by Killam Assoc. after disturbance b to g (some flags had Killam Assoc. as soon as available. Revised flags are double, blue & revised Originalfla provided s were by in place for reference. g left A39A -skip connect A39 to A39B. Logging has obliterated whatever upland indicators were at A39A. A42 - skip - connect A41 to A44 - topography is highly irregular. Change takes in a low pocket with borderline hydric soils. A49 - Skip - new line from A48 to revised A50. A50Rev. 39.5' from A5.1, 51' from old A49- Area severely disturbed by logging. Revision takes in low area with hydric soils. Vegetation - Acer rubrum, Pinus strobus, Betula nigra, Lycopodium obscurum & complanatum, Erythronium umbilicatum. (Not clearly dominant hydrophytic) ME A54Rev. 14.8' from old A55, 19' from old A54 - in conjunction with A55Rev, includes apparent flow path and swale area that dead -end in upland. A55Rev. 23.5' from old A55, 6' rt of line A56 to old A55, extended. A56 -58 comment: To east is relatively straight channel, possibly dug. To west is overall upland with a few isolated wet pockets. - leave mapped as upland. Vegetation - Acer rubrum, Pinus strobus, Fraxinus americanum, Dryopteris intermedia, Osmunda cinnamomea, Maianthemum canadensis, Acer saccharum, Betula nigra, Carya ovata, Anemone quinquefolia, Erythronium umbilicatum, A63 Skip - new line from A62 to A 64Rev. - revised to include apparent flow path. A64Rev. 38.5' from old A65, 54' from A62 - revised to include apparent flow path in low swale. This leaves an island with several Fraxinus americana, Acer saccharum, Euonymus atropurpureus, within mapped wetland. A65Rev 16.5' from A66, 2 P from old A65 - revised to include apparent flow path in low swale. Leaves Tsuga canadensis, Quercus rubra & Pinus strobus in wetland. A68Rev 11' from old A68, 18' from old A69 - revised to include apparent flow path. Tsuga canadensis and Erythronium umbilicatum on non - hydric soils. A69Rev 9.8' from old A69, 19' from old A70 - revised to include apparent flow path. Dryopteris intermedia, Viburnum recognitum, Acer rubrum, Mitchella repens. Non - hydric soils. A70Rev 8' from old A70, 10.5' from old A69 - revised to include flow path. B25Rev 12' west- southwest on line between old B25 and C55 - rev. to include high flow. B28Rev 17.5' from old B28, 33' from C57 - revised to include apparent high flow. Cl I & C12 - skip - connect CIO to C 13 Rev. C13Rev 17' from C10, 24' from C12 - revised to include area of apparent recent seepage and possible overland flow. Extremely stony surface. Several Carpinus caroliniana, one Fraxinus americana & one Carya ovata. This appears to be the area where most of the runoff and seepage from the intermittent flow paths to the south reaches the stream -side wetland. C36 - Skip - connect C35 to C37 - revised to include a small hollow. C38 - Skip - connect C37 to C39 - revised to include area of apparent recent seepage. C41 Rev 7.8' up from old C41 - 19.3' from C40 - revised to include upper limit of stony swale with possible recent seepage. Soils immediately above (south) are non - hydric. ME C50 - leave- on Hamamelis virginiana. Vegetation above: Hamamelis, Lycopodium obscurum, Kalmia latifolia, Erythronium umbilicatum, Panax trifolium, Tsuga canadensis, Quercus alba. Dispersed flow path(s) below A70A (A70 -1) - Easterly path shown on plan - extend approx. 10 feet based on apparent flow path in leaves. New, westerly flow path - flagged in field. Extends from A70A northerly almost to C13Rev. There is no apparent channel, but flow is evident due to disturbed leaf litter. Based on the extent of disturbance of the leaves, this route may carry more flow than the easterly path. Flow connection from "A" wetland to "C" wetland and Beaver Brook: Clearly, flow from "A" reaches "C ", but the most of the flow paths are not "a definite channel in the ground" as in the definition of "Stream" (310CMR10.04). There is no practical distinction in this case. The area is within the riverfront and therefor under protection whether or not the flow paths are considered "streams ".Any roadway through the area would require culvert(s) to pass the flow. The "A" wetland is bordering on an interior "stream" and also reportedly on a stream system that flows southerly under Leonard Street, and therefore under jurisdiction as a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Thank you for your consideration of this information. Killam Associates New England will provide you with a revised plan with accurately plotted flag locations. I trust this will enable you to issue a superceding Determination of Applicability so that the applicant can proceed with design for use of the extensive areas of upland on the site. If you need additional information from me, please call. Sincerely, les H. Dauchy encl: sketch map of revisions. cc: William S. Osley, Killam Associates New England, 8 Goffe St., Hadley, MA 01035 John Hanley, Beaver Brook Nominee Trust, 110 King St., Northampton, MA 01060 Conservation Commission, City Hall, 210 Main St. Northampton, MA 01060 George Kohout, 37 Evergreen Road, Northampton, MA 01053 L' GL,L tsUvtt iD rAUE 3 TAX MAP 6 PARCEL 9 1 8 _ �85 TOP OF STREAM BANK / 86 C3 B8 C11 C c10,: ' i �`� —� .�—►; 81 y4' B9 5 � � C6 \ �B20 - C /?� 1 �C B21 819 BI$ 817 816 813 812B 11B C14. l - �� ► / 115.. L B2 � C2 C20 1.19 C18 ► C17 D St C22 C1•6 FLOW PATi '823 VEGETATED ,-* C23 INC / -ol A70 -1 6 C49 \ C28 C29 �A6 \ C30 A69 A7 A67 C48 WETLAND � 1 :31% ?00 • �" E � �. — RIV LIN [ C47 -�-- ` ERFRONT 113OUNDARY 1 �f�74 C 3i7 (,7n C46 i 1 A . C44 C35� C34 A62 � - A5= C4.3 ► A61 AS 8 � 1 6 _C3.7 . R r5 \ C42 1 ` y A571 \ C38 ;� �A5 X11 C39 A52 A53 C40 A5� A48 A47� A 46 13ORDERING _ n4, - A44 \ i A43 *A9 A42 A94 A41 A97 , g40A �A95 A96 A 39 / 1 A99 -LAND OF A398 .39 EAVF,g BROOK NOMINEE TRUST I OHN J. HANLEY, \TRUSTEE n10o EED BOOK 5493 RAGE 23 Ass A101 TAX MAP 6 PARCEI 18 A37 lb. P A103 AA^C .1-1 � III COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Governor John J. Hanley, Trustee Beaver Brook Nominee Trust 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Mr. Hanley: MAY 17 1999 TRUDY COXE Secretary DAVID B. STRUHS Commissioner RE: Request for Superseding Determination of Applicability, Beaver Brook Realty Trust Delineation of Wetland Resource Areas, 80 Leonard Street, Northampton This office is in receipt of additional information for the project referenced above. The revised plan is titled "WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS, John J. Hanley Trustee of the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust" by Killam Associates, dated October 21, 1998, revised November 24, 1999 and April 22, 1999. A representative of this office has reviewed the proposed changes to the line and inspected the site on April 30, 1999. Based on the Department's interpretation of the site conditions, the following additional changes are requested in the delineatiion. If you disagree with the requested changes, you may submit additional information supporting your proposed line at the wetland flag locations in question. 1. Flags B21 to B22: there is a jog in the stream bank of approximately 7 -10' please adjust the line to reflect this. 2. Flag B24 should be moved up 5' 3. Flag B25 is at an inlet that appears to have characteristics of land Under Water and extends 15 to 20 feet inland from the bank delineation as shown on the plan. 4. Flag C42 is in the vicinity of a low area (associated with a skid road) just west of the wetland line on the upland side. Please include this. 5. Flag C51 is on the site but is not depicted on the plan. Please add this to the plan. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Karen Hirschberg at (413) 784- 1100, ext. 240. .ncerely, Lawrence Golonka Watershed Chief Connecticut River Basin This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at (617) 574 -6872. 436 Dwight Street • Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 • FAX(413)784 -1149 . TDD (413) 746 -6820 • Telephone (413) 784 -1100 0 Printed on Recycled Paper (20% Post Consumer) Hanley Certified Mail Z 463 433 425, return receipt requested. CC: Northampton Conservation Commission Certified Mail Z 463 433 426, return receipt requested. George Kohout, 37 Evergreen Road, Northampton, MA 01053 Certified Mail Z 463 433 427, return receipt requested. Killam Associates New England, 8 Goffe Street, Hadley, MA 01035 Charles H. Dauchy, Long Plain Road, RFD 3, Amherst, 01002 KIHANLEY.26 Page 2 � III N M C PLANNING AND DE"V ELUI'iv1ENT - CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Cityuaff - :Li a Main Stree[,R • Nortbampton,M.Aoio6o -3i98 41 31587 - 1 x66 • Pax 58 -t 264 Wayne Peiden, Director • planning @nori.iiamptonplanning.org wwn�.norrl7ampro►tplaNning.org TO: Northampton Planning Board From: Northampton Conservation Commissinn Date: February 15, 2002 RE: Recommendation for amended Beaver Brook Estates, Preliminary Subdivision At its meeting on February 14, 2002, the Conservation Commission discussed the Preliminary Subdivision for Beaver Brook Estates. The Commission is very supportive of this new layout stating that it represents a tremendous improvement over the previous plans because all lots are out of the riverfront area and no encroachment into or across the wetland resource area is planned. The Commission made the following recommendations: • Detention basin A should only be located in this area if absolutely necessary to meet stormwater management standards. Further, this basin should be designed to the extent practicable antirely out of the 200' dverfront area. Any outlet should flow through a swale before entering the wetland area_ • The property listed as "Lot reserved for owner" area= 33,500 square feet should not be planned as a developable lot as it falls entirely within the 200' riverfront area. This should be dedicated as part of the open space due to the sensitive upland habitat on this property- • A 100' buffer line should be drawn around all Vemal Pools shown on the plan. • No disturbance should occur within this 100' buffer of the Vernal Pool. A waiver of this radius requirement is recommended to protect this vernal pool. • Permanent "no build" bounds should be placed along the 100' buffer of the Vernal Pools. • To protect migratory paths for species in the vernal pool as well as those that require upland habitat, flag lots 33 and 34 should be eliminated and replaced with one standard lot that shows no further encroachment into the open space than drawn for lot 32 and 35. • All construction, including lawn area for lot 49 should be located outside of the 100' buffer. No disturbance should occur within this buffer. • The remaining slash within the planned open space should be cleaned up by collecting the dispersed material into small piles outside the vernal pool. plam"ingboard • conservationcommission • zoning board of appeals - housingpartnership • redev&pmentawboritry • nmr ampton GIs econ m ic dev m ent • commanitydevefopp"ent • �istoricdkrictcommission • vistoriwlco CC}ttYal(1HSi . ... A __,....j -- ---- - - -.. � n� � � d ' �M yr• ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Governor JANE SWIFT Lieutenant Governor June 25, 1999 John J. Hanley, Trustee Beaver Brook Nominee Trust 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 BOB DURAND Secretary LAUREN A. LISS Commissioner RE: Request for Superseding Determination of Applicability, Beaver Brook Realty Trust Delineation of Wetland Resource Areas, 80 Leonard Street, Northampton Dear Mr. Hanley: This office is in receipt of additional information for the project referenced above. The revised plan is titled "WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS, John J. Hanley Trustee of the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust" by Killam Associates, dated October 21, 1998, revised November 24, April 22, and May 24, 1999. The Department approves the delineation of Areas Subject to Protection Under the Act as depicted on the final revised plan submitted to this office. Please find enclosed the Superseding Determination of Applicability for this property. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Karen Hirschberg of this office at (413) 755 -2240 Sincerely, L� Lawrence Golonka Watershed Chief — Connecticut River Basin Certified Mail Z 462 433 443, return receipt requested. CC: Northampton Conservation Commission Certified Mail Z 462 433 444, return receipt requested. George Kohout, 37 Evergreen Road, Northampton, MA 01053 Certified Mail Z 462 433 445, return receipt requested. Killam Associates New England, 8 Goffe Street, Hadley, MA 01035 Charles H. Dauchy, Long Plain Road, RFD 3, Amherst, 01002 KSDAHANLEY.26 This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at (617) 574 -6872. 436 Dwight Street • Springfield. Massachusetts 01103 • FAX (413) 784 -1149 • TDD (413) 746 -6620 • Telephone (413) 784 -1100 0 Printed on Recycled Paper COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE � III — ).mnued 3. ❑ The work described below, which includes all /part of the work described in your request, is within the Buffer Zone as defined in the regulations, and will alter an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. This Determination is negative: 1. ❑ The area described in your request is not an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. 2. ❑ The work you described in your request is within an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ The work you described in your request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. 4. ❑ The area described in your request is subject to Protection Under the Act, but since the work you describe therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: Issued by the Department of Environmental Protection Signature On this 25th day of June 19 99 , before me personally appeared Karen Hirschberg to me known to be the person described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he /she executed the same as his/her free act and deed. of ry Public My C mmiss on This Superseding Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state or local institutes, ordinances, by -',aws or regulations. This Superseding Determination shall be valid for three years from the date of issuance. The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by the Superseding Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten persons pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 10A, are hereby notified of their right to request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 10, providing the request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten days from the date of issuance of this Superseding Determination, and addressed to: Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the conservation commission, the applicant, and any other party. A notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing shall comply with the Department's Rules for Adjudicatory Proceedings, 310 CMR 1.01(6), and shall contain the following information: (a) the DEP wetlands File Number, name of the applicant, and address of the project; (b) the complete name, address and telephone number of the party filing the request, and, if represented by the name and address of the attorney; (c) the names and addresses of all other parties, if known; (d) a clear and concise statement of (1) the facts which are grounds for the proceeding, (2) the objections to this Superseding Determination, including specifically the manner in which it is alleged to be inconsistent with the Department's Wetlands Regulations, (310 CMR 10.00) and (3) the relief sought through the adjudicatory hearing, including specifically the changes desired in the Superseding Determination; (e) a statement that a copy of the request has been sent to the applicant, the conservation commission and each other party or representative of such party, if known. Failure to submit all necessary information may result in a dismissal by the Department of the Notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing. 4/1/94 310 CMR - 400 � n� 310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 10.99: continued DEP File No. N/A Form 2 ed (To be provid by = DEP) City /Town Northampton Applicant John J. Hanley, Trustee The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Commonwealth of Massachusetts Date Request Filed October 28, 1998 SUPERSEDING Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, § 40 From: The Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) Issuing Authority To: John J. Hanley, Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Same (Name of person making request) (Name of property owner) Address 110 King Street, Norhtampton, MA 01060 Address This determination is issued and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery to person making request on (date) ❑ by certified mail, return receipt requested on June 25, 1999 (date) Pursuant to the authority of G.L. c. 131, §40, the Department has considered your request for a Determination of Applicability and its supporting documentation, and has made the following determination (check whichever is applicable): Location: Street Address 80 Leonard Street, Northampton, Massachusetts Lot Number: Northampton Assessor's Map # 6, Parcel #18 This Determination is positive: 1. ® The area described below, which includes all /part of the area described in your request, is an Area subject to Protection under the Act. Therefore, any removing, filing, dredging or aitering of that area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. The Department hereby approves the delineation of Areas Subject to Protection Under the Act as depicted on the final approved plan referenced below. Title: Wetland Resource Areas: 80 Leonard Street, Northampton, MA: John J. Hanley, Trustee of The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust, c/o 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060 by Killam Associates New England, dated 10/21/98, Rev. 11/21/99, 4/22/99, 5/24/99 Signed and Stamped by Glenn A. Ofcarcik, 5/25/99 ❑ The work described below, which includes all /part of the work described in your request, is within an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. 4/1/94 310 CMR - 399 � u. PLANN,L tNG AND DEV ELGPMENT • CITY OF NOR MANLPTON Qi(�7 Halt • 7 to Maiit Street, Raoirt i t Nort il,Uiil)toi,NLk oio(70- x98 • i413) S87 -1i06 • 1:e : SM7-t _2ti.E tibi(Yt 1pr,(i'n t7ilcit t11„: t 3VIt11L7' 1 ,(Ir( {1lt4 t i!Pil ( i) in tinl , ) Ur' Nit r7 'ii,ort h, 7i,ittir,lln7.7N r llrt fi • � J r:1 O( (okc:r 31, 'f )O I ltil",n Il.titl(,y, "ftt+r The Beaver Brook Nominee trust 1 mil? Wt -�,t 56 h Streit, Apt 5905 i rti, �i�" Iti(_il`_) RE. Ret ver Brook Subdivision Dc: - NIr. Hanley_ Based upon an initial rewi.ew of the plan sheets that you submitted to the Conservation ( 'cr 1!riiistiioJ On the Beaver Brook Subdivisictrl. I ha% made some observations about «flat :?ci t'lO!t,ll '1 1!b1maticlll that ,he Ti215i should siLp l y prior to sul�nlittal (`f the �jCtltlltiVc `•itLcll�iJlU1 plai:S. Ihtse LI in addition to tlTe :ir.'T215 l�Cllte'SteCl h\ the Consereation �oTti :iliS�Tt T at its October ?S`" hearing.. I understand that not all the plan sheets were included for the 1f1ff1tis;T0li rcvie\v anal that detaiis that ate requested 'below tray be on those rrlissing sheets. +i •!1:•.' (1: alit: ill ;lf..: fistcd art• Clio, ;e th:o l��'f - t' 1)f c'I;!17tP;it "j 1TI�l'l rc)b;lt t It ill t`a i!if t1 I:;'.;i the l-Ioard will not likely waiver. 1. Rio speed table or traffic calJZiilig is locatedat the intersectzoti of Grove and Hanle Streets. The Department of Punlic � �learl`, tutecl that they :will be -I (f iil�ng speed '.lnlcs at intersections of all nc.� stT ldi. is iorls ;tn.+ rnav ;ven retrofli them onto existing streets. This plans should detail this. ` zddiug a shred table at the abo-, e n :ei- .nones , :Ttcrsection 'WOLLld regW.re 2 additional catch basins to collect runoff at the cornel:s ~jthere no basins are currently desigzled. The Pla ni;lg Board also requirc -(3 a spr_ed b�_1Zip yr 1 ;tn�p at the en - y of the subdi ision at t1�e of the existing Grove venue, +. P ie tSC ii cl t tic hide T "It1Un:lle , .vhy :ltf , i tc t ri-.c mrigation including., the off -sit` sidewatks along Grove and mitigation on Lecinard Street is not proposed. A.ltei ative tlJaiion, .inch az� sid ewalk co? nkLcr un iii tI1L h11C: !b could be considered. P lease ;delude a Tie •.v open space calculation table, It appears that the ntlrllbers eau hat a110 do not meet the code requirenli!lts. Fi(lill a quick catculatioil. voii would'o required to provide approximately 19+ acres of open space, not 14+ acres. You tiiust road "', 1%s `tltrt the overall 1µ11d t :alcUkatlfill. (noie: yoti d o not hav,- to separate , _)pen spact by Carling district or distribute open space equally arnon g. zoning. dirtrictsj. h You htive more than 8 1, O ' slopes %vithi.rl the open .space and no justification about ho%v this meets l t0(8) tluough public access, etc. This must be quality open space" `1'h.e existing trail is not shown o il the slap that could help your Ju Related to this is a new o"I"!!i�l!rihon of Kits till the north ,idc• or(_ r. The�.e lots encroach further into the opett ,k r than the lots bona tht: p plat'. ".l.'hI$ Ma,y 111 tact detract from thr quality of th° open space that is has greater than S%, slopes. p1aM,Ntli)IN1ar:I • cuti.5er2ratiollcomnlissiolt zoning boa rJof apltoals - 6k.sirlY?Mrblercllip • retlevelopmenta • ltortlia GJS CLOil UN It C.i<'t'JOV) i WO t • LOW f Rt t ill t Yl c l 1- 40JUrIP1it t ,li,l T ii i L[1R fit l i,.,iu it /� CO, ic.ilt•org171 is! itir CP ,i tr71 t�N$l ri r' ;S< ircili ter. tare 04,pte at rillidil On recto eJ rtl r er � III Lane widths on the entrance road from Haydenville Road should be i I' to minimize impacts to the wetland crossing. This stretch should be marked "no parking ". .-additionally, due to the narrow stretch, granite curving Should Ise proposed on both sides for the poi - tion of roadway that is 1 V wide. i7 kllc'•i� icr. t,IrCr_rel 4'. u Caro 1y n M ser A Ii P �•. ,r1' t .LIiI � �_ � I'�,lnra�'f I't'(Uti[_; �l:iil�l�,tul Inc. JN 1P D The 27 March survey was conducted in the evening with hopes of finding adult blue - spotted/jefferson salamanders in the breeding pools. In addition, evening is the best time to search for larval marbled salamanders, another state listed species.. The 10 April survey was conducted in late afternoon. By this date, all of the early spring - breeding amphibian species had spawned so the focus here was to get a better understanding of species abundance not simply presence or absence. A summary of the results from these two site visits as well as the results of the previous wildlife biologists surveys are shown in table 1 at the end of this document. VERNAL POOLS The parcel is approximately 58 acres located west of Rte 9( Haydenville Rd) and north of Leonard Street in Northampton, Massachusetts. The parcel is bordered to the north by Beaver Brook and to the west by the Mill River. Three certified vernal pools and a fourth un- certified vernal pool are located on the property. The certified pools are referred to as follows: Vp 2020 on the southeastern corner of the site, embedded in a bordering vegetated wetland. Vp 2018 on top of the hill in the west - center of the parcel and Vp 2017 on the western edge of the parcel along the abandoned rail road grade. Vernal pool 2017 contained 21 egg masses of the blue- spotted /jefferson salamander (Ambystoma late rale /jeffersonianum). This supports the findings of the previous wildlife biologist who reported finding 9 blue - spotted /jefferson salamander egg masses in this pool during her surveys. Twenty -one egg masses might contain 200 —500 individual eggs and would most probably represent the spawn of several females. However given the high embryonic mortality of these clonal species it is unlikely that pool 2017 is capable of supporting a population of blue - spotted/jefferson salamanders indefinitely without occasional genetic input for a larger, more stable, nearby population. It is unlikely that these salamanders routinely migrate across Beaver Brook or the Mill River. It is also unlikely that such a supporting population exists east of Rte 9 for this would require that salamanders successfully migrate across Haydenville Road fairly regularly. In addition animals crossing Rte 9 would first encounter the bordering vegetated wetland and would probably spawn there. The closest known breeding population of any size occurs in vernal pool 2019, located off site, just north of Leonard Street. Vernal pool 2018 is located on top of the hill that forms the center of the property, between pools 2020 and 2017. During the previous wildlife biologist's survey, abundant fairy shrimp and one ambystomatid salamander egg mass were found in this pool. The Beaver Brook: Final report June 2002 Page 2 — c l- Directions to Leonard I Vemal 0001 1. Drive to 6& Lconwd Strut LCCCL% MA 2 Walkdovmstomdav 3- F " Mnaftw4 scOMWOEbOuMwakstnti&bwkl35' (IV 80w) Cerhfic VtemoA 'Poo 1 1+200 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & W ildlife January 22, 200�vayne ! . MacCalium, Director William J. O'Neil Esq., Jekanowski & O'Ned Millbank Place, 351 Pleasant Street, Suite 1 Northampton, MA 01060 - 3998 Re: Public Records Act (M.G.L. c66) request Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Northampton, MA Dear Attorney O'Neil, The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NI - ESP) has reviewed your request for documents related to NHESP Filc No. 01 -9552. The Jefferson Salam under (firz ,sxtm�z jeffervnz�mamz) -Lid Wood Turtle (Clory n. rir�mlYtr) database records are not sub }eert to the Public Records A ct (M.G.L. c.66, s. 17D), because these two species .Ire state- protected as species of "Speciai Concern" pursuant to the Massachusetts Endarn Bred Species Act (M.G.L. c. l.: [A). Enclosed please find guidelines for protecting these L -vo state - protected rare: species and their habitats in ` tts. The Wood Turtle record is from i993 and is associated with the Nlrll River and adjacem forested hanitat :n Leeds, south of the Williamsburg line. \X %Doti Turtles spend much of the active season uta land - feeding, nestui', and estiv,uiay. They use many different ha bitats and .are capable of Ion r ;M moverrents bemeen xt:tland habitats and mto upland habi *_acs. For this proposal, our initial assessment ,?f the Wo'o'd Tu,tte's habitat use or this site , �-as from analysis of ae:-.ai photos and previous observ;pions of the River Areas on t:,is site. The Jefferson Salamander- records are from 2CO, arjd .are associated with the vernal pool's on anti adjacent to this site. These records were submitted by a reputable biologist who regal ;r;v submits rare species observation fork to our office. Jef ferson Salamanders spend most of their lives in forested upiands, tra•: ehrig to wetlands only during the ! season. For this proposal_, our initial_ assessment of the Jefferson Salamander habitat use on this site was from analysis of aerial photos, information on file, and previous observations of the site. As you are aware, the performance standards tinder 310 CMR 10.58(4)(b) & 10.59 of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations state that "such project shall not be permitted to have anv short or long term adverse effeLts on the habitat of the local population of that species ". Our letter of November 5, 2C01 describes the habitat uses by the \Vood Turtle and Jefferson Salamander on this site. The actual rare species habitats and any alterations that ; re proposed to the habitats .are the issues of primary concern for our review under the Wetlands Protection Act and Regulations. Sincerelv, j i Thomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director, NHESP CC: Northampton Conservation Commission VO4L, file Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Route 135, Westborough, NIA 01581 Tel: (508) 792 - 7270 x 200 - Fax: (508) 792-7,921 An Agency of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement http:/www.stace.ma.us/dfwele/dfw/nhesp � n� (r A lternate Directions to Grove 2 Vernal Pool I. Drive to end of Grove Ave., Leeds Ma 2. Last house on left is 88 Grove Ave. 3. Follow path at end of Grove Ave. about 100', mm left, walk down steep incline to railtrail (old railroad bed - proposed bike path). Follow railtrail about 3090' to stone bridge over Beaver Brook. Turn right (N 60 E), follow brook about 550' until you come to two 8' diameter rocks together on edge of brook. Turn right (S 10 VIA walk up steep hill 425' to edge of pool. Directions to Grove 2 Vernal Pool 1. Drive to end of Grove Ave., Leeds, MA 2. Last house on left is 88 Grove St. 3. Follow path at end of Grove Ave. about 790' due N 4. Turn right (N 80 E), walk about 180' should walk into pond. q� p�o� pHaN� *4.4 -z` 1 ' 11 A Q A -11a EGGMASS LOCATIONS E OF FLAGGED WETLANDS A In ' WOOD FROG A - EGGMASS LOCATIONS S' WIDE DRAINAGE DITCH END FALLS SHORT OF VERNAL POND NOTE. POND WAS MEASURED DEAD X FROM WETLAND FLAGS TO p.{ EDGE OF WATER AT NIGH END A - _ WATER LEVEL PROPERTY WAS LOGGED INTO WETLANDS IN 19" W/ TREE SLASH PARTIALLY FILLING IN POND N A -ii W o-a o-2 A -Y A GY A -11 A -w PER I1 t DRIES UP RAPI LEAVING MANY INTERCONNECTED DEAPER POOLS- ITS VERY DESIGNATES TREE SLASH A - 17? INTRICATE t MAZELIKE A 1 _ Aim 100' WETLAND BUFFER A-w � A - m 107 WETLAND BUFFER WOODS- HEMLOCKS -� i MIXED HARDWOODS i THICK UNDERBRUSH in Q h A -pi _pa A -127 WODDS- HEMLOCKS i MIXED WARDWOODS BUTTRESSED ROOT A -0 TREES GROWING IN , WATER- CMAZELIKEI A -w A-. A. TREE LINE + A Ila A-gp A-i � -0RI A -W A -i A A -lai S >o. A.1aA r WWDED MARSH DRIES UP IN MAY _ 40 A -o7 Z. O / A -ua N/F A"p.1 -JOHN HANLEY TRUSTEE / �Al BEAVER B TAX MAP`PA�RC Lgi NOM INEE TRUST / QO TONE WALL N/F ! DANIEL T. KEITH / i JANE M. POWER / TAX MAP G PARCEL Z7}]p GARAGE i LEONARD 2 VERNAL POND Sc. -0' Ce. /k fie_ ( Yuri# _ Tao1 f`ZoLo Directions to Leonard 2 vernal pool 1. Drive to 80 Leonard Street 2. From back of garage walk 180'(S 70 W) ME sionof Fizhe Wayne F. MacCallum, Director 30 June 2000 Northampton Conservation Commission City Hall 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Commissioners: The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) received new information regarding rare species within the town of Northampton. Based on this new information the NHESP has enlarged Estimated Habitat WH6035 (see highlighted area on the enclosed map). The enclosed map should be attached for immediate use with your 2000 -2001 "Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlif e" map. This is to ensure that applicants filing Notices of Intent (NOI) will also be aware when they must file with the NHESP under the rare species provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (3 10 CMR 10.59 and 10.58(4)b). The Commission should check each submitted NOI to see whether the site locus occurs within this new Estimated Habitat, or any other Estimated Habitat in town. If a project falls within an Estimated Habitat the applicant must provide proof that the NOI was mailed to the NHESP so that it is received at the same time as the Commissions (see section C3A of the new NOI form). The new Estimated Habitat is based on a fmdin� jeffersonianum . o of the Jefferson's salamander (rlmbystoma The Jefferson s Salamander is state - protected as a species of "Special Concern" Pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act Regulations (MGL c.131A) and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00). I have enclosed a factsheet on this species for your information. If you have any questions regarding this notification please contact meat 508- 792 -7270 x151. P iaa 2a Huckery Wetlands Enviro ental Reviewer, NHESP Enclosure: Jefferson's salamander factsheet cc: Karen Hirschberg, DEP Western Regional Office Jennifer MacDonald, DEM Service Forester Natural Heritage & Endangered ndangered S ecies Pro Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581 Tei: (508) 792 -7270 x Z00 Fax: (5792 -7275 An Agency of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & httP://www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dfw Environmental Law Enforcement III COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS kvi EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 436 Dwight Street • Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 • (413) 784 -1100 MITT ROMNEY ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER Governor Secretary KERRY HEALEY ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, Jr. Lieutenant Governor Commissioner AUG Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. 110 King Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 RE: DEP Wetlands rile 1#246 -495 Request for Superseding Order of Conditions Beaver Brook Estates Haydenville Road, Northampton Dear Attorney Melnik: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter the Department) conducted an informal meeting per 310 CMR 10.05(7)(i) for the above referenced file on May 30, 2002. In accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act [the "Act "], MGL c. 131, § 40, and as a result of information gathered at the above - referenced meeting and information sent to the Department on March 28, 2003, April 30, 2003, and May 12, 2003, the Department hereby issues the attached Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC). This SOC denies the proposal to construct a fifty -four (54) lot single - family housing subdivision, access roadways, stormwater management train, and associated appurtenances within Bordering Vegetated Wetland [as defined at 310 CMR 10.55(2)] and its Buffer Zone (as defined at 310 CMR 10.04), and Riverfront Area [3 10 CMR 10.58(2)] associated with the Mill River and Beaver Brook. The Department has rendered this decision per an adverse determination letter from the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) issued November 5, 2001, in which NHESP determined that the project would occur within the "actual habitat" of the wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta) and the Jefferson's salamander (Ambystoma jejjersonianum). The determination then ruled that the project, as proposed, "will adversely affect the actual habitat of the Jefferson's salamander and wood turtle ". Per 310 CMR 10.59, said determination is presumptive, in that it can only be challenged by a preponderance of evidence submitted by a party or parties with adequate training, education, and/or experience in the ecology and natural history of the Jefferson's salamander and wood turtle. Since the date of this determination, your client has declined to attempt to overturn this presumptive finding, as per your letter of March 28, 2003. In a letter dated April 30, 2003, you cite the following regulatory passage in order to request that the Department overturn the NHESP's presumptive determination at 310 CMR 10.59: "...shall not be considered sufficient evidence in itself that such project is in fact within the habitat of a rare species ". This information is available in alternate format. Call Aprel McCabe, ADA Coordinator at 1- 617 -556 -1171. TDD Service - 1- 800 - 298 -2207. DEP on the World Wide Web: http: / /www.mass.gov /dep Z0 Printed on Recycled Paper � It Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Patricia Huckery, NHESP Wetlands Environmental Reviewer State Route 135 Westborough, MA 01581 Heritage Surveys, Inc. Mark P. Reed College Highway and Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, MA 01073 Beaver Brook Nominee Trust John J. Hanley 180 Riverside Boulevard Apartment 29 E New York, NY 10069 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands — WPA Form 5A DEP File Number: Superseding Order of Conditions 246 -495 Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above - referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, the Department finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. Check all that apply: ® Public Water Supply ® Private Water Supply ® Groundwater Supply ® Land Containing Shellfish ® Fisheries ® Storm Damage Prevention ® Prevention of Pollution ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat ® Flood Control Furthermore, the Department hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: ❑ the following conditions which are necessary, in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations, to protect those interests checked above. The Department orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. Denied because: ® the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations to protect those interests checked above. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect these interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted to the Conservation Commission which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). General Conditions (only applicable to approved projects) 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. SOC Form • rev. 08/01 Page 2 of 6 � I� L-1 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands — WPA Form 5A DEP File Number: Superseding Order of Conditions 246 -495 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP B. Findings (cont.) 15. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 16. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Department. 17. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his /her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission and the Department, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and /or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. Special Conditions: Please see the attached sheet(s) for additional conditions numbered through This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special condition pursuant to General Conditions #4, from the date of issuance. Issued by the Department of Environmental Protection: A� Rob J. McCollu On this 8' Of Aug 2003 Day Month and Year before me personally appeared Robert J. McCollum , to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she executed the same as his /her free act and deed. Notay Public My Commission Expires This Order is issued to the applicant as follows: ® by certified mail, return receipt requested, on Date SOC Form • rev. 08/01 Page 4 of 6 I� Ll Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands — WPA Form 5A DEP File Number: Superseding Order of Conditions 246 -495 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP D. Recording Information This Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also-be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on Page 7 of Form 5 shall be submitted to the Department and copied to the Conservation Commission. Detach or copy this page, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to: Department of Environmental Protection Wetlands Program 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 01103-1317 Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: Project Location DEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: COOK for: Page and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant SOC Form • rev. o8 /01 Page 6 of 6 *= r goo .. i MITT ROMNEY GOVERNOR KERRY HEALEY LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER SECRETARY July 24, 2003 Tel. (617) 626 -1000 Fax (617) 626 -1181 http://www.mass.gov/envir CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM PROJECT NAME : Beaver Brook Estates PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Evergreen Road - Northampton PROJECT WATERSHED : Mill River EOEA NUMBER : 13057 PROJECT PROPONENT : John J. Hanley, Trustee DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : June 24, 2003 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (M.G.L. c. 30, ss. 61 -62H) and Section 11.06 of the MEPA regulations (301 C.M.R. 11.00), I determine that this project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). According to the Environmental Notification Form (ENF), the project consists of the construction of 25 single- family homes and six townhouses. The site contains a four -unit apartment building, which is planned to be demolished. The project will be constructed in two phases. Phase I includes the construction of 19 units, and Phase II involves the construction of the remaining 12 units. The project site is about 60 acres of mostly forested. land. The proponent is proposing a permane.,at conservation restriction on approximately 36.73 acres of the site. According to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), the project site is located within Estimated and Priority Habitats for the Jefferson Salamander and Wood Turtle. These rare wildlife species are state - protected as species of "Special Concern ". The project is undergoing review pursuant to Section 11.03 (2) (b) (2) of the MEPA regulations, the taking of an endangered or threatened species or species of special concern, where the project site is two or more acres and includes an area mapped as a Priority Site of Rare Species Habitats and Exemplary Natural Communities. It will require a Sewer Extension /Connection Permit, a Superseding Order of Conditions, and a 401 Water 0 Printed on Recycled Stock 20% Post Consumer Waste EOEA #13057 ENF Certificate July 24, 2003 should fully describe any environmental trade -offs the project design (for example, whether avoidance species habitat would lead to greater disturbance uplands). inherent in of rare of forested From the information presented in the ENF, it is clear that both the wetland resource areas and the upland areas of the site, particularly those that provide habitat, are ecologically significant. The EIR should clearly delineate the extent of the habitat in upland areas, and should specifically consider alternative layouts that increase the amount of undisturbed area surrounding the wetland resources (vernal pools), to allow for an increased buffer between the vernal pools /resource areas and upland habitat areas. Project Permitting & Regulatory Environment: The EIR should briefly describe each state environmental permit or agency action required for the project. For each permit or action identified, the EIR should demonstrate how the project is consistent with any applicable performance standards and other regulatory requirements. The EIR should also discuss consistency of the project with state, regional, and local policies and plans (see Section 11.10(3) of the MEPA regulations). It should describe how the site has been zoned by the City of Northampton. Rare Species Habitat: The EIR should include a habitat study, which includes a survey, for the Jefferson Salamander and the Wood Turtle. All Wood Turtles should be tracked using radio - telemetry. The proponent will need to evaluate potential impacts to rare species (including indirect impacts from runoff into priority and estimated habitat) for the Natural Heritag,_ Program to determine if the project will require a Conservation and Management Permit pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. The project must also meet performance standards for rare species contained in the Wetlands Protection Act regulations. The EIR should provide an update of the proponent's rare species survey work. The project has the potential to impact several state - listed rare species. The subdivision design should aim to avoid potential rare species impacts altogether within the context of developing a site layout which minimizes overall impacts. If complete avoidance of rare species impacts in upland areas is not feasible, the EIR should justify this conclusion, and fully discuss the permitting implications under MESA. The EIR should 3 I� EOEA #13057 ENF Certificate July 24, 2003 The EIR should address the significance of the wetland resources on site, including public and private water supply; riverfront areas; flood control; storm damage prevention; fisheries; shellfish; and wildlife habitat. All resource area boundaries, riverfront areas, applicable buffer zones, and 100 -year flood elevations should be clearly delineated on a plan. Bordering vegetated wetlands that have been delineated in the field should be surveyed, mapped, and located on the plans. Each wetland resource area and riverfront area should be characterized according to 310 CMR 10.00. The text should explain whether the local conservation commission has accepted the resource area boundaries and any disputed boundary should be identified. Proposed activities, such as the roadway connection with Evergreen Road, the driveway connections with Grove Avenue and Haydenville Road, and the water and sewer main extensions, including construction mitigation, erosion and sedimentation control, phased construction, and drainage discharges or overland flow into wetland areas, should be evaluated. The locations of detention basins and their distances from wetland resource areas, and the expected water quality of the effluent from said basins should be identified. This analysis should address current and expected post- construction water quality (including winter deicing and sanding analyses) of the predicted final receiving water bodies. Sufficient mitigation measures should be incorporated to ensure that no downstream impacts would occur. The drainage analysis should ensure that on- and off -site wetlands are not impacted by changes in stormwater runoff patterns. The EIR should discuss the location of vernal pools on the project site and provide a plan showing their location. The fourth vernal pool should be certified and located on the site plan. For any amount of required wetlands replication, a detailed wetlands replication plan should be provided in the EIR which, at a minimum, includes: replication location(s) delineated on plans, elevations, typical cross sections, test pits or soil boring logs, groundwater elevations, the hydrology of areas to be altered and replicated, list of wetlands plant species of areas to be altered and the proposed wetland replication species, planned construction sequence, and a discussion of the required performance standards and monitoring. Water: The EIR should identify any impacts from the project on the local drinking water supply. It should propose mitigation as 5 M EOEA #13057 ENF Certificate July 24, 20.03 the DEP Stormwater Management Handbook when addressing this issue. The EIR should discuss consistency of the project with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) general permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for stormwater discharges from construction sites. The EIR should include discussion of best management practices employed to meet the NPDES requirements, and should include a draft Pollution Prevention Plan. In addition, a maintenance program for the drainage system will be needed to ensure its effectiveness. This maintenance program should outline the actual maintenance operations, responsible parties, and back -up systems. Wastewater: The EIR should outline the proponent's efforts to reduce water consumption and wastewater generation. It should identify if there are any Inflow /Infiltration issues with the sewer system. Construction: The EIR should present a discussion on potential construction period impacts (including but not limited to noise, the excavation of soil, blasting, dust, wetlands, and traffic maintenance) and analyze feasible measures that can avoid or eliminate these impacts. If blasting is proposed on site, it should be coordinated with City officials, and an informational meeting should be held to address neighbors' and NHESP's concerns. The EIR should provide information regarding the phasing of construction on the project site. It should quantify the amount of land altered, and any impacts on endangered species. The EIR should identify which portions of the site will remain undisturbed, and which portions will be impacted during construction. Hazardous Wastes: The EIR should present .a summary of the results of any hazardous waste studies and remediation efforts undertaken at the site. Conservation Restriction: The EIR should provide a thorough discussion of the Conservation Restriction (CR) implications of the project. It � Ilr EOEA #13057 ENF Certificate July 24, 2003 Comments received: Patrick J. Melnik, 6/16/03 Daniel T. Keith, 6/29/03 Daniel T. Keith, 7/1/03 Yankee Hill Conservation Group, 7/8/03 Lora Sandhusen & Friends, 7/9/03 Northampton Planning & Development, 7/9/03 Patrick J. Melnik, 7/10/03 John Body, 7/10/03 Mass Wildlife, 7/11/03 Jim Montgomery, 7/11/03 Daniel & Sandy Glynn, 7/11/03 Deb Jacobs, 7/11/03 Keith H. Davis, 7/13/03 John Daniel & Julie Akeret, 7/13/03 Deb Jacobs, 7/14/03 DEP /WERO, 7/14/03 Amy Bookbinder, 7/14/03 Michael A. Kirby, 7/14/03 Heritage Surveys, 7/15/03 E13057 ERH /WTG /wtg � I� Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries &Wildlife NJassWi/d/ife Wayne F. MacCallum, Director Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office, William Gage, EOEA No. 13057 251 Causeway St., Suite 900, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Project Name: Beaver Brook Estates Proponent: John J. Hanley, Trustee Location: Evergreen Road, Northampton Document Reviewed: ENF NHESP File Number: 01 -9552 Dear Secretary Roy Herzfelder, ..July -11, 2003 The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program ( NHESP) of the MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife has reviewed the Environmental Notification Form for the proposed Beaver Brook Estates and would like to offer the following comments regarding impacts to state - protected rare species. This project site is located within Estimated and Priority Habitats for the Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum) and Wood Turtle (Clemtnys insculpta). These rare wildlife species are state - protected as species of "Special Concern" pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (M.G.L. c.131A). The site also falls within a BIOMAP core habitat. BIOMAP was created to identify and map the areas most crucial to protecting the state's biodiversity. During the initial review of a Notice of Intent filed for an earlier version of this development, the NHESP informed the applicant that the wetland resource areas, vernal pools and Riverfront Areas on the site are actual habitat for rare wildlife. According to the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (3 10 CMR 10.59), projects shall not be permitted to have "any short or long -term adverse effects" to rare wildlife habitat that occurs within Resource Areas. The applicant was also informed that the project requires a separate review and permit under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00). The NHESP has determined that the proposed work and development of the uplands on this site constitutes a probable "take ", as defined in 321 CMR 10.02. Under MESA, both upland and wetland habitats are protected from "take" which includes "to ... disrupt the nesting, breeding, feeding, or migratory activity." The taking of a species on the state list may be permitted under MESA only if the applicant has avoided, minimized and mitigated impacts to state - protected species to the greatest extent practicable and provided there is a long -term net benefit to the conservation of the local populations of the impacted species. The NHESP would like to clarify a few issues discussed in the ENF. The NHESP has explained to the proponent, both during meetings and in letters, that the upland forests on this site are actual rare wildlife habitat for the Jefferson Salamander and that a permit under MESA is required. Jefferson Salamanders spend most of their lives in forested uplands, traveling to wetlands and vernal pools only during the breeding season. The Riverfront Areas on the project site provide feeding, shelter, migration, and nesting www. masswildl. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792 -7270 Fax (508) 792 -7275 An Agency of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement � I� habitats for the Wood Turtle. The Wood Turtle record is associated with the Mill River and it has been documented to occur much closer to the site than was stated in the ENF. Dr. Alan Richmond has conducted a survey of the vernal pools on the site and during his survey, another vernal pool was confirmed and certified. There are now 5 confirmed vernal pools in the vicinity of the project site, one of which is just outside of the property boundary and 2 of which are confirmed breeding sites for the Jefferson Salamander. Dr. Richmond has not conducted a survey for adult Jefferson Salamanders or Wood Turtles on the site, as it was not required. Additional surveys on this site are not necessary, since the NHESP records are recent and close to or on the site, the Jefferson Salamanders are using multiple vernal pools for breeding, and the upland forests on the site are important habitat necessary for the survival of the local population. A meeting was held between the proponent's representative and staff of the NHESP on March 21, 2003 to discuss the Conservation Permit application that was submitted for review under MESA. At that time, additional information was requested including detailed plans for the entire development, to include alterations in all phases, documentation of the amount of rare wildlife habitat to be altered, a detailed alternatives analysis, a revised Conservation Restriction and the filing of an ENF. The NHESP requests full -sized plans that include the limits of all proposed work and clearing, locations of stormwater management structures, and boundaries of the proposed Conservation Restriction. It is important that the proposed drainage system be designed to maintain the existing hydrology of all vernal pools and wetlands on and adjacent to this site. In addition, the latest vernal pool should be added to the plans. The reduced plan submitted in the ENF is unreadable. It appears that blasting may be required for portions of this project. The NHESP is very concerned about the potential impacts of blasting on the hydrology of adjacent wetlands, especially the vernal pools. We recommend that the applicant substantiate how vernal pools and wetlands on and adjacent to this site will not be affected by any proposed blasting. The NHESP anticipates providing more detailed comments when the additional information is received. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, Thomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director CC: Northampton Planning Board and Conservation Commission DEP Western Regional Office John J. Hanley, Trustee Patrick J. Melnik www. masswil � �r a Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MEPA Office Environmental E NF Notification Form For Office Use Only Executive Office of Environmental Affairs EOEA No.: MEPA Analyst: Phone: 617-626- The information requested on this form must be completed to begin MEPA Review in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00. F t Name: f ,A v e-A /3 , o o k IF f TA 7r_X eg- alit : Watershed: M, l c , %/ iR Universal Tranverse Mercat r Coordinates: Latitude: 0'l1 u di ' d.8-3 1 y ( ' q -1 " 4.1 Estimated commencement date: 6? 3 . Longitude: Estimated completion da 03 Approximate cost: acs a o- o Status of project design: 70 %complete Proponent: J 64, , ' 7 - . jq'4' l 4 - rTQ2 12 11,w ,,.cte - rx ✓1 Street: / " K A ¢ d 1 C Municipality: 4 ./ o^ State: W. Zi Code: Name of Contact Person From Whom Copies of this ENF May Be Obtained: PATtii ck 4 ,V J K t Firm/Ag Street: //,0 k ji✓ ft Municipality: 1 State: .,,.o I Zi5 Code: Phone: q - Fax: q,? -S` 8Y -67P9 E -mail: Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold ( see 301 CMR 11.03)? ❑Yes YNo Has this project been filed with MEPA before? ❑Yes (EOEA No. ) [RNo Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before? ❑Yes (EOEA No. ) ®No Is this an Expanded ENF (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) requesting: a Single EIR? ( see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) ❑Yes ANo a Special Review Procedure? ( see 301CMR 11.09) ❑Yes ®No a Waiver of mandatory EIR? ( see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes �No No a Phase I Waiver? ( see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an agency of the Commonwealth, including the agency name and the amount of funding or land area (in acres): ^eo, . Are you requesting coordinated review with any other federal, state, regional, or local agency? ❑Yes(Specify ) (ZNo List Local or Federal Permits and Approvals: Which ENF or EIR review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed ( see 301 CMR 11.03): e /0 e ./, Revised 10/99 Comment period is limited. For information call 617- 626 -1020 �y.. r �:• �- . _:,a'K.i.�r. ';'cy? .., I= Rare Species Section To supplement the responses to items I and II the applicant submits the following narrative: I. The applicant had previously applied for subdivision permits for development of the site, including a permit that was approved to access the site for a 54 unit subdivision that required crossing the wetland area of the site that is parallel to Route 9. Due to the finding of Natural Heritage that the entire wetland area of the site was rare species habitat, the applicant has revised his plans to provide for access to the site via an alternate upland access. In correspondence with Natural Heritage, Natural Heritage has indicated that any development of the site may involve a "take" of rare species inasmuch as the entire site has been deemed to be estimated habitat. The applicant does not agree that the upland area of the site that he is proposing to develop is actual rare species habitat, and does not agree that a Natural Heritage permit is required to utilize the upland area of this site. However, to move the project to a conclusion the applicant has applied for a conservation permit from Natural Heritage and has proposed to protect 36 acres of the site by a permanent conservation restriction to provide for rare species habitat. II. A. A small portion of the site, located in the most northwesterly section, was included in a prior "Estimated" Habitat map for the wood turtle. A single wood turtle was seen 9 years ago near the Williamsburg Town line, approximately a mile from the site. There have been no other sightings of wood turtle that the applicant is aware of. More recently, Jefferson Salamanders were found to be breeding in a vernal pool in the same northwesterly section of the site that was identified on the prior wood turtle estimated habitat map. (Pool #2017) Jefferson Salamanders were also identified on an offsite vernal pool ( #2019). These observations were made by a biologist who trespassed on the site at the request of the abutter who has his home adjacent to pool #2019. As a result of these observations Natural Heritage has placed the entire site on a new estimated habitat map. The applicant hired Al Richmond Ph. D., herpetologist, to survey the site in 2001 -2002. This survey confirmed the finding of breeding Jefferson Salamanders in pool #2017. Dr. Richmond was denied access to pool #2019 by the abutter. No Jefferson salamander were found in any other Jig vernal pool on the site. No wood turtles were found. No Jefferson salamander has been identified in any of the upland area of the site proposed to be developed by either Dr. Richmond or the biologist who conducted the unauthorized field study of the site. With respect to wetlands permits, the applicant previously applied for a wetland permit on a prior project, but has not applied for a wetland permit for this project. No resource area regulated by the wetland protection act is proposed to be altered. The applicant has avoided all wetland, buffer zone, riverfront, vernal pool and other sensitive natural areas in his proposed development and no wetland permit will be required as a result. B. The applicant contends that his proposed development will not "take" a species of special concern. Natural Heritage has indicated in prior correspondence, relating to the applicant's prior plans, that an alteration of this site may result in the take of rare species but Natural Heritage has not identified any specific upland area of the site that is actual habitat for rare species. Natural Heritage has only identified the wetland and riverfront to be actual habitat and the applicant has avoided all areas identified as actual habitat. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Citp Hall • 2z o Main Street, Room ii • Northampton, MA oz oho - 3 1 9 8 - (4 • Fax: 587 -2264 wa-9ne Feiden, Director • planning @northamptonplanning.org • www.northamptonplanning.org 9 July 2003 Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Re: EOEA No. 13057 MEPA Analyst — William Gage Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Gage, The Northampton Office of Planning & Development believes that it is important that a full alternatives analysis be provided for the proposed Beaver Brook Subdivision through the EIR process. The subject ENF description does not provide enough detail to adequately determine and evaluate all potential impacts to wetland resources and habitat, or to land use, traffic patterns and neighborhood integration. Though the applicant has submitted various plans to the City for the subdivision of this land, a full alternatives analysis has not been completed that specifically identifies environmental, land use and traffic impacts of each alternative. A full EIR should assess all potential impacts that development within the upland area might have on the habitat of the vernal pool species. The area of proposed development, while not within a resource area or buffer zone under the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act, has been determined by NHESP to provide critical upland habitat for the Jefferson salamander and the wood turtle, two state - listed species of special concern. The assessment should also include detailed information from the applicant's biologist regarding the large "uncertified" vernal pool that has been identified on site, but that has yet to be mapped. The information regarding this and other vernal pools within the same complex, both on and off site, as well as migratory patterns of vernal pool species through the upland areas to and from the breeding sites, should be documented and analyzed in order to determine all potential impacts from the proposed development. In particular, this may affect the plan for the 6 townhouses proposed along the Route 9 frontage. Sincerely, Gloria McPherson Conservation and Land Use Planner planning board • conservation commission • zoning boa rdof appeals - housing partnership • redevelopment authorit,9 • northampton GIS economic development - communit,9 development. historic district commission • historicaIcommission • central business architecture originalprintedon rupcledpaper July 1 I. 2003 Deb Jacobs 92 Grove Avenue Leeds, MA. 01053 413 584-3989 Ellen Roy I Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office E'OFA No. 13057JIVIEPA Analyst -- William Gage 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Secretary Herzfelder: I remember the first time I saw Vernal Pool 6201 8, It's the big one, set off` the path, a swath of water_ shimmering among the oaks and pines, the maples and hemlock- It's going on 30 years, but the wonder and delight in that moment remain- I was looking For ducks. I could hear a cacophony (-)!'quacking, I didn't know about tree hogs and the duck -like racket they make. I didn't know about the ephemeral nature of vernal pools either. When the pool had dried out as It's suppose to I tramped through thickets Ofq.101,mlaili laurel and past the shrubby wispy witch hazel to no avail. I Couldn't figure out where it could have gone to, This is the same pool that Patrick J. Melnick on hehall'of the proponent, John J. Hanley, of beaver Brook Nomince Trust (BENT) stated in his letter to the 'Northampton Conservation Commission dated April 5, 2002 that fie, was contemplating a request to Natural I Tentage to "decertily the area as a vernal pool" because the "area is completely dry," We were as you may recall in the midst of multiyear drought. 1 Melni i is part ol'an area that was declared a "rare species area" by Natural Heritage in June of 200 - > t14 h s r. ck by that time should have known that the pools do not always fill on time. It filled late that year. It was the latest I can recall. It was a tough year for obl1g species. Most years, the pool down by the old railroad bed (VP H2017) where Jefferson Salamanders, the primary species of special concern involved are known to breed retains a wet mucky corner. In the spring fringed poiygala (Polygala paucifolia) blooms in scattered patches and the occasional moccasin-flower, or pink lady's slipper (Cypripedium acaule) appears along side the well worn trails that pass by Inc vernal pools. Heading down to the Beaver Brook fi V1 IS, offto the right, are trailing arbutus (Fpigaea re.pens) our own state May flower. Fhis is the part ofthe property that I am most familiar with as my home abuts the old railroad bed as it follows along side the Mill River to f layderiville. The MEPA site visit undertaken OtIJUIV 10, 2003 by William Gage, the MEPA Analyst and Craig Givens of the Western Region of the Massachusetts Dl?P did not visit this part of the parcel due to time constraints. I do have an idea of'where the vernal pool that has vet to be certified on the property that was mentioned at the MEPA I fearing in Northampton's City Hall also on the I O' is and have been to Vernal Pool f 2020 and the one on Daniel Keith's abutting property (VP42019) another known breeding pool for the Jefferson Salamanders All in all, this is an area rich in wetlands, vernal pools and the river front with their varied flora, and fauna. The brook itself is a : Joy to walk alon-, It's best not to linger though when the mosquitoes and those pesky (leer flies are out \am delighted that BQNT iw proposing /o put almost 37 acre, inpermnouconservation restriction. 7um however concerned that not enough is known about the impact of the propose(] developmen, and what oMe,c\oWould no the ability n[ the Jefferson Ko|umandork`survive. A subdivision ofi9 house sites oRu new roadway and h additional building lots with Iwo coommo driveways will involve detention ponds, the rcn`nvd of mature trees and road salt io the winter and lawn and garden chemicals iu1ho spring and summer. |('y not unreasonable tn speculate that due to the placement and relative privacy o[ the hhomes which &y the way would have much longer that xveru�od�vowayyux!6oy are quite removed frumany existing road, that they will be McManainomanJ take up moro city resources like water and xmv,ord/an most o[nur homes do, DotontinoponJeamnot.inapeuodinNoc/6amp/000ndurekc4uoni|yovurgnu"vn and (ho/o/'oro|omo effective an can ho seen by the one already on 6vorgroon Road tor the abutting condos. The 6 unit housing proposed along Rt. 9 will be shoehorned Lip to the very wetlands that Natural I leritaoc did not want disturbed inm, earlier plan that Mr. Mdoick mentions in his narrative, | don't work construction but there doesn't seem mbeenough wiggle room to get a back hoe in there and riot disturb this essential habitat. > worry that development that ia not done with the utmost care will lead on the "taking nfuupo6os,^inthis case t jofl`Cra`n Salamander. | have been following 8DNT`a var proposals since the brp ,inning. | have been u` more meetings and hea than ) cou have imagined. We even had a neighborhood 1ug ad*, We dragged stuffout of our basernents and oUr fticnd'w basements and baked cookies and 1111.1fims to help pay the cer flees /n protect these vulnerable little mnphib, ans, h makes sense tumuioencourage �P j�Auaindimounmmcompnkonsivoha�/atmodyundtonquimmnR|K Oo the other hand, Mr. \1doick made i| clear olthe M8PAroviovv hearing that a multiyear study would roaJ! in the 30 73 acres of the site proposed for permanent construction restriction and o8�mdtn either the City o[Nouhumptonora local land trust being "taken off the tuh1o.^ Some oF1him land. down by the arched stone railroad bridge where the 800mx Brook flows into the Mill River ix former conservation |und the ui/yhad acquired by eminent domain for unpaid taxes. in u legal nwuunor by the Hanley on`op it was taken away from the citizenry and added tutheir parcel tohoused unu bargaining chip A *uen'| a|m nF|xnd ` but it momm u im|u the neighborhood | wou hwxtn see that o|nno with the other pieces that make tip the almost 77 acres pr b | believe inchampioning these elusive and uncommon creatures Most o(ox have never yoon |honz but *e have grown to understand that they and the Wood Turtle also of concern and associated with this site are worthy nF our support, I am hopef that oveo in these difficult economic times you guide this project in a direction that will benefit us all. The FINF was not enough. Thank you. Deb Jacobs cc Nancy Putnam Endangered Species Project Analys Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program Karen (6mchberg Department cf Envir Protection Western Region Office Gloria McPherson 0OfiucnFMaonog and Deve City ofNorthamp July 14 Deb Jacobs 82 Grove Avenue Leeds, MA0]O53 4i3584-]98V Ellen RoyHnzfe|der, Secretary Executive UtficeofEnvironmental Affairs AUw M8P/\OtDco R0E&Nol057,IMEPAAnalyst William Gage 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, Ma 02! 14 Dear Secretary I-Jerzfelder: � //; , . � --- '_-� | would like »n correct ao error inmy letter dated July ||.2003nn Beaver Brook Mnminoo Trusts proposals for development n[upaod that Natural Heritage has declared to contain a ^'naro species area" due to the presence nf Jefferson Salamanders and the sigh of the Wood Turtle. |o describing my first expe with one mF the cmrtifiodve pools oo the land (Vernal Pool 920|8)\ called wood frogs tree Frogs. It's the kind of brain cramp that wakes You up N 3um and onndsymu running downstairs hoping You kuvou'\ written something dumb which clearly y did, | apologize I've been working to sx,o several mature elms that have survived Dutch Elm Bixoamo and may now be taken down so Route 60 can 6o widened aspart o[u cbaogo\n\bodoxigop>anoGnrtbodovoinpmootn[thcOuono,Nnubu/nptonStmoX}oupho|000tbocpnojuc/ you may be familiar with i have trees nn my mind Since |am writing again | would like totake thixhrnemexpress my gratitude for the eythe hearing on July |V2003 was conducted. | had no idea what k, expect. VVJ)iamOogo |ho��KP/\ Analyst, made a pointo[inc|udiog all who came and in particularwas very kind to an elderly gentleman who can and does goonmgmo|length. Mr Gage gently reminded him \\ was hmo10 get back ootrack ||waxukiudooxx that did not go unnoticed, When complimented Mr Gage said i| was just part ofbisjob. \/v,aomjohwcii done. William Givens also in the questions lie raised gave rne a sense that although the state is dismantling so much of the excellent work that has been done in regard to the environment the people who are 101 are doing the best they can iu what are sure toho shorthanded departments Thank you again and (apologize for having tocorrectusloppymistake- r� cc: NxncyPmnum Endangered Species Project Analys Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program Karen irochborg Department of Environmental Protection Western Region Office Gloria McPomo Office o{Monnin& and Developmen City ofNorthampton July 1, 2003 Daniel T. Keith 68 Leonard St. Leeds, Ma. 01053 (413) 584 -5028 Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office EOEA No. 13057, [MEPA Analyst- William Gage] 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114 Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Gage: I am an abutter to Beaver Brook Nominee Trust's proposed development. The entire proposed building site was declared a "Rare Species Area" in June of 2000 by the Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program of the Mass. Fish and Wildlife Division of D.E.M. This is due to the presence of Jefferson Salamanders (a Species of Special Concern) found in two of four vernal pools. Three vernal pools are on BBNT's land and one is on my land. The breeding pools are VP #2017 and VP #2019. VP #2019 is on my land. VP #2019 is the dominant breeding pool of those two. The other vernal pools, VP #2018,Vp #2020, and the forested upland habitat around these vernal pools are important migration resource areas for this species and have to be scrutinized further by NHESP and MEPA. According to the NHESP fact sheet for the Jefferson Salamander, the species requires "500 to 1000 meters of upland forested habitat" surrounding each vernal pool for "foraging, hibernation, and other terrestrial and fossorial activities ". In addition, the fact sheet strongly suggests a "detailed environmental study conducted by a qualified researcher over a period of years, charting the movements of the animals to and from the site ", to customize careful development near the upland habitat resource areas. If a study is not done, the building of this sub division, as shown, will result in a "take" of a species. Therefore I challenge BBNT's position on the ENF- Rare Species section 11 -13 based on the above. Also NHESP has stated the Mill River and Beaver Brook water shed areas are Wood Turtle breeding areas. The Wood Turtle is also a Species of Special Concern. The fact that wood turtles are rarely seen accounts for why they are a "Species of Special Concern ". That does not diminish the fact that this area is wood turtle habitat. Maybe the wood turtle's status should be raised to "Threatened ". In 1999 Beaver Brook Nominee Trust logged the front 36 acres, what is referred to as the Whitburn parcel. The City of Northampton claimed ownership of a 5 acre parcel at the intersection of Beaver Brook and the Mill River. BBNT had a Forestry Plan. The Wetland Delineations along Rt. 9 and Beaver Brook were under appeal with DEP. The vernal pools were not certified at that point but were discussed at the DEP appeal site visit with Karen Hirschberg (agent for DEP) and Charles Dauchy, BBNT's environmental consultant. The Northampton Conservation Commission and Planning Dept were told about the vernal pools but had little experience with the process, NHESP and rare species. Instead of stopping the logging and amending the Forestry Plan around the vernal pools, the logging progressed, doing severe damage to the forested upland Jefferson Salamander habitat. The four vernal pools were then certified that next spring June 2000, by several concerned neighborhood residents, 1 vernal pool on city land (VP #2017), 1 on my land (VP #2019) that is connected to another on BBNT's land (VP #2020) and the forth on BBNT's land close to the city land (VP #2018). BBNT's land was posted in August of 2000. BBNT found a land title problem with the City's conservation parcel and proceeded to acquire it about the same time. BBNT was told by NHESP and the Northampton Conservation Commission there would be "NO DISTURBANCE" of the Vernal Pools, Wetlands, River and Buffer Zones. In addition a Mass. Endangered Species Review or MESA review would be necessary to establish buildable area outside of the buffer zones and into the upland habitat resource areas on the site. NHESP and BBNT began the process with a site visit last May 2002. Mr. Melnik of BBNT, Nancy Putnam of NHESP, Karen Hirshberg of DEP, John Body and Joanne Montgomery of the Northampton Conservation Commission, Carolyn Misch of the Northampton Planning Dept and Dr. Allen Richmond, BBNT's environmental consultant were present at the site visit. Dr. Richmond during that walk pointed out an additional fifth Vernal Pool and confirmed the previous data from NHESP. It was also pointed out, by Karen Hirshberg of D.E.P., that there needed to be additional wetland delineation and high water delineation along the Mill River and at some interior parts of the site to establish true buffer and reparian zones. The fifth vernal pool and the additional Wetland and River delineations have not been shown on recent submittals to our Planning Board and Conservation Commission, which worries me and my neighbors. As far as I know, the MESA review is stalled because of lack of necessary site information submitted by BBNT. This is a very complicated site with the intersection of Beaver Brook into the Mill River and the presence of at least 5 vernal pools (4 on BBNT's land and I on my land) with 2 Species of Special Concern. We also have black bears, deer, beaver, bob cat, turkeys, an occasional moose, palliated wood peckers, bard owls and many other birds and animals. Who knows what other flora and fauna exist here unless an independent professional does a detailed review? I am not against development within appropriate areas, but let's find the appropriate areas first. With that in mind I hope you will conduct an E.I.R. to make sure this proposed sub division is done with the utmost sensitivity and respect in the appropriate areas. Beaver Brook's E.N.F. is stating thirty one houses or units will be built. They discuss the 31 units in their narrative section. All will have significant impact on the upland habitat resource areas and neighborhood. The new road and numerous driveways, the long winding common driveways (which will function like roads), the deforestation, and lawn and road chemicals will all have profound effects on these two species. The 6 units along Route 9 will also be in what is considered upland habitat. It should be noted, my house was built in 1950. There were only 3 or 4 other houses on the street at that time. Since then the neighborhood has in filled to a much denser situation at a much slower rate. The addition of 31 units all at once will be a large shock to this habitat and ecosystem. Other areas of concern include blasting, traffic, drainage and water. There are no blasting records kept in our city government or Fire Dept but many of us have witnessed blasting at the end of Grove Ave (post World War 11) and the building of condominiums on an abutting property (early 1980's). These events impacted ground water routing all over the neighborhood for years afterwards. Obviously, 31 houses or units with road and foundation blasting and possible well drilling will impact ground water conditions for the vernal pools and wetlands as well. The residents here know this land and its history. It is a very old neighborhood. The drainage has to be looked at carefully. Detention pond locations with their high concentrations of yard and road chemicals have to be scrutinized. The rerouting of ground water from impervious surface, deforestation and storm drainage, may have severe impacts on the existing vernal pools and wetlands. Either more water or less water will upset the delicate balance that now exists in these vernal pools and supporting wetlands. Beaver Brook's ENF has checked all "no" in the transportation section. They are proposing 31 units which will generate 310 trips. Did they do a traffic study to come to these conclusions? The neighborhood residents have been asking for one for four years at every Planning Board meeting. Clearly we need a comprehensive traffic study, including winter conditions and effects on the existing neighborhood. They will also need a state "curb cut" permit from the Mass State Highway Dept to access Route 9 from their 6 units. That is not stated in their ENF under "Roadways and Other Transportation Facilities Section -I1 -13. Beaver Brook Nominee trust has always claimed to have enough city water, yet one of their first plans submitted to the Northampton Planning Board in 1999 was denied because of insufficient fire flow water pressure. Their plans were amended showing cisterns filled from wells. That plan was denied. Obviously well drilling will impact the vernal pools, wetlands and upland resource areas. Their subsequent plans submitted have shown very little information regarding domestic and fire flow water sources and pressures. This also needs to be studied carefully with respect to habitat. This project will have a major impact on the Jefferson Salamander's upland migration patterns to the other vernal pools. They need 500 -1000 meters of upland migration habitat, based on NHESP research, as stated before. That is the main reason for MEPA involvement here. Only an E.I.R by independent researchers will facilitate a desirable outcome to this situation for all the parties involved. I would like to be informed and participate in any public hearings and site visits that may be arranged for this project. As I said before, the Vernal Pool #2019 (on my land) is the main breeding pool for the Jefferson Salamanders present in and around Beaver Brook Nominee Trust's building site. Thank you -- I — - / d- - A Daniel T. Keith Cc: Gloria McPherson- Land Use and Conservation Planner Office of Planning and Development City of Northampton Patricia Huckery- Endangered Species Project Analyst Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program Nancy Putnam- Ecologist Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program Karen Hirschberg- Department of Environmental Protection Western Regional Office l PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON City Hall • z i o Main Street, Room ii • Nord ampton, MA o 1060 -3198 • (413)587-1.266 • Fax: 5 waNne Feiden, Director • planning @northamptonplanning.org • mmm.northamptonplanning.org April 22, 2002 Patrick Melnick, Esq. 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Map 5 Parcel' 6 Map 6 Parcel 19 (Beaver Brook Estates) Dear Mr. Melnick: This letter is in response to your letter and application on behalf of Mr. John Hanley for a Request For Determination of area and work identified as Vernal Pool #2018. The wetland delineation and the vernal pool was certified by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program. As such, it does fall within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act and the local ordinance. The Commission has no jurisdiction to make any other assumption. Therefore, it is unclear what your client is seeking. As it stands, this is a certified vernal pool within an isolated wetland. The Commission has no jurisdiction to act on a determination that would be contrary to this vernal pool status. No site visit by the Commission can change that status. Only Natural Heritage may decertify this pool and change the way in which projects are reviewed within 100' of this pool. This would happen only upon notice by Natural Heritage to the Commission. Thus, the RDA application appears to be prematurely submitted and cannot be scheduled for public hearing until further information is provided to the Commission. Please keep me informed of any new information that your client's consultant obtains and any notice that is submitted to Natural Heritage and Endangered Species. Sincerely, C A Carol �, All P yn Senior Land Use Planner /Permits Manager planning board • conservation commission • zoning board of appeals • housing partnership • redevelopmentauthoritN • northampton GIS economic development - communitNdevelopment • historic district commission - historical commission - central business architecture original printed on recycled paper OEP Please type or print Dearly all information requested on this form. '-N= 3 G Co +� G Z o W rJ O O � 1= R1 r) N � rr u N G G CJ O .0 -^+ 3 C C o � U u G *--i O G L CN G f1l� O W U O W O o � � +.J ­4 u a. a w I? o r,1 U to � c C .� Z w O c U L Rev. 10/98 J"3=07asarss uapanrmanr of cnvironmanrai rroracrion Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 1 - Request for Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G. L. c. 131, X40 Generallnformation 1. Applicant: Beaver Brook Nominee Trus 12. Representative (if any): John J. Hanley, Trustee Patrick J. Melnik Es Name 150 West 56th Street 115905 Mau+ng q. fum Patrick J. Melnik, Esq, Adorers New York Ciry/IDwr, 110 King Street New York 10019 Marling Adoress scare Z+D c" e Northampton Northampton (212) 451 -8553 Cay/Town Pnane P✓,rmoe, Massachusetts 01060 sle!� Z +p C-05 Far Numoer (rl aoA ++[a0 /eJ (413) 584 -6750 Phone Numoer c " "- MaJAOdress (Aaoor +caCre) (413) 584 -6750 I- NumDer (i1 aoplrOaD /e) pmelnik @rcn.com f - ad Aodress (if aoohCaDle) Determinations 1. As the applicant, I, request that the Conservalron Commission make the following determination (s) (check any that apply) X A. whether the area depicted on plan(s) and /or map(s) referenced below is an area subject to jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. 8. whether the boundaries of resource area(s) indicated and depicted on plan(s) and /or map(s) referenced below are accurately delineated. C. whether the work described and /or depicted on plan referenced below is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. 3 '� D. whether the area and /or work described and /or depicted on plan referenced below is subject to the jurisdiction of any municipal wetlands protection law or bylaw of City of Northampton ha+ne of Municroarily E. the scope of alternatives to be consldereo for work (described below) that is located in the Riverfront Area. Project Description 1. The project location is described as follows. (Use map(s) and /or plan(s) to Identify the location of the area subject to this request.) a- Location: off Route 9 Sneer 1 .70ress City of Northampton Cdy/rOWn Map 5 -6 and Map 6 -19 Assessors Mdo/Plal/ (REQUIRED) b- Area Description (use additional paper If necessary): Area depicted ast Vernal Pool 412018 on attached Plan c. Plan and /or map reference(s) (list title and date): Area depicted as Vernal Pool Parcer/L o/ 412018 on Beaver Brook Estate Plan dated 02 b Heritage Surveys Pag 1 of 3 i A Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands . WPA Form 1 - Request for Determination of Applicability pp ability N1�ssaPusetts Wetlands Protection Act MG. L. c. 131, X40 it Nham ton' P (coot.) 2. The proposed work is described below. (If needed, provide 3. a. If this application is a Request for Determination of plan(s) of work.) Scope of Alternatives for work in the Riverfront Area, indicate the one classification below that best describes the a. Work Description (use additional paper, if necessary). project. No work proposed in this Single family house on a lot recorded on or before area of the site. 8/1/96 Single family house on a lot recorded after 8/1/96 = Expansion of an existing structure on lot recorded after 8/1/96 b. Exemptions. Identify provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act or regulations which may exempt the applicant from having to file a Notice of Intent for all or part of the described work (use additional paper, if necessary). Rev. 10/98 Project, other than a single family home or public project, where the applicant owned the lot before 8/7/96 - New agriculture or aquaculture project Public project where funds were appropriated prior to 8/7/96 Project on a lot shown on an approved, definitive subdivision plan where there is a recorded deed restriction limiting total alteration of the Rivertront Area for the entire subdivision Residential subdivision; institutional, industrial, or commercial project Municipal projects District, county, state, or federal government project - Project required to evaluate off -site alternatives in more than one municipality in an Environmental Impact Report under MEPA or in an atematives analysis pursuant to an application for a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or 401 Water Duality Certification from the Department of Environmental Protection. b. Provide evidence (e.g., record of date subdivision lot was recorded) supporting the classification above. Use additional paper and /or attach appropriate documents, if necessary. V Page 2 of 3 A SRI nation of APPlicability Massachusetts Wetlands Prftection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 City of North ton s Wet and ■n -- - - -- - - - - -- Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands WPA Form 1 - Request for Deter - - D �u Signatures and Submittal Requirements Rev. 7 o/98 I hereby certify under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing Request for Determination of Applicability and accompanying Plans, documents, and supporting data are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that the property owner, if different from the applicant, and the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see Appendix A) were sent a complete copy of this Request (including all appropriate documentation) simultaneously with the submittal of this Request to the conservation commission. Failure by the applicant to send copies in a timely manner may result in dismissal of the Request for Determination of Applicability. The name and address of the property owner: Beaver Brook Nominee Trust John J. Hanley, Trustee Name 150 West 56th Street, #5905 Maibn; Address New York City/Town New York 10019 Zip Cnae Signatures: I also understand that notification of this Request will be placed in a local newspaper at my expense in accordance with Section 10.05(3)(b)(1) of the Wetlands Protection Act regulations * * ** April 3, 200, gnature o pliCant Date John J. Hanley Pnnt Name * ** *The filing fee of $20.00 includes this cost. I Page 3 of 3 Patrick J. Melnik Esq. Attorney at Law 110 King Street MAY Northampton, Ma. 01060 email:pmelnik@rcn.com Telephone (413) 584 -6750 Fax( -6789 April 30, 2003 David Foulis Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 436 Dwight Street Springfield, Ma 01103 Re: DEP Wetlands File Number 246 -495 - Dear Mr. Foulis: This letter is in response to the April 8 1 " letter addressed to me from Robert J. McCollum, Wetlands Program Chief and to the more recent April 22 letter. As I indicated to you on the phone, I have not previously made a response to any of your correspondence and, therefore, must conclude that your reference "to your most recent letter" was an error and was a reference to a letter or letters written by others that I am not aware of. In any event, there have been attempts to avoid the need to cross the wetland to reach the upland area of this site. The February 4, 2002 plan that you referred to was one such attempt, but that lan wa s denied approval by the Northampton Planning Board and, as such, is not a viable option. (See Exhibit 1) The more recent plan, dated March 14, 2003 referred to in your letter, is yet another attempt to try to reach the upland area of this site and avoid the need to cross the wetlands. However, this most recent plan includes not only the acquisition of an abutters' property to obtain access, but also involves the destruction of the abutters' 4 unit building. The exact terms of the agreement are 1 confidential and cannot be disclosed without the consent of the owner but I can assure you that the cost of this access may be prohibitive even if this plan is approved by Northampton Planning. This most recent plan also depends upon the approval by Northampton Planning to reach 6 other lots that have been proposed to have frontage on Route 9 with access via common driveways from the new subdivision and Grove Avenue. (See Exhibit 2) This "Approval Not Required" plan has been rejected by Northampton Planning and is currently in litigation. Unless that plan is somehow approved with Planning approval, or court order, the project is not viable. It may not even be viable with such approval. Therefore, since the access to the property through the alternative route has thus far been denied by Northampton Planning, and because the access to 6 of the proposed building lots is in litigation, the applicant submits that the alternative plans you refer to, thus far, are not viable economic alternatives and the applicant requests that you render a decision on the access from Route 9 as previously requested. This is the only access that Northampton Planning has approved to date and appears to be the only economically viable alternative. The balance of this letter is in response to your first April 8 letter. In that letter Mr. McCollum "reiterates" requests for information. The only request for additional information that I had ever received was the sheet given to the applicant on May 30, 2002 by Karen Hirschberg, a copy of which is attached. (Exhibit "A ") I do not fully understand your request number I in the April 8" letter since the wetlands on this site, in the area of the proposed wetland crossing, were previously delineated by a Superseding Order issued by your department in 1999. The applicant had requested a Determination of Applicability delineating the wetland resource areas in 1998. The Northampton Conservation Commission certified the boundaries of the wetland areas and that certification was appealed by George Kohout. (Exhibit `B ") As a result of field work done by Karen Hirschberg in 1999, a Superseding Determination Order was issued, essentially confirming the wetlands boundaries delineated by the Northampton Conservation Commission with minor modifications. The plans that have been prepared in connection with the proposed wetlands crossing are exactly consistent with the delineation that was previously 2 made. The field work done for the applicant was done by Charles Dauchy. The applicant would be willing to follow up with additional information you might request pertaining to items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of your letter. However, the fundamental issue that must be addressed by the applicant, and approved by your department, before any other wetland documentation becomes relevant pertains to item number 4. The Northampton Conservation Commission was prepared to issue an order of conditions approving this wetlands crossing, except for the adverse determination made by the Natural Heritage program pertaining to endangered species. (See Exhibit "C ") The applicant was prepared to modify his plan to pull the detention basin away from the riverfront area of the site, even though that intrusion into the riverfront was a de minimus intrusion that essentially related to the outfall pipe of the detention basin. The detention basin itself was entirely outside the riverfront area of the site. Also note that the riverfront area in question, with respect to the detention basin, is traversed by the old railroad bed, and, as such, the area where the detention basis was proposed was not genuine 44 nverfront" area, but was more akin to railroad front area. If the wetland crossing is allowed, the intrusion into the riverfront area will be eliminated with a redesigned detention basin. The applicant does not feel it is productive to spend more thousands of dollars in engineering fees to address the technical requirements of your April S` letter, or redesigning the detention basin as an academic exercise, if the issue with respect to endangered species cannot be resolved. If you determine, as a result of this letter and the information provided, that the "adverse effect" determination made by Natural Heritage has been overcome, the applicant will proceed to provide any additional documentation you may request pertaining to items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of your letter. Therefore, I would like, in this letter, to address what the applicant believes is the evidence that overcomes the adverse determination made by Natural Heritage. First, the information relied upon by Natural Heritage was generated by an illegal, clandestine trespass on the site by an abutter to the site whose property is alleged to contain one of the vernal pools where Jefferson Salamander eggs were found. That abutter, along with several other neighbors in the area, have been 3 ME involved in a coordinated attempt to prevent any utilization of this site that has been in the past as a playground for the neighborhood for dirt bike derbys, hikin g and camping. The other vernal pool on the site where Jefferson Salamander e were found is over 1,000 feet from the proposed wetlands crossing. gg The vernal pool of the abutter is over 500 feet from the wetlands crossing. No vernal pool is within 100 feet of the proposed wetlands crossing and there were no Jefferson Salamanders found in or about the vernal pool closest to the proposed crossing. The applicant hired Alan Richmond, PhD and Herpetologist, to do further site evaluation after the illegal field study was performed. As a result of Mr. Richmond's research, he found that vernal pool 2017, in the March to April, 2002, season contained 21 eggmass of Jefferson salamanders. However, Mr. Richmond concluded that this pool was not capable of supporting a population of Blue Spotted Salamanders without occasional genetic input from a larger more stable population nearby. (Exhibit "D ") Mr. Richmond was denied access to vernal pool 2019. This is the site that is on the land of the abutter who performed the illegal field study. The only information I have pertaining to this site was a report of information provided to me by Natural Heritage which indicated that 3 egg mass locations of Jefferson Salamanders were found on this site at the time vernal pool 2019 was certified. (Exhibit "E ") The application filed a request for information from Natural Heritage pertaining to the identification and location of the Jefferson Salamanders found in or about the site so that the concerns raised in your letter of April 8" letter could be addressed. Natural Heritage denied the applicant the right to obtain or review this material. (Exhibit "F ") The material that is being submitted to you is the only material that was submitted to the applicant to date by Natural Heritage. Therefore, since the applicant has been denied access to the Leonard Street pool, and has been denied the right to review the supporting scientific documentation held by Natural Heritage, it is impossible for the applicant to fully address the determination made by Natural Heritage. The applicant can only 4 speculate as to the rationale for the determinations made by Natural Heritage. What we do know from the information provided to the applicant to date, however, is that there has been no evidence of utilization of the Jefferson Salamander of the vernal pool closest to the site, and no evidence of observation Of the Jefferson Salamander in any resource area found on the site within 500 feet of the proposed crossing of the wetlands. ( "Exhibit G ") We also know from the habitat material provided to us from Natural Heritage that the Jefferson Salamander utilizes wetland areas for breeding purposes but, after the breading season is over, the adults and juveniles migrate to "upland" areas which is their preferred foraging habitat. ( "Exhibit H ") There is no indication in any of the literature provided by Natural Heritage that Jefferson Salamander would likely use the wetland corridor in question for any of its life cycle and we know from at least two seasonal observations that no breeding is done in any vernal pool near the proposed crossing. I respectfully submit that the making of the determination by Natural Heritage that all the wetlands on this site are "actual" habitat of the Jefferson Salamander is an assumption made by Natural Heritage that is not supported by scientific fact, and is not sufficient to overcome the plain presumption of 310 C.M.R. 10.59. The Wetlands Protection Act provides that the finding of a rare species on a site "shall not be considered sufficient evidence in and of itself that . such project is, in fact, within the habitat of rare species. " I would further suggest that the finding made by Natural Heritage, that all of the wetlands on this site are actual habitat of Jefferson Salamander and the Wood Turtle, is primarily an accommodation to the personal agenda of the abutting neighbor who made the initial trespass on to the site. Specifically, previous to this trespass on this site, the only portion of the site that had been determined to be "estimated habitat" of rare species was the most northwesterly portion of the site near the intersection of Beaver Brook and the Mill River. This was the most remote estimated range of the Wood Turtle that resulted from the 1993 sighting of the Wood Turtle near the Williamsburg town line. None of the proposed activity on the site, either under the current plan or any previous plan, was near any of the portion of the site to be determined estimated habitat to the Wood Turtle. In fact, that area included in the estimated range of the wood turtle has always been proposed to be protected as permanent conservation land. 9 ME Nevertheless, as a result of the certification of the vernal pools on the site, Natural Heritage has revised its Estimated Habitat Map to include the entire perimeter of this site. (Exhibit I) Also, the new Bio -Map shows the entire si "core" habitat for rare species. te to be Significantly, however, no area outside the boundary line of the applicant site has been included in the Estimated Habitat Map. Certainly, the Wood Turtle and the Jefferson Salamander cannot know where someone's boundary line begins and ends. Presumably, the Wood Turtle, if it utilized the Beaver Brook as habitat, would use both the north and south side of the Beaver Brook as habitat. Also, if the area of Beaver Brook to the west of Route 9 is habitat, why would the area of Beaver Brook to the east of Route 9 not be habitat? Natural Heritage has also indicated they utilize a 1,000 foot "radius" around vernal pools when considering for inclusion habitat for Jefferson Salamanders. It is significant that this "1,000 foot radius" has been drawn not as a full radius but only an "arc" that zeros in on the applicant's property and affects no one else's land. Even though much of the land to the south has been developed, there are several hundred acres of land to the North of the applicant's site that have been omitted for inclusion in the estimated habitat maps. The applicant, as a result, feels he has been singled out for regulatory attention, not through science, but through the willingness of Natural Heritage to appease the abutting neighbors. There has been repeated referral by Natural Heritage to this site as habitat for the Wood Turtle. I have repeated requested the Natural Heritage to provide me with information that would justify the inclusion of the proposed area of development of this site as the habitat of the Wood Turtle when the site was never previously included as estimated habitat to the Wood Turtle as a result of the 1993 sighting. To date I have been provided no evidence that would justify an expansion of the original Estimated Habitat Map. Specifically, the sighting that was made in 1993, almost ten years ago, was a single sighting of a wood turtle located near the Williamsburg town line. This is almost a mile from the site proposed for development. There have never, to my knowledge, been any other sightings of a Wood Turtle on the site or near the site. Further, even if the Beaver Brook were habitat for the Wood Turtle, again, I do not understand why its habitat would only be on the south side of the brook and not the north side, nor do I understand why the habitat would be confined only to the Hanley property and not to any properties upstream of the Hanle property Beaver Brook. Even if the Beaver Brook were actual habitat, the Wood Turtle on range is primarily along the banks of rivers and streams and the literature does not suggest that the habitat would extend into the area of the proposed wetland crossing. I would appreciate it if you would consider the material contained in this letter in making a determination if the applicant has overcome the "adverse effect" determination of Natural Heritage as outlined in Paragraph 4 of your April 8 1h letter. If you determine that the finding has been overcome please let me know so that the applicant can prepare the additional materials you requested by your May 30`' deadline. If you determine that the Adverse Effect Determination made by Natural Heritage has not been overcome, there does not seem to be any point in making any additional expenditures that would be necessary to address your concerns outlined in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of your letter. If you need further clarification with respect to the issues addressed in response to Paragraph 4 please let me know as soon as possible. Y , PJM /jn trick J. Melnik enc. Hanleydep cc. Northampton Conservation Commission, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Ma 01060 cc. Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Nancy Putnam, Star Route 135, Westboro, Ma 01581 cc. Department of Army, New England District Corp. of Engineers, 696 Virginia Road, Concord, Ma 01742 -2751 VA ME U PLAZgNING AND DEV'EL T • CITY OF NORTI-TAMPTON CitN Fall • :!10 Main Street, Roorn r , • .Nbrti)antpton, MA n [ oGo -3 1 g$ • (4.13) 5 1 -[ ±(G TtL� 57 [ 26 wm)ne fe?,.icn, director plctrurin:7t� rlltrlCilllr7 (rin"i�t,i.urg „ • m , a;rurtlrcnnrfro" nlanning.or,i FORM F NORTHAMPTON, MA April 11, 2002 Date NOTICE OF AMENDED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION DISAPPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS (ATTACHMENT A) To; City Clerk The Planning Board on April 11, 2002 by Date vote DISAPPROVED the following subdivision plan: Name or description Beaver Brook Estates New street names Hanley Place Submitted by Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Address 150 Nest 56 Street Ant 5905 New York NY 10019 On ,January 23, 2002 with requested extensions pending termination of the statutory twenty day appeal period. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS----PAGE 64 piann ingboard • conservationcontmissio>f • z0ning board of appeais • bousigt)arcnerslltrr • ►edevelop nlentawc[ a rity • n ortl74rmrl ton CIS ecmMiedavelopmem • coot M unity developmem • bistoricdistrictcomrr7ission • distoricalcornnsission • cenrr ME Signed 17 itC. � f hair, Northampto Plannin Board This vote of the Planning Board is my recorded in the minutes of their meeting. c.c. Applicant Police Department Building inspector Board of Assessors Board of Public Works Register of Voters Fire Department File Board of Health Conservation Commission After twenty (20) days without notice of appeal, endorsed blueprints, if approved, will be transmitted to: Applicant— 1 mylar Register of Voters— 1 print City Engineer— 1 mylar Police Department - print Assessors 1 print Fire Department_ 1 print Bldg. Inspector— 1 print File- 1 print Filed with the City Clerk's office on April 17, 2002 04 -02 Oi:O�PM P02 Attachment A Beaver Brook The preliminary plans filed do not show that traffic concerns can be mitigated nor that the requirements of open space cluster under §10.5 of the zoning ordinance have been met. Therefore, in order for definitive subdivision plans to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board the applicant must comply with the conditions identified below. Waivers: The following waivers 1,2, 3: 1. Request under §6.3 for a reduction of frontage for lots at the end of a cul -de -sac; 2. Reduction of right -of -way width from 60' to 50' for 350 linear feet from the existing terminus of Grove; and 3. Reduction of right -of -way width from 60' to 58' for 20 linear feet from the intersection of Chestnut and Evergreen; are approved if, in accordance with §3.02(2) of the Subdivision Rules: a. 10% of the lots or dwelling units are dedicated to the City for affordable housing to be created in accordance with §2.1 of the zoning ordinance. and b. A 10' wide pedestrian right -of -way and trail is developed from the planned Chestnut Street cul -de -sac to Grove Ave extension. 4. Reduction of the minimum radius of 250' to 125' north of the intersection of Chestnut and Evergreen is approved. 5. Waiver from 7:01(4)(b) centerline of all intersecting streets shall be a straight line from the point of intersection for a distance of 100' is approved. 6. Waiver request for a cul -de -sac longer than 850' and creation of a "dead -end" street is denied for Phase 1 of this project. 7. No details for utilities or stormwater are shown in this plan. No waivers from the subdivision rules and regulations will be granted for these systems TRAFFIC & PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 1. Snow removal on sidewalks within the subdivision that abut open space will be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association. Snow removal on all sidewalks abutting individual building lots will be the responsibility of individual owners or the Association, whichever is determined by the applicant. 2. The paved road width should not exceed 22' throughout the subdivision. 3. Grove Avenue extension should have a 20' paved width (or equal to the existing paved width of the Grove Avenue stub) starting at the Grove Avenue entrance and extending for at least 300' north into the subdivision. At this point, it should widen to a maximum of 22'. 4. Maximum design speed for streets within the subdivision should be 25 miles per hour. 5. A full traffic study showing projected traffic patterns in and out of the subdivision with proposed mitigation throughout the existing neighborhood shall be submitted. Traffic volumes using a 7 -day count, speed analysis and crash data shall be incorporated into the analysis. Applicant shall consider all necessary off - site traffic calming and safety improvements including sidewalks as a means to ensure safety on surrounding streets due to the increased traffic impacts generated by this project. Specifically, a speed table at the Grove Avenue entrance and a speed table at intersection of Chestnut and Evergreen should be 04 -29 -02 01:03FM P03 III .. T, incorporated. Speed tables at Leonard and Evergreen, Chestnut and Upland, Upland and Leonard and Evergreen and Grove will also be required as off -site analysis. mitigation, unless other measures are shown to be appropriate through the traffic 6. Speed limit signs and Pedestrian crossing signs should be placed on Grove Avenue at Evergreen Street. 7. Dead end of Hanley Place must be removed, as it does not meet the standards in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Lots with frontage at the end of this street must be eliminated. DETENTION PONDS & OPEN SPACE 8. Detention basin A should only be located in this area if absolutely necessary to meet stormwater management standards. Further, this basin should be designed to the extent practicable entirely out of the 200' riverfront area. Any outlet should flow through a $wale before entering the wetland area. 9. Detention areas must be designed and located outside the 100' wetland buffer. 10. The detention ponds should be designed for easy enforcement of the maintenance requirements and these requirements shall be listed in the covenants. 11. Catch basins shall be connected with manholes. 12_ Stormwater management must achieve 80% TSS removal. 13. Stormwater structures shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association 14. The calculation for Open Space should not include the portion of detention _U ds that require regular maintenance. 15. The reserved open space, being donated to the city as shown on the plans, should be dedicated to the City before any construction begins. The City reserves the right to take this in fee simple or through a right -of -way and conservation restriction. 16. The amount and configuration of open space should fully comply with the cluster provisions in the Zoning Ordinance §10.5. If slopes greater than 8% are included in the open space calculation, then a trail system, and /or possibly a playground should included in the design to meet the active recreation criteria in this section. 17. The applicant must include on the plans a revised table that shows that the open space meets all the requirements under §10.5. The table should show separate calculations for slopes, wetlands, 10 -year detention areas etc. 18. If the railroad right -of -way is part of the open space calculation, the applicant must demonstrate that they own this portion of the corridor. 19. The applicant must demonstrate a functional access to the open space from all lots. This could be accomplished by providing a 10' wide pedestrian connection from the cul -de -sac to Grove Ave. The Planning Board would consider a special permit request under §6.3 of the zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in lot size to achieve this connection. WETLANDS 20. Prior to the submittal of a definitive plan, all issues related to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program and Conservation Commission must be addressed and plans revised if necessary. 21. The property listed as "Lot reserved for owner' area= 33,500 square feet should be open space, as it falls entirely within the 200' riverfront area and cannot be a future building lot. 04 - 29 -Q2 01:03PM PO4 • 1. �t III 22. Lot 31, adjacent to the vernal pool should be eliminated. Flag lots 33 and 34 should be eliminated, but may be combined to create 1 conforming lot with lot depth no greater than that shown for lot 35. 23. A 100' buffer line should be drawn around all Vernal Pools located within the vicinity of the site. No disturbance should occur within this 100' buffer of the Vernal Pools. Permanent "no build" bounds should be placed along the 100' buffer of the Vernal Pools. ti 24. All lots that have property boundaries that fall within the 100' buffer should contain language in the deeds indicating that no disturbance is allowed within 100' of wetlands or Riverfront Area without permits from the Conservation Commission. 25. All construction for lot 49, including lawn area, must be located outside of the 100' buffer. No disturbance should occur within this buffer. 26. The remaining slash within the planned open space should be collected into small piles outside the vemal pool. OTHER 27. DPW requirements regarding water service tie -ins and adequate pressure must be met. No dead -end lines will be approved unless DPW permits tie -ins to hydrants. 28. The landscaped cul -de -sac island will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. 29. The other land owned by the applicant on the south westerly edge of the project, along Grove Avenue should be incorporated into the subdivision and the overall calculations for open space and total buildable lots. 30. All maintenance and ownership responsibilities for infrastructure and other open land identified in the subdivision must be clearly documented in a covenant to be approved by the City. 31. The City makes no representation that the streets shown will become public streets. The City Council ultimately determines this and all streets must be maintained by the homeowner's association until and unless such time as the City Council accepts the street. 32. Prior to the submittal of a definitive subdivision plan, the applicant must provide a legal brief to the Office of Planning & Development in response to Attorney Miranda's claims, explaining that the applicant has legal access to Grove Avenue. 33. The applicant must document on the plan sheets that all lots meet the definition of lot layout. 34. Lot 49 must be eliminated unless the Planning Board agrees to a smaller project on this lot. Such a project must meet the provisions in §8.9 of the zoning ordinance showing parking in the rear and providing only one curb cut. shwa ✓ 0� -29 -02 01 03PR P05 35. If Lot 49 is approved under condition #32 above, a sidewalk must be provided along the entire frontage of this lot and must continue along the property bordering Route 9 to [ eonard Street. 36. Prior to submittal of the definitive plan, the applicant must discuss street names with Department of Public Works, Office of Planning & Development and Planning Board to determine appropriate confusion throughout the City. names that will result in the least 37. All phasing of this project must meet all the requirements of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations as though the phase were a separate filing. 38. Definitive plans must show the total area planned for cutting trees. Trees on site must be saved to the extent practicable. 39. Definitive plans must show a construction traffic access. 40. Full water pressure and fire flow analysis must be performed prior to submittal of definitive plans. _ 04 02 01 Ppb PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Citq Hull • z c u Main Street, Rcu »n [ c • Nort6""IPttm, MA o t oho - 1 • (4 t S) 5 266 • rvx 587 Wo,hne Vciclen, Director p @nordiamptonl c nni c . r r i itno►Cliumptonli(c�nnin,y.ori March, 2 aa� John J. Hanley, Trustee Beaver Brook Nominee Trust 150 West 56` Street, Apartment 5905 NY, NY 10019 RE: 3/14/03 ANR submittal at Map ID (per application) 5 -6, 5 -7, 6 -18 & 6 -19 Dear Mr. Hanley: At their meeting on March 27, 2003, the Northampton Planning Board voted unanimously to deny your application for a plan believed not to require approval. Specifically, the Planning Board found: 1. All of the lots appear to have frontage on the plans submitted on a public street (Haydenville Road) and no other frontage. ?. The frontage for Lots F, G and H is illusionary. The wetlands along the entire length of the frontage make it impossible to pass from the road onto the parcel. I The frontage for Lots I, A and B may also be illusionary. The wetlands and riyerfront along the frontage may make it impossible to pass from the road onto the parcel. 4. No special permit or other means to provide access to the property other than along the frontage has been secured. 5. Without real useable frontage, the lots are not eligible for AINR endorsement. 6. Although the Planning Board routinely stamps plans "may not be a buildable lot" for lots than may not be buildable, this is adequate to cure the defect of an inability to show access over the front lot line. For your information, some of the governing cases for this denial are: Gifford v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801 (1978); Gallitano v. Board of Survev and Planning of Waltham, 10 Mass. Appl Ct. 269 (1980); Corcoran v. Planning Board of Sudbury, 406 Mass. 248 (1989); Poulos v. Planning Board of Briantree, 413 Mass. 359 (1992); and Gates v. Planning Board of Dighton, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 394 (2000) I certify that the Planning Board so denied your ANR application on 3/27/2002. By a copy of this letter I am so informing the City Clerk. Sincerely, / Y V Wayne Feiden, AICP Director of Planning and Development Cc: Northampton City Clerk,, Ll l L ` ► MAR 2 8 200 � + Oa 1 CITY CLERKS OFFICE NORTHAMPTON MA 01060 p among r • coMervatiorrco►nnnssiow. zuning6aardof appeals • lrousingpArtnership • redevelopmentauthoritg • nonjiarnpton ecowmiedevelopment • Comm" "itgdrue(01"" et . 6toricdistrict cam mission • fiis torica l conf,"ission- central business a rrbitecture GIS N rr $+� IK1 11'r \� 1•« 1 11�+W I In.r. I j/■ �-., _.. BEAVER U, Ir \ \ l //✓ j 'r =. r "s •1 s ! ■ T_ lt ►, � ,` pKll y, nrol ,T '-' r P t ';s GI ZONE DISTRICT fi t • b D i ACM I I 1 1 \ �� Drroi , tOtrr4 lnb 1 •a.° . ', , ' r />u , /: ..- '� arrot ,T — � ' _ ..,r fly o � ' ARtA "I ACIRES ' I �, I f 7 y k Y �1 ,I.T ►AACLI [ f r ry As rr �' PNICtI 1 Cii H 7 ► q ti PAA q ar r,atri — t rl7 I \ I/ff AREA AR[A AiMll 0 k PARCH P r 1 PARC[L 0 >ae SS7, I 10.71 ACM 1371 ACM &"7i ACK3 7 v �e y g ✓ , Allis r C ir::. I I S r rx'ot . bM'IIT r. PAREA 0 ■ 1 r,A f >e I �tfr lS r, � •S 1 �R 1 i~ PAR MQ J Tl P 5,.�A a� ait s,c f 4A22 ACRD ���: tom• f'Cp+aIr1O°S SL* r 1 d u ` ►J r'LT 7J. Isovc se61, r•.y 6, / f - wAa 7 � rr � �� �• + , ; >♦ • � r+r1 7'Ot. fl/tl PJO. J), rct Je, /'r - _ _ _ - - + ICIf71 � � S r � 6 . - Y scar tee. n.q /f) j wr'ro�... ° l I n _ ° «. «'.SI s 'w' • •°• a• SR ZONE DISTRICT ' -- -- -- " •o - �,,,,.� >• IAnat ur n m .ti .• w r l $ k • _ s r :►. '� MvSRK f rrrrf surronn0 or L- j --- � �'� °' - i - -- -- w�.: ..� �r : .�r°�+.e' �-` Q` j ft'J OM RlIRt1Pr 1 i [ �' r - _ J . 7000 M PAACf1.A a� "P . ter " S.R1.M MlfRpr a F;�p( ��1� k � - I RI SOVItf ARCAf f; ftr APt 8 txrM I r ra 1a1D'T IMAS _ {.lOS ACNE1 f . - 1 r f �� . ell.W AS'STLU rfti � + ,I tN A PIM[D IMtt at AI R t ?7. Ifee. r ( 1 �� � : v �' .sAa co�mL� r jf an ttowstuw ^' 41 : 7 , a! IA77. M JIN[ 2" e w. . I —t.rnm —rnra► nvv - �� .rss . / A . AW AS CtPrr s' ••.., e..n, ' r "� i I URA ZONE DISTR IRIrIRAC rR *1.Q AND tMogrfR[D ►n !>C w° x 1 bo, S�i1S rV I ICT Rn r.Rr� A WMrq II li - M,ry Pry lM j r0 ,'� = i I Mr m, nr •y lr � � r1 KMMbb OrrRY bu rl"InM K. mm f AKA I MORS14WntOM Sr(µM�,.�D ,��n r•Y Sv V S[� Sr. � 1 �_ � �_ L171 AL11[S NOR nSWnfON, S r/5 > ry , r 1 .O RM. IR. rn r.q 1r tlC I !1 i f� wt. fUbtgry, rprROl W I!ry:•$r11RC CC,�INrr hµ r�s nm -v,..n » «or . a. NORTHAA/PTON, AIASMd%% t 1 ( I � yay As r° rrrwon.r..,r, wnl 7o�r•¢ rcu.n,r: StARYLI'tD tOR 1 I — YI,rQ7• r.0 Pr. I JOHN J. HANLEY, 1 r THE B I ', EAVER 6R00 NOW � ArvrT a rt Dr .mn ISr MrV A N D ?W r•a D nr' a 'w rrt Pa�.cnrt Or r.vn r S^CMKC7rT VAQ IpRCIr e, 7003 EVERGREEN ROAD ^- /IFRITACE SURt'EYS. INC li l" / Rr CIS rcRtu rRUrns,D t,sMp �,� CFIESTN AVENUE f �svD ° p "A �a wD rr sn1[[T samsureroM 1 J Dp0eJ1 .H7 i pea veer Fr-ook NI?w►.u ZL ` REQUEST OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -DEP FILE # �y - � _ _ DATE APPLICA LOCATION Please submit the following information: a..�/ plan of areas subject to reg ulation under the Act - Bank, Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), Land Under Water LUW Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF), Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (ILSF), Riverfront Area (RA); Buffer Zone ) b. data sheets and other supporting information for the pro osed wetl than the Massachusetts DEP Handbook was used, provide a description of the analys s to ne he boundary) and the locations of sample plots and test pits; c._ calculations of the quantity of each resource area proposed to be altered; d._ documentation that the topographic contours shown in the floodplain are based on a bench mark or reference mark that corresponds to a USGS datum; e._ property line locations using metes and bounds (lot line distances and angles); f._ locations of existing and proposed structures /activities on plan, including areas to be cut or cleared; g._ existing and proposed topographic contours (2 -foot intervals, 1 -foot intervals for work in LSF); h._ location of adequate sedimentation and erosion Controls and limit of work line shown on plan; i._ site plan must be to scale, no more than 1"= 50', must be dated and bearing the stamp and signature of the registered land surveyor, engineer or qualified environmental professional responsible for preparing the plan; j._ cross - section drawing of proposed replication area, compensatory storage area or detention /retention basin; k._ documentation (including test pit data) that soils in the proposed replication area will provide adequate hydrology for the success of the replication area; I._ planting plan for m._ alternatives analysis demonstrating that the requirements of limited project status under 310 CMR 10.53(3 (e) have been met (Wetlands Protection Program Access Roadways Policy, DWW Policy #88 -2, issued February 29, 1988; n._ explanation of how impacts to resource areas have been avoided, minimized and mitigated; O._ a more detailed description of the construction methodology and schedule of work activities; P. filling and /or construction within BLSF requires calculations of the volume of flood storage displacement at each incremental foot elevation (provide a tabular comparison Of volumes displaced vs flood storage provided at each incremental elevation); q._ Stormwater Management Form and explanation of how the project design will comply with the DEP Stormwater Management Standards; r._ worksheets used to prepare hydrologic calculations for curve numbers, time of concentration, etc. Please include an outline of the watershed used in hydrologic calculations; s._ soils and groundwater information to support the Best Management Practices proposed; t._ alternatives analysis for work proposed in the Riverfront Area, in compliance with 310 CMR 10.58x4 Irl— L'� INFORMATION REQUESTED ABOVE IS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED BELOW: Appellant Conservation COmmision Send he required information to: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, WESTERN REGION, WETLANDS PROGRAM, 436 DWIGHT STREET, SPRINGFIELD MA 01103 -1317, s (unless otherwise noted) As he Department continues to review this project, further additional information may be requested. ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED MUST ALSO BE COPIED TO THE LOCAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND OTHER PARTIES. DEP REVIEWER AOSREQ(5199) WHITE - APPLICANT /OWNER YELLOW -APPELLANT PINK - CONSERVATION COMMISSION GOLD - FILE III __ i-3 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Governor 'JAN 2 2 1999 George Kohout 37 Evergreen Road Northampton, MA 01053 TRUDY COXE Secretary DAVID B. STRUHS Commissione RE: Request for Superseding Determination of Applicability, Beaver Brook Realty Trust Delineation of Wetland Resource Areas, 80 Leonard Street, Northampton Dear Mr. Kohout: This office is in receipt of your appeal of the Northampton Conservation Commission's Determination of Applicability, issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L c. 131 X40 (the Act), for the project referenced above. The Department will determine if your appeal is valid under the regulatory requirements of 310 CMR 10.05(7). As part of the Department's review of this project, a representative of this office will conduct an informal on -site meeting. This informal meeting will be held at the site on February 3, 1999, at 10:00 a.m. All interested parties are invited to attend. A Request for a Determination of Applicability (RDA) was filed for this project on October 28, 1998. The RDA included a plan titled "WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS, John J. Hanley Trustee of the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust" by Killam Associates, dated October 21, 1998. The Department received a plan revision dated November 24, 1998 depicting changes in the wetland boundary delineation. The Conservation Commission issued a Determination of Applicability on November 25, 1998, approving the delineation as revised. In order to facilitate its review, the Department requests that the applicant submit the following information: 1. a plan showing the property boundaries, 2. documentation of how the wetland was delineated. Copies of any data sheets, soil logs or other information used to determine wetland boundaries; and 3. narrative description of site resource areas. The appellant is advised to provide additional information in support delineation. Evidence of the existence of vernal pool habitat should also be submittedesired in the This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at (617) 574 -6872. 436 Dwight Street - Springfield, Massachus 01103 FAX(413)784 -1149 - TDD (413) 746.6620 Telephone (413) 784 -1100 0 m Printed on Recycled Paper (20% Post consumer) • G. Kohout Page 2 Please be advised that no work may proceed until the Department issues a final decision for this project. Correspondence must be copied to all parties in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Karen Hirschberg at (413) 784 -1100, ext. 240. Sincerely, l Lawrence Golonka Watershed Chief Connecticut River Basin Certified Mail Z 148 009 357, return receipt requested. CC: Northampton Conservation Commission Certified Mail Z 148 009 358, return receipt requested. John J. Hanley, Trustee, Beaver Brook Nominee Trust, 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060 Certified Mail Z 148 009 359, return receipt requested. Killam Associates New England, 8 Goffe Street, Hadley, MA 01035 KADAHANLEY.26 ON CHARLES H. DAUCHY, Environmental Consultant 24 Old Long Plain Rd. RFD #3, Amherst, MA 01002 Phone (413) 548 -8005, Fax 548 -9987 Karen Hirschberg Mass. DEP, Western Region Wetlands & Waterways 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 01103 April 19, 1999 Re: Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Superceding Determination of Applicability 80 Leonard Street, Northampton Wetland Boundary Revisions Dear Ms. Hirschberg: Based on our recent phone conversation I have reviewed the subject wetland delineation in those areas where you noted possible changes were needed, based on your independent site visit. Thank you for your careful review. Your observations of meltwater ponding, flow - paths, and high flows in Beaver Brook were generally confirmed by my review. Above average precipitation in Marchand a 1.32" storm (Amherst College records) created flow lines in the leaf litter and made low areas more evident than during the original delineation and local review last fall. In general, my changes are intended to include areas of apparent surface flow or innundation, even where soils are non - hydric. Mapped wetlands also include minor areas where the predominant vegetation is not clearly hydrophytic or where the balance is tipped by Hemlock (FACU) being considered a wetland indicator. The changes in delineation are summarized below, with ties to the original flaggin been reset by Killam Assoc. after disturbance b to g (some flags had Killam Assoc. as soon as available. Revised flags are double, blue & revised Originalfla provided s were by in place for reference. g left A39A -skip connect A39 to A39B. Logging has obliterated whatever upland indicators were at A39A. A42 - skip - connect A41 to A44 - topography is highly irregular. Change takes in a low pocket with borderline hydric soils. A49 - Skip - new line from A48 to revised A50. A50Rev. 39.5' from A5.1, 51' from old A49- Area severely disturbed by logging. Revision takes in low area with hydric soils. Vegetation - Acer rubrum, Pinus strobus, Betula nigra, Lycopodium obscurum & complanatum, Erythronium umbilicatum. (Not clearly dominant hydrophytic) ME A54Rev. 14.8' from old A55, 19' from old A54 - in conjunction with A55Rev, includes apparent flow path and swale area that dead -end in upland. A55Rev. 23.5' from old A55, 6' rt of line A56 to old A55, extended. A56 -58 comment: To east is relatively straight channel, possibly dug. To west is overall upland with a few isolated wet pockets. - leave mapped as upland. Vegetation - Acer rubrum, Pinus strobus, Fraxinus americanum, Dryopteris intermedia, Osmunda cinnamomea, Maianthemum canadensis, Acer saccharum, Betula nigra, Carya ovata, Anemone quinquefolia, Erythronium umbilicatum, A63 Skip - new line from A62 to A 64Rev. - revised to include apparent flow path. A64Rev. 38.5' from old A65, 54' from A62 - revised to include apparent flow path in low swale. This leaves an island with several Fraxinus americana, Acer saccharum, Euonymus atropurpureus, within mapped wetland. A65Rev 16.5' from A66, 2 P from old A65 - revised to include apparent flow path in low swale. Leaves Tsuga canadensis, Quercus rubra & Pinus strobus in wetland. A68Rev 11' from old A68, 18' from old A69 - revised to include apparent flow path. Tsuga canadensis and Erythronium umbilicatum on non - hydric soils. A69Rev 9.8' from old A69, 19' from old A70 - revised to include apparent flow path. Dryopteris intermedia, Viburnum recognitum, Acer rubrum, Mitchella repens. Non - hydric soils. A70Rev 8' from old A70, 10.5' from old A69 - revised to include flow path. B25Rev 12' west- southwest on line between old B25 and C55 - rev. to include high flow. B28Rev 17.5' from old B28, 33' from C57 - revised to include apparent high flow. Cl I & C12 - skip - connect CIO to C 13 Rev. C13Rev 17' from C10, 24' from C12 - revised to include area of apparent recent seepage and possible overland flow. Extremely stony surface. Several Carpinus caroliniana, one Fraxinus americana & one Carya ovata. This appears to be the area where most of the runoff and seepage from the intermittent flow paths to the south reaches the stream -side wetland. C36 - Skip - connect C35 to C37 - revised to include a small hollow. C38 - Skip - connect C37 to C39 - revised to include area of apparent recent seepage. C41 Rev 7.8' up from old C41 - 19.3' from C40 - revised to include upper limit of stony swale with possible recent seepage. Soils immediately above (south) are non - hydric. ME C50 - leave- on Hamamelis virginiana. Vegetation above: Hamamelis, Lycopodium obscurum, Kalmia latifolia, Erythronium umbilicatum, Panax trifolium, Tsuga canadensis, Quercus alba. Dispersed flow path(s) below A70A (A70 -1) - Easterly path shown on plan - extend approx. 10 feet based on apparent flow path in leaves. New, westerly flow path - flagged in field. Extends from A70A northerly almost to C13Rev. There is no apparent channel, but flow is evident due to disturbed leaf litter. Based on the extent of disturbance of the leaves, this route may carry more flow than the easterly path. Flow connection from "A" wetland to "C" wetland and Beaver Brook: Clearly, flow from "A" reaches "C ", but the most of the flow paths are not "a definite channel in the ground" as in the definition of "Stream" (310CMR10.04). There is no practical distinction in this case. The area is within the riverfront and therefor under protection whether or not the flow paths are considered "streams ".Any roadway through the area would require culvert(s) to pass the flow. The "A" wetland is bordering on an interior "stream" and also reportedly on a stream system that flows southerly under Leonard Street, and therefore under jurisdiction as a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Thank you for your consideration of this information. Killam Associates New England will provide you with a revised plan with accurately plotted flag locations. I trust this will enable you to issue a superceding Determination of Applicability so that the applicant can proceed with design for use of the extensive areas of upland on the site. If you need additional information from me, please call. Sincerely, les H. Dauchy encl: sketch map of revisions. cc: William S. Osley, Killam Associates New England, 8 Goffe St., Hadley, MA 01035 John Hanley, Beaver Brook Nominee Trust, 110 King St., Northampton, MA 01060 Conservation Commission, City Hall, 210 Main St. Northampton, MA 01060 George Kohout, 37 Evergreen Road, Northampton, MA 01053 L' GL,L tsUvtt iD rAUE 3 TAX MAP 6 PARCEL 9 1 8 _ �85 TOP OF STREAM BANK / 86 C3 B8 C11 C c10,: ' i �`� —� .�—►; 81 y4' B9 5 � � C6 \ �B20 - C /?� 1 �C B21 819 BI$ 817 816 813 812B 11B C14. l - �� ► / 115.. L B2 � C2 C20 1.19 C18 ► C17 D St C22 C1•6 FLOW PATi '823 VEGETATED ,-* C23 INC / -ol A70 -1 6 C49 \ C28 C29 �A6 \ C30 A69 A7 A67 C48 WETLAND � 1 :31% ?00 • �" E � �. — RIV LIN [ C47 -�-- ` ERFRONT 113OUNDARY 1 �f�74 C 3i7 (,7n C46 i 1 A . C44 C35� C34 A62 � - A5= C4.3 ► A61 AS 8 � 1 6 _C3.7 . R r5 \ C42 1 ` y A571 \ C38 ;� �A5 X11 C39 A52 A53 C40 A5� A48 A47� A 46 13ORDERING _ n4, - A44 \ i A43 *A9 A42 A94 A41 A97 , g40A �A95 A96 A 39 / 1 A99 -LAND OF A398 .39 EAVF,g BROOK NOMINEE TRUST I OHN J. HANLEY, \TRUSTEE n10o EED BOOK 5493 RAGE 23 Ass A101 TAX MAP 6 PARCEI 18 A37 lb. P A103 AA^C .1-1 � III COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Governor John J. Hanley, Trustee Beaver Brook Nominee Trust 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Mr. Hanley: MAY 17 1999 TRUDY COXE Secretary DAVID B. STRUHS Commissioner RE: Request for Superseding Determination of Applicability, Beaver Brook Realty Trust Delineation of Wetland Resource Areas, 80 Leonard Street, Northampton This office is in receipt of additional information for the project referenced above. The revised plan is titled "WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS, John J. Hanley Trustee of the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust" by Killam Associates, dated October 21, 1998, revised November 24, 1999 and April 22, 1999. A representative of this office has reviewed the proposed changes to the line and inspected the site on April 30, 1999. Based on the Department's interpretation of the site conditions, the following additional changes are requested in the delineatiion. If you disagree with the requested changes, you may submit additional information supporting your proposed line at the wetland flag locations in question. 1. Flags B21 to B22: there is a jog in the stream bank of approximately 7 -10' please adjust the line to reflect this. 2. Flag B24 should be moved up 5' 3. Flag B25 is at an inlet that appears to have characteristics of land Under Water and extends 15 to 20 feet inland from the bank delineation as shown on the plan. 4. Flag C42 is in the vicinity of a low area (associated with a skid road) just west of the wetland line on the upland side. Please include this. 5. Flag C51 is on the site but is not depicted on the plan. Please add this to the plan. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Karen Hirschberg at (413) 784- 1100, ext. 240. .ncerely, Lawrence Golonka Watershed Chief Connecticut River Basin This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at (617) 574 -6872. 436 Dwight Street • Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 • FAX(413)784 -1149 . TDD (413) 746 -6820 • Telephone (413) 784 -1100 0 Printed on Recycled Paper (20% Post Consumer) Hanley Certified Mail Z 463 433 425, return receipt requested. CC: Northampton Conservation Commission Certified Mail Z 463 433 426, return receipt requested. George Kohout, 37 Evergreen Road, Northampton, MA 01053 Certified Mail Z 463 433 427, return receipt requested. Killam Associates New England, 8 Goffe Street, Hadley, MA 01035 Charles H. Dauchy, Long Plain Road, RFD 3, Amherst, 01002 KIHANLEY.26 Page 2 � III N M C PLANNING AND DE"V ELUI'iv1ENT - CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Cityuaff - :Li a Main Stree[,R • Nortbampton,M.Aoio6o -3i98 41 31587 - 1 x66 • Pax 58 -t 264 Wayne Peiden, Director • planning @nori.iiamptonplanning.org wwn�.norrl7ampro►tplaNning.org TO: Northampton Planning Board From: Northampton Conservation Commissinn Date: February 15, 2002 RE: Recommendation for amended Beaver Brook Estates, Preliminary Subdivision At its meeting on February 14, 2002, the Conservation Commission discussed the Preliminary Subdivision for Beaver Brook Estates. The Commission is very supportive of this new layout stating that it represents a tremendous improvement over the previous plans because all lots are out of the riverfront area and no encroachment into or across the wetland resource area is planned. The Commission made the following recommendations: • Detention basin A should only be located in this area if absolutely necessary to meet stormwater management standards. Further, this basin should be designed to the extent practicable antirely out of the 200' dverfront area. Any outlet should flow through a swale before entering the wetland area_ • The property listed as "Lot reserved for owner" area= 33,500 square feet should not be planned as a developable lot as it falls entirely within the 200' riverfront area. This should be dedicated as part of the open space due to the sensitive upland habitat on this property- • A 100' buffer line should be drawn around all Vemal Pools shown on the plan. • No disturbance should occur within this 100' buffer of the Vernal Pool. A waiver of this radius requirement is recommended to protect this vernal pool. • Permanent "no build" bounds should be placed along the 100' buffer of the Vernal Pools. • To protect migratory paths for species in the vernal pool as well as those that require upland habitat, flag lots 33 and 34 should be eliminated and replaced with one standard lot that shows no further encroachment into the open space than drawn for lot 32 and 35. • All construction, including lawn area for lot 49 should be located outside of the 100' buffer. No disturbance should occur within this buffer. • The remaining slash within the planned open space should be cleaned up by collecting the dispersed material into small piles outside the vernal pool. plam"ingboard • conservationcommission • zoning board of appeals - housingpartnership • redev&pmentawboritry • nmr ampton GIs econ m ic dev m ent • commanitydevefopp"ent • �istoricdkrictcommission • vistoriwlco CC}ttYal(1HSi . ... A __,....j -- ---- - - -.. � n� � � d ' �M yr• ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Governor JANE SWIFT Lieutenant Governor June 25, 1999 John J. Hanley, Trustee Beaver Brook Nominee Trust 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 BOB DURAND Secretary LAUREN A. LISS Commissioner RE: Request for Superseding Determination of Applicability, Beaver Brook Realty Trust Delineation of Wetland Resource Areas, 80 Leonard Street, Northampton Dear Mr. Hanley: This office is in receipt of additional information for the project referenced above. The revised plan is titled "WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS, John J. Hanley Trustee of the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust" by Killam Associates, dated October 21, 1998, revised November 24, April 22, and May 24, 1999. The Department approves the delineation of Areas Subject to Protection Under the Act as depicted on the final revised plan submitted to this office. Please find enclosed the Superseding Determination of Applicability for this property. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Karen Hirschberg of this office at (413) 755 -2240 Sincerely, L� Lawrence Golonka Watershed Chief — Connecticut River Basin Certified Mail Z 462 433 443, return receipt requested. CC: Northampton Conservation Commission Certified Mail Z 462 433 444, return receipt requested. George Kohout, 37 Evergreen Road, Northampton, MA 01053 Certified Mail Z 462 433 445, return receipt requested. Killam Associates New England, 8 Goffe Street, Hadley, MA 01035 Charles H. Dauchy, Long Plain Road, RFD 3, Amherst, 01002 KSDAHANLEY.26 This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at (617) 574 -6872. 436 Dwight Street • Springfield. Massachusetts 01103 • FAX (413) 784 -1149 • TDD (413) 746 -6620 • Telephone (413) 784 -1100 0 Printed on Recycled Paper COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE � III — ).mnued 3. ❑ The work described below, which includes all /part of the work described in your request, is within the Buffer Zone as defined in the regulations, and will alter an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. This Determination is negative: 1. ❑ The area described in your request is not an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. 2. ❑ The work you described in your request is within an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ The work you described in your request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. 4. ❑ The area described in your request is subject to Protection Under the Act, but since the work you describe therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: Issued by the Department of Environmental Protection Signature On this 25th day of June 19 99 , before me personally appeared Karen Hirschberg to me known to be the person described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he /she executed the same as his/her free act and deed. of ry Public My C mmiss on This Superseding Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state or local institutes, ordinances, by -',aws or regulations. This Superseding Determination shall be valid for three years from the date of issuance. The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by the Superseding Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten persons pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 10A, are hereby notified of their right to request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 10, providing the request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten days from the date of issuance of this Superseding Determination, and addressed to: Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the conservation commission, the applicant, and any other party. A notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing shall comply with the Department's Rules for Adjudicatory Proceedings, 310 CMR 1.01(6), and shall contain the following information: (a) the DEP wetlands File Number, name of the applicant, and address of the project; (b) the complete name, address and telephone number of the party filing the request, and, if represented by the name and address of the attorney; (c) the names and addresses of all other parties, if known; (d) a clear and concise statement of (1) the facts which are grounds for the proceeding, (2) the objections to this Superseding Determination, including specifically the manner in which it is alleged to be inconsistent with the Department's Wetlands Regulations, (310 CMR 10.00) and (3) the relief sought through the adjudicatory hearing, including specifically the changes desired in the Superseding Determination; (e) a statement that a copy of the request has been sent to the applicant, the conservation commission and each other party or representative of such party, if known. Failure to submit all necessary information may result in a dismissal by the Department of the Notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing. 4/1/94 310 CMR - 400 � n� 310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 10.99: continued DEP File No. N/A Form 2 ed (To be provid by = DEP) City /Town Northampton Applicant John J. Hanley, Trustee The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Commonwealth of Massachusetts Date Request Filed October 28, 1998 SUPERSEDING Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, § 40 From: The Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) Issuing Authority To: John J. Hanley, Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Same (Name of person making request) (Name of property owner) Address 110 King Street, Norhtampton, MA 01060 Address This determination is issued and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery to person making request on (date) ❑ by certified mail, return receipt requested on June 25, 1999 (date) Pursuant to the authority of G.L. c. 131, §40, the Department has considered your request for a Determination of Applicability and its supporting documentation, and has made the following determination (check whichever is applicable): Location: Street Address 80 Leonard Street, Northampton, Massachusetts Lot Number: Northampton Assessor's Map # 6, Parcel #18 This Determination is positive: 1. ® The area described below, which includes all /part of the area described in your request, is an Area subject to Protection under the Act. Therefore, any removing, filing, dredging or aitering of that area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. The Department hereby approves the delineation of Areas Subject to Protection Under the Act as depicted on the final approved plan referenced below. Title: Wetland Resource Areas: 80 Leonard Street, Northampton, MA: John J. Hanley, Trustee of The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust, c/o 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060 by Killam Associates New England, dated 10/21/98, Rev. 11/21/99, 4/22/99, 5/24/99 Signed and Stamped by Glenn A. Ofcarcik, 5/25/99 ❑ The work described below, which includes all /part of the work described in your request, is within an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. 4/1/94 310 CMR - 399 � u. PLANN,L tNG AND DEV ELGPMENT • CITY OF NOR MANLPTON Qi(�7 Halt • 7 to Maiit Street, Raoirt i t Nort il,Uiil)toi,NLk oio(70- x98 • i413) S87 -1i06 • 1:e : SM7-t _2ti.E tibi(Yt 1pr,(i'n t7ilcit t11„: t 3VIt11L7' 1 ,(Ir( {1lt4 t i!Pil ( i) in tinl , ) Ur' Nit r7 'ii,ort h, 7i,ittir,lln7.7N r llrt fi • � J r:1 O( (okc:r 31, 'f )O I ltil",n Il.titl(,y, "ftt+r The Beaver Brook Nominee trust 1 mil? Wt -�,t 56 h Streit, Apt 5905 i rti, �i�" Iti(_il`_) RE. Ret ver Brook Subdivision Dc: - NIr. Hanley_ Based upon an initial rewi.ew of the plan sheets that you submitted to the Conservation ( 'cr 1!riiistiioJ On the Beaver Brook Subdivisictrl. I ha% made some observations about «flat :?ci t'lO!t,ll '1 1!b1maticlll that ,he Ti215i should siLp l y prior to sul�nlittal (`f the �jCtltlltiVc `•itLcll�iJlU1 plai:S. Ihtse LI in addition to tlTe :ir.'T215 l�Cllte'SteCl h\ the Consereation �oTti :iliS�Tt T at its October ?S`" hearing.. I understand that not all the plan sheets were included for the 1f1ff1tis;T0li rcvie\v anal that detaiis that ate requested 'below tray be on those rrlissing sheets. +i •!1:•.' (1: alit: ill ;lf..: fistcd art• Clio, ;e th:o l��'f - t' 1)f c'I;!17tP;it "j 1TI�l'l rc)b;lt t It ill t`a i!if t1 I:;'.;i the l-Ioard will not likely waiver. 1. Rio speed table or traffic calJZiilig is locatedat the intersectzoti of Grove and Hanle Streets. The Department of Punlic � �learl`, tutecl that they :will be -I (f iil�ng speed '.lnlcs at intersections of all nc.� stT ldi. is iorls ;tn.+ rnav ;ven retrofli them onto existing streets. This plans should detail this. ` zddiug a shred table at the abo-, e n :ei- .nones , :Ttcrsection 'WOLLld regW.re 2 additional catch basins to collect runoff at the cornel:s ~jthere no basins are currently desigzled. The Pla ni;lg Board also requirc -(3 a spr_ed b�_1Zip yr 1 ;tn�p at the en - y of the subdi ision at t1�e of the existing Grove venue, +. P ie tSC ii cl t tic hide T "It1Un:lle , .vhy :ltf , i tc t ri-.c mrigation including., the off -sit` sidewatks along Grove and mitigation on Lecinard Street is not proposed. A.ltei ative tlJaiion, .inch az� sid ewalk co? nkLcr un iii tI1L h11C: !b could be considered. P lease ;delude a Tie •.v open space calculation table, It appears that the ntlrllbers eau hat a110 do not meet the code requirenli!lts. Fi(lill a quick catculatioil. voii would'o required to provide approximately 19+ acres of open space, not 14+ acres. You tiiust road "', 1%s `tltrt the overall 1µ11d t :alcUkatlfill. (noie: yoti d o not hav,- to separate , _)pen spact by Carling district or distribute open space equally arnon g. zoning. dirtrictsj. h You htive more than 8 1, O ' slopes %vithi.rl the open .space and no justification about ho%v this meets l t0(8) tluough public access, etc. This must be quality open space" `1'h.e existing trail is not shown o il the slap that could help your Ju Related to this is a new o"I"!!i�l!rihon of Kits till the north ,idc• or(_ r. The�.e lots encroach further into the opett ,k r than the lots bona tht: p plat'. ".l.'hI$ Ma,y 111 tact detract from thr quality of th° open space that is has greater than S%, slopes. p1aM,Ntli)IN1ar:I • cuti.5er2ratiollcomnlissiolt zoning boa rJof apltoals - 6k.sirlY?Mrblercllip • retlevelopmenta • ltortlia GJS CLOil UN It C.i<'t'JOV) i WO t • LOW f Rt t ill t Yl c l 1- 40JUrIP1it t ,li,l T ii i L[1R fit l i,.,iu it /� CO, ic.ilt•org171 is! itir CP ,i tr71 t�N$l ri r' ;S< ircili ter. tare 04,pte at rillidil On recto eJ rtl r er � III Lane widths on the entrance road from Haydenville Road should be i I' to minimize impacts to the wetland crossing. This stretch should be marked "no parking ". .-additionally, due to the narrow stretch, granite curving Should Ise proposed on both sides for the poi - tion of roadway that is 1 V wide. i7 kllc'•i� icr. t,IrCr_rel 4'. u Caro 1y n M ser A Ii P �•. ,r1' t .LIiI � �_ � I'�,lnra�'f I't'(Uti[_; �l:iil�l�,tul Inc. JN 1P D The 27 March survey was conducted in the evening with hopes of finding adult blue - spotted/jefferson salamanders in the breeding pools. In addition, evening is the best time to search for larval marbled salamanders, another state listed species.. The 10 April survey was conducted in late afternoon. By this date, all of the early spring - breeding amphibian species had spawned so the focus here was to get a better understanding of species abundance not simply presence or absence. A summary of the results from these two site visits as well as the results of the previous wildlife biologists surveys are shown in table 1 at the end of this document. VERNAL POOLS The parcel is approximately 58 acres located west of Rte 9( Haydenville Rd) and north of Leonard Street in Northampton, Massachusetts. The parcel is bordered to the north by Beaver Brook and to the west by the Mill River. Three certified vernal pools and a fourth un- certified vernal pool are located on the property. The certified pools are referred to as follows: Vp 2020 on the southeastern corner of the site, embedded in a bordering vegetated wetland. Vp 2018 on top of the hill in the west - center of the parcel and Vp 2017 on the western edge of the parcel along the abandoned rail road grade. Vernal pool 2017 contained 21 egg masses of the blue- spotted /jefferson salamander (Ambystoma late rale /jeffersonianum). This supports the findings of the previous wildlife biologist who reported finding 9 blue - spotted /jefferson salamander egg masses in this pool during her surveys. Twenty -one egg masses might contain 200 —500 individual eggs and would most probably represent the spawn of several females. However given the high embryonic mortality of these clonal species it is unlikely that pool 2017 is capable of supporting a population of blue - spotted/jefferson salamanders indefinitely without occasional genetic input for a larger, more stable, nearby population. It is unlikely that these salamanders routinely migrate across Beaver Brook or the Mill River. It is also unlikely that such a supporting population exists east of Rte 9 for this would require that salamanders successfully migrate across Haydenville Road fairly regularly. In addition animals crossing Rte 9 would first encounter the bordering vegetated wetland and would probably spawn there. The closest known breeding population of any size occurs in vernal pool 2019, located off site, just north of Leonard Street. Vernal pool 2018 is located on top of the hill that forms the center of the property, between pools 2020 and 2017. During the previous wildlife biologist's survey, abundant fairy shrimp and one ambystomatid salamander egg mass were found in this pool. The Beaver Brook: Final report June 2002 Page 2 — c l- Directions to Leonard I Vemal 0001 1. Drive to 6& Lconwd Strut LCCCL% MA 2 Walkdovmstomdav 3- F " Mnaftw4 scOMWOEbOuMwakstnti&bwkl35' (IV 80w) Cerhfic VtemoA 'Poo 1 1+200 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & W ildlife January 22, 200�vayne ! . MacCalium, Director William J. O'Neil Esq., Jekanowski & O'Ned Millbank Place, 351 Pleasant Street, Suite 1 Northampton, MA 01060 - 3998 Re: Public Records Act (M.G.L. c66) request Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Northampton, MA Dear Attorney O'Neil, The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NI - ESP) has reviewed your request for documents related to NHESP Filc No. 01 -9552. The Jefferson Salam under (firz ,sxtm�z jeffervnz�mamz) -Lid Wood Turtle (Clory n. rir�mlYtr) database records are not sub }eert to the Public Records A ct (M.G.L. c.66, s. 17D), because these two species .Ire state- protected as species of "Speciai Concern" pursuant to the Massachusetts Endarn Bred Species Act (M.G.L. c. l.: [A). Enclosed please find guidelines for protecting these L -vo state - protected rare: species and their habitats in ` tts. The Wood Turtle record is from i993 and is associated with the Nlrll River and adjacem forested hanitat :n Leeds, south of the Williamsburg line. \X %Doti Turtles spend much of the active season uta land - feeding, nestui', and estiv,uiay. They use many different ha bitats and .are capable of Ion r ;M moverrents bemeen xt:tland habitats and mto upland habi *_acs. For this proposal, our initial assessment ,?f the Wo'o'd Tu,tte's habitat use or this site , �-as from analysis of ae:-.ai photos and previous observ;pions of the River Areas on t:,is site. The Jefferson Salamander- records are from 2CO, arjd .are associated with the vernal pool's on anti adjacent to this site. These records were submitted by a reputable biologist who regal ;r;v submits rare species observation fork to our office. Jef ferson Salamanders spend most of their lives in forested upiands, tra•: ehrig to wetlands only during the ! season. For this proposal_, our initial_ assessment of the Jefferson Salamander habitat use on this site was from analysis of aerial photos, information on file, and previous observations of the site. As you are aware, the performance standards tinder 310 CMR 10.58(4)(b) & 10.59 of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations state that "such project shall not be permitted to have anv short or long term adverse effeLts on the habitat of the local population of that species ". Our letter of November 5, 2C01 describes the habitat uses by the \Vood Turtle and Jefferson Salamander on this site. The actual rare species habitats and any alterations that ; re proposed to the habitats .are the issues of primary concern for our review under the Wetlands Protection Act and Regulations. Sincerelv, j i Thomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director, NHESP CC: Northampton Conservation Commission VO4L, file Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Route 135, Westborough, NIA 01581 Tel: (508) 792 - 7270 x 200 - Fax: (508) 792-7,921 An Agency of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement http:/www.stace.ma.us/dfwele/dfw/nhesp � n� (r A lternate Directions to Grove 2 Vernal Pool I. Drive to end of Grove Ave., Leeds Ma 2. Last house on left is 88 Grove Ave. 3. Follow path at end of Grove Ave. about 100', mm left, walk down steep incline to railtrail (old railroad bed - proposed bike path). Follow railtrail about 3090' to stone bridge over Beaver Brook. Turn right (N 60 E), follow brook about 550' until you come to two 8' diameter rocks together on edge of brook. Turn right (S 10 VIA walk up steep hill 425' to edge of pool. Directions to Grove 2 Vernal Pool 1. Drive to end of Grove Ave., Leeds, MA 2. Last house on left is 88 Grove St. 3. Follow path at end of Grove Ave. about 790' due N 4. Turn right (N 80 E), walk about 180' should walk into pond. q� p�o� pHaN� *4.4 -z` 1 ' 11 A Q A -11a EGGMASS LOCATIONS E OF FLAGGED WETLANDS A In ' WOOD FROG A - EGGMASS LOCATIONS S' WIDE DRAINAGE DITCH END FALLS SHORT OF VERNAL POND NOTE. POND WAS MEASURED DEAD X FROM WETLAND FLAGS TO p.{ EDGE OF WATER AT NIGH END A - _ WATER LEVEL PROPERTY WAS LOGGED INTO WETLANDS IN 19" W/ TREE SLASH PARTIALLY FILLING IN POND N A -ii W o-a o-2 A -Y A GY A -11 A -w PER I1 t DRIES UP RAPI LEAVING MANY INTERCONNECTED DEAPER POOLS- ITS VERY DESIGNATES TREE SLASH A - 17? INTRICATE t MAZELIKE A 1 _ Aim 100' WETLAND BUFFER A-w � A - m 107 WETLAND BUFFER WOODS- HEMLOCKS -� i MIXED HARDWOODS i THICK UNDERBRUSH in Q h A -pi _pa A -127 WODDS- HEMLOCKS i MIXED WARDWOODS BUTTRESSED ROOT A -0 TREES GROWING IN , WATER- CMAZELIKEI A -w A-. A. TREE LINE + A Ila A-gp A-i � -0RI A -W A -i A A -lai S >o. A.1aA r WWDED MARSH DRIES UP IN MAY _ 40 A -o7 Z. O / A -ua N/F A"p.1 -JOHN HANLEY TRUSTEE / �Al BEAVER B TAX MAP`PA�RC Lgi NOM INEE TRUST / QO TONE WALL N/F ! DANIEL T. KEITH / i JANE M. POWER / TAX MAP G PARCEL Z7}]p GARAGE i LEONARD 2 VERNAL POND Sc. -0' Ce. /k fie_ ( Yuri# _ Tao1 f`ZoLo Directions to Leonard 2 vernal pool 1. Drive to 80 Leonard Street 2. From back of garage walk 180'(S 70 W) ME sionof Fizhe Wayne F. MacCallum, Director 30 June 2000 Northampton Conservation Commission City Hall 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Commissioners: The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) received new information regarding rare species within the town of Northampton. Based on this new information the NHESP has enlarged Estimated Habitat WH6035 (see highlighted area on the enclosed map). The enclosed map should be attached for immediate use with your 2000 -2001 "Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlif e" map. This is to ensure that applicants filing Notices of Intent (NOI) will also be aware when they must file with the NHESP under the rare species provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (3 10 CMR 10.59 and 10.58(4)b). The Commission should check each submitted NOI to see whether the site locus occurs within this new Estimated Habitat, or any other Estimated Habitat in town. If a project falls within an Estimated Habitat the applicant must provide proof that the NOI was mailed to the NHESP so that it is received at the same time as the Commissions (see section C3A of the new NOI form). The new Estimated Habitat is based on a fmdin� jeffersonianum . o of the Jefferson's salamander (rlmbystoma The Jefferson s Salamander is state - protected as a species of "Special Concern" Pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act Regulations (MGL c.131A) and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00). I have enclosed a factsheet on this species for your information. If you have any questions regarding this notification please contact meat 508- 792 -7270 x151. P iaa 2a Huckery Wetlands Enviro ental Reviewer, NHESP Enclosure: Jefferson's salamander factsheet cc: Karen Hirschberg, DEP Western Regional Office Jennifer MacDonald, DEM Service Forester Natural Heritage & Endangered ndangered S ecies Pro Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581 Tei: (508) 792 -7270 x Z00 Fax: (5792 -7275 An Agency of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & httP://www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dfw Environmental Law Enforcement III COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS kvi EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 436 Dwight Street • Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 • (413) 784 -1100 MITT ROMNEY ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER Governor Secretary KERRY HEALEY ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, Jr. Lieutenant Governor Commissioner AUG Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. 110 King Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 RE: DEP Wetlands rile 1#246 -495 Request for Superseding Order of Conditions Beaver Brook Estates Haydenville Road, Northampton Dear Attorney Melnik: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter the Department) conducted an informal meeting per 310 CMR 10.05(7)(i) for the above referenced file on May 30, 2002. In accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act [the "Act "], MGL c. 131, § 40, and as a result of information gathered at the above - referenced meeting and information sent to the Department on March 28, 2003, April 30, 2003, and May 12, 2003, the Department hereby issues the attached Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC). This SOC denies the proposal to construct a fifty -four (54) lot single - family housing subdivision, access roadways, stormwater management train, and associated appurtenances within Bordering Vegetated Wetland [as defined at 310 CMR 10.55(2)] and its Buffer Zone (as defined at 310 CMR 10.04), and Riverfront Area [3 10 CMR 10.58(2)] associated with the Mill River and Beaver Brook. The Department has rendered this decision per an adverse determination letter from the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) issued November 5, 2001, in which NHESP determined that the project would occur within the "actual habitat" of the wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta) and the Jefferson's salamander (Ambystoma jejjersonianum). The determination then ruled that the project, as proposed, "will adversely affect the actual habitat of the Jefferson's salamander and wood turtle ". Per 310 CMR 10.59, said determination is presumptive, in that it can only be challenged by a preponderance of evidence submitted by a party or parties with adequate training, education, and/or experience in the ecology and natural history of the Jefferson's salamander and wood turtle. Since the date of this determination, your client has declined to attempt to overturn this presumptive finding, as per your letter of March 28, 2003. In a letter dated April 30, 2003, you cite the following regulatory passage in order to request that the Department overturn the NHESP's presumptive determination at 310 CMR 10.59: "...shall not be considered sufficient evidence in itself that such project is in fact within the habitat of a rare species ". This information is available in alternate format. Call Aprel McCabe, ADA Coordinator at 1- 617 -556 -1171. TDD Service - 1- 800 - 298 -2207. DEP on the World Wide Web: http: / /www.mass.gov /dep Z0 Printed on Recycled Paper � It Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Patricia Huckery, NHESP Wetlands Environmental Reviewer State Route 135 Westborough, MA 01581 Heritage Surveys, Inc. Mark P. Reed College Highway and Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, MA 01073 Beaver Brook Nominee Trust John J. Hanley 180 Riverside Boulevard Apartment 29 E New York, NY 10069 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands — WPA Form 5A DEP File Number: Superseding Order of Conditions 246 -495 Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above - referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, the Department finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. Check all that apply: ® Public Water Supply ® Private Water Supply ® Groundwater Supply ® Land Containing Shellfish ® Fisheries ® Storm Damage Prevention ® Prevention of Pollution ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat ® Flood Control Furthermore, the Department hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: ❑ the following conditions which are necessary, in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations, to protect those interests checked above. The Department orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. Denied because: ® the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations to protect those interests checked above. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect these interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted to the Conservation Commission which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). General Conditions (only applicable to approved projects) 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. SOC Form • rev. 08/01 Page 2 of 6 � I� L-1 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands — WPA Form 5A DEP File Number: Superseding Order of Conditions 246 -495 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP B. Findings (cont.) 15. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 16. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Department. 17. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his /her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission and the Department, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and /or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. Special Conditions: Please see the attached sheet(s) for additional conditions numbered through This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special condition pursuant to General Conditions #4, from the date of issuance. Issued by the Department of Environmental Protection: A� Rob J. McCollu On this 8' Of Aug 2003 Day Month and Year before me personally appeared Robert J. McCollum , to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she executed the same as his /her free act and deed. Notay Public My Commission Expires This Order is issued to the applicant as follows: ® by certified mail, return receipt requested, on Date SOC Form • rev. 08/01 Page 4 of 6 I� Ll Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands — WPA Form 5A DEP File Number: Superseding Order of Conditions 246 -495 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP D. Recording Information This Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also-be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on Page 7 of Form 5 shall be submitted to the Department and copied to the Conservation Commission. Detach or copy this page, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to: Department of Environmental Protection Wetlands Program 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 01103-1317 Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: Project Location DEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: COOK for: Page and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant SOC Form • rev. o8 /01 Page 6 of 6 *= r goo .. i MITT ROMNEY GOVERNOR KERRY HEALEY LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER SECRETARY July 24, 2003 Tel. (617) 626 -1000 Fax (617) 626 -1181 http://www.mass.gov/envir CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM PROJECT NAME : Beaver Brook Estates PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Evergreen Road - Northampton PROJECT WATERSHED : Mill River EOEA NUMBER : 13057 PROJECT PROPONENT : John J. Hanley, Trustee DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : June 24, 2003 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (M.G.L. c. 30, ss. 61 -62H) and Section 11.06 of the MEPA regulations (301 C.M.R. 11.00), I determine that this project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). According to the Environmental Notification Form (ENF), the project consists of the construction of 25 single- family homes and six townhouses. The site contains a four -unit apartment building, which is planned to be demolished. The project will be constructed in two phases. Phase I includes the construction of 19 units, and Phase II involves the construction of the remaining 12 units. The project site is about 60 acres of mostly forested. land. The proponent is proposing a permane.,at conservation restriction on approximately 36.73 acres of the site. According to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), the project site is located within Estimated and Priority Habitats for the Jefferson Salamander and Wood Turtle. These rare wildlife species are state - protected as species of "Special Concern ". The project is undergoing review pursuant to Section 11.03 (2) (b) (2) of the MEPA regulations, the taking of an endangered or threatened species or species of special concern, where the project site is two or more acres and includes an area mapped as a Priority Site of Rare Species Habitats and Exemplary Natural Communities. It will require a Sewer Extension /Connection Permit, a Superseding Order of Conditions, and a 401 Water 0 Printed on Recycled Stock 20% Post Consumer Waste EOEA #13057 ENF Certificate July 24, 2003 should fully describe any environmental trade -offs the project design (for example, whether avoidance species habitat would lead to greater disturbance uplands). inherent in of rare of forested From the information presented in the ENF, it is clear that both the wetland resource areas and the upland areas of the site, particularly those that provide habitat, are ecologically significant. The EIR should clearly delineate the extent of the habitat in upland areas, and should specifically consider alternative layouts that increase the amount of undisturbed area surrounding the wetland resources (vernal pools), to allow for an increased buffer between the vernal pools /resource areas and upland habitat areas. Project Permitting & Regulatory Environment: The EIR should briefly describe each state environmental permit or agency action required for the project. For each permit or action identified, the EIR should demonstrate how the project is consistent with any applicable performance standards and other regulatory requirements. The EIR should also discuss consistency of the project with state, regional, and local policies and plans (see Section 11.10(3) of the MEPA regulations). It should describe how the site has been zoned by the City of Northampton. Rare Species Habitat: The EIR should include a habitat study, which includes a survey, for the Jefferson Salamander and the Wood Turtle. All Wood Turtles should be tracked using radio - telemetry. The proponent will need to evaluate potential impacts to rare species (including indirect impacts from runoff into priority and estimated habitat) for the Natural Heritag,_ Program to determine if the project will require a Conservation and Management Permit pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. The project must also meet performance standards for rare species contained in the Wetlands Protection Act regulations. The EIR should provide an update of the proponent's rare species survey work. The project has the potential to impact several state - listed rare species. The subdivision design should aim to avoid potential rare species impacts altogether within the context of developing a site layout which minimizes overall impacts. If complete avoidance of rare species impacts in upland areas is not feasible, the EIR should justify this conclusion, and fully discuss the permitting implications under MESA. The EIR should 3 I� EOEA #13057 ENF Certificate July 24, 2003 The EIR should address the significance of the wetland resources on site, including public and private water supply; riverfront areas; flood control; storm damage prevention; fisheries; shellfish; and wildlife habitat. All resource area boundaries, riverfront areas, applicable buffer zones, and 100 -year flood elevations should be clearly delineated on a plan. Bordering vegetated wetlands that have been delineated in the field should be surveyed, mapped, and located on the plans. Each wetland resource area and riverfront area should be characterized according to 310 CMR 10.00. The text should explain whether the local conservation commission has accepted the resource area boundaries and any disputed boundary should be identified. Proposed activities, such as the roadway connection with Evergreen Road, the driveway connections with Grove Avenue and Haydenville Road, and the water and sewer main extensions, including construction mitigation, erosion and sedimentation control, phased construction, and drainage discharges or overland flow into wetland areas, should be evaluated. The locations of detention basins and their distances from wetland resource areas, and the expected water quality of the effluent from said basins should be identified. This analysis should address current and expected post- construction water quality (including winter deicing and sanding analyses) of the predicted final receiving water bodies. Sufficient mitigation measures should be incorporated to ensure that no downstream impacts would occur. The drainage analysis should ensure that on- and off -site wetlands are not impacted by changes in stormwater runoff patterns. The EIR should discuss the location of vernal pools on the project site and provide a plan showing their location. The fourth vernal pool should be certified and located on the site plan. For any amount of required wetlands replication, a detailed wetlands replication plan should be provided in the EIR which, at a minimum, includes: replication location(s) delineated on plans, elevations, typical cross sections, test pits or soil boring logs, groundwater elevations, the hydrology of areas to be altered and replicated, list of wetlands plant species of areas to be altered and the proposed wetland replication species, planned construction sequence, and a discussion of the required performance standards and monitoring. Water: The EIR should identify any impacts from the project on the local drinking water supply. It should propose mitigation as 5 M EOEA #13057 ENF Certificate July 24, 20.03 the DEP Stormwater Management Handbook when addressing this issue. The EIR should discuss consistency of the project with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) general permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for stormwater discharges from construction sites. The EIR should include discussion of best management practices employed to meet the NPDES requirements, and should include a draft Pollution Prevention Plan. In addition, a maintenance program for the drainage system will be needed to ensure its effectiveness. This maintenance program should outline the actual maintenance operations, responsible parties, and back -up systems. Wastewater: The EIR should outline the proponent's efforts to reduce water consumption and wastewater generation. It should identify if there are any Inflow /Infiltration issues with the sewer system. Construction: The EIR should present a discussion on potential construction period impacts (including but not limited to noise, the excavation of soil, blasting, dust, wetlands, and traffic maintenance) and analyze feasible measures that can avoid or eliminate these impacts. If blasting is proposed on site, it should be coordinated with City officials, and an informational meeting should be held to address neighbors' and NHESP's concerns. The EIR should provide information regarding the phasing of construction on the project site. It should quantify the amount of land altered, and any impacts on endangered species. The EIR should identify which portions of the site will remain undisturbed, and which portions will be impacted during construction. Hazardous Wastes: The EIR should present .a summary of the results of any hazardous waste studies and remediation efforts undertaken at the site. Conservation Restriction: The EIR should provide a thorough discussion of the Conservation Restriction (CR) implications of the project. It � Ilr EOEA #13057 ENF Certificate July 24, 2003 Comments received: Patrick J. Melnik, 6/16/03 Daniel T. Keith, 6/29/03 Daniel T. Keith, 7/1/03 Yankee Hill Conservation Group, 7/8/03 Lora Sandhusen & Friends, 7/9/03 Northampton Planning & Development, 7/9/03 Patrick J. Melnik, 7/10/03 John Body, 7/10/03 Mass Wildlife, 7/11/03 Jim Montgomery, 7/11/03 Daniel & Sandy Glynn, 7/11/03 Deb Jacobs, 7/11/03 Keith H. Davis, 7/13/03 John Daniel & Julie Akeret, 7/13/03 Deb Jacobs, 7/14/03 DEP /WERO, 7/14/03 Amy Bookbinder, 7/14/03 Michael A. Kirby, 7/14/03 Heritage Surveys, 7/15/03 E13057 ERH /WTG /wtg � I� Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries &Wildlife NJassWi/d/ife Wayne F. MacCallum, Director Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office, William Gage, EOEA No. 13057 251 Causeway St., Suite 900, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Project Name: Beaver Brook Estates Proponent: John J. Hanley, Trustee Location: Evergreen Road, Northampton Document Reviewed: ENF NHESP File Number: 01 -9552 Dear Secretary Roy Herzfelder, ..July -11, 2003 The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program ( NHESP) of the MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife has reviewed the Environmental Notification Form for the proposed Beaver Brook Estates and would like to offer the following comments regarding impacts to state - protected rare species. This project site is located within Estimated and Priority Habitats for the Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum) and Wood Turtle (Clemtnys insculpta). These rare wildlife species are state - protected as species of "Special Concern" pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (M.G.L. c.131A). The site also falls within a BIOMAP core habitat. BIOMAP was created to identify and map the areas most crucial to protecting the state's biodiversity. During the initial review of a Notice of Intent filed for an earlier version of this development, the NHESP informed the applicant that the wetland resource areas, vernal pools and Riverfront Areas on the site are actual habitat for rare wildlife. According to the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (3 10 CMR 10.59), projects shall not be permitted to have "any short or long -term adverse effects" to rare wildlife habitat that occurs within Resource Areas. The applicant was also informed that the project requires a separate review and permit under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00). The NHESP has determined that the proposed work and development of the uplands on this site constitutes a probable "take ", as defined in 321 CMR 10.02. Under MESA, both upland and wetland habitats are protected from "take" which includes "to ... disrupt the nesting, breeding, feeding, or migratory activity." The taking of a species on the state list may be permitted under MESA only if the applicant has avoided, minimized and mitigated impacts to state - protected species to the greatest extent practicable and provided there is a long -term net benefit to the conservation of the local populations of the impacted species. The NHESP would like to clarify a few issues discussed in the ENF. The NHESP has explained to the proponent, both during meetings and in letters, that the upland forests on this site are actual rare wildlife habitat for the Jefferson Salamander and that a permit under MESA is required. Jefferson Salamanders spend most of their lives in forested uplands, traveling to wetlands and vernal pools only during the breeding season. The Riverfront Areas on the project site provide feeding, shelter, migration, and nesting www. masswildl. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792 -7270 Fax (508) 792 -7275 An Agency of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement � I� habitats for the Wood Turtle. The Wood Turtle record is associated with the Mill River and it has been documented to occur much closer to the site than was stated in the ENF. Dr. Alan Richmond has conducted a survey of the vernal pools on the site and during his survey, another vernal pool was confirmed and certified. There are now 5 confirmed vernal pools in the vicinity of the project site, one of which is just outside of the property boundary and 2 of which are confirmed breeding sites for the Jefferson Salamander. Dr. Richmond has not conducted a survey for adult Jefferson Salamanders or Wood Turtles on the site, as it was not required. Additional surveys on this site are not necessary, since the NHESP records are recent and close to or on the site, the Jefferson Salamanders are using multiple vernal pools for breeding, and the upland forests on the site are important habitat necessary for the survival of the local population. A meeting was held between the proponent's representative and staff of the NHESP on March 21, 2003 to discuss the Conservation Permit application that was submitted for review under MESA. At that time, additional information was requested including detailed plans for the entire development, to include alterations in all phases, documentation of the amount of rare wildlife habitat to be altered, a detailed alternatives analysis, a revised Conservation Restriction and the filing of an ENF. The NHESP requests full -sized plans that include the limits of all proposed work and clearing, locations of stormwater management structures, and boundaries of the proposed Conservation Restriction. It is important that the proposed drainage system be designed to maintain the existing hydrology of all vernal pools and wetlands on and adjacent to this site. In addition, the latest vernal pool should be added to the plans. The reduced plan submitted in the ENF is unreadable. It appears that blasting may be required for portions of this project. The NHESP is very concerned about the potential impacts of blasting on the hydrology of adjacent wetlands, especially the vernal pools. We recommend that the applicant substantiate how vernal pools and wetlands on and adjacent to this site will not be affected by any proposed blasting. The NHESP anticipates providing more detailed comments when the additional information is received. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, Thomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director CC: Northampton Planning Board and Conservation Commission DEP Western Regional Office John J. Hanley, Trustee Patrick J. Melnik www. masswil � �r a Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MEPA Office Environmental E NF Notification Form For Office Use Only Executive Office of Environmental Affairs EOEA No.: MEPA Analyst: Phone: 617-626- The information requested on this form must be completed to begin MEPA Review in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00. F t Name: f ,A v e-A /3 , o o k IF f TA 7r_X eg- alit : Watershed: M, l c , %/ iR Universal Tranverse Mercat r Coordinates: Latitude: 0'l1 u di ' d.8-3 1 y ( ' q -1 " 4.1 Estimated commencement date: 6? 3 . Longitude: Estimated completion da 03 Approximate cost: acs a o- o Status of project design: 70 %complete Proponent: J 64, , ' 7 - . jq'4' l 4 - rTQ2 12 11,w ,,.cte - rx ✓1 Street: / " K A ¢ d 1 C Municipality: 4 ./ o^ State: W. Zi Code: Name of Contact Person From Whom Copies of this ENF May Be Obtained: PATtii ck 4 ,V J K t Firm/Ag Street: //,0 k ji✓ ft Municipality: 1 State: .,,.o I Zi5 Code: Phone: q - Fax: q,? -S` 8Y -67P9 E -mail: Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold ( see 301 CMR 11.03)? ❑Yes YNo Has this project been filed with MEPA before? ❑Yes (EOEA No. ) [RNo Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before? ❑Yes (EOEA No. ) ®No Is this an Expanded ENF (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) requesting: a Single EIR? ( see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) ❑Yes ANo a Special Review Procedure? ( see 301CMR 11.09) ❑Yes ®No a Waiver of mandatory EIR? ( see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes �No No a Phase I Waiver? ( see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an agency of the Commonwealth, including the agency name and the amount of funding or land area (in acres): ^eo, . Are you requesting coordinated review with any other federal, state, regional, or local agency? ❑Yes(Specify ) (ZNo List Local or Federal Permits and Approvals: Which ENF or EIR review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed ( see 301 CMR 11.03): e /0 e ./, Revised 10/99 Comment period is limited. For information call 617- 626 -1020 �y.. r �:• �- . _:,a'K.i.�r. ';'cy? .., I= Rare Species Section To supplement the responses to items I and II the applicant submits the following narrative: I. The applicant had previously applied for subdivision permits for development of the site, including a permit that was approved to access the site for a 54 unit subdivision that required crossing the wetland area of the site that is parallel to Route 9. Due to the finding of Natural Heritage that the entire wetland area of the site was rare species habitat, the applicant has revised his plans to provide for access to the site via an alternate upland access. In correspondence with Natural Heritage, Natural Heritage has indicated that any development of the site may involve a "take" of rare species inasmuch as the entire site has been deemed to be estimated habitat. The applicant does not agree that the upland area of the site that he is proposing to develop is actual rare species habitat, and does not agree that a Natural Heritage permit is required to utilize the upland area of this site. However, to move the project to a conclusion the applicant has applied for a conservation permit from Natural Heritage and has proposed to protect 36 acres of the site by a permanent conservation restriction to provide for rare species habitat. II. A. A small portion of the site, located in the most northwesterly section, was included in a prior "Estimated" Habitat map for the wood turtle. A single wood turtle was seen 9 years ago near the Williamsburg Town line, approximately a mile from the site. There have been no other sightings of wood turtle that the applicant is aware of. More recently, Jefferson Salamanders were found to be breeding in a vernal pool in the same northwesterly section of the site that was identified on the prior wood turtle estimated habitat map. (Pool #2017) Jefferson Salamanders were also identified on an offsite vernal pool ( #2019). These observations were made by a biologist who trespassed on the site at the request of the abutter who has his home adjacent to pool #2019. As a result of these observations Natural Heritage has placed the entire site on a new estimated habitat map. The applicant hired Al Richmond Ph. D., herpetologist, to survey the site in 2001 -2002. This survey confirmed the finding of breeding Jefferson Salamanders in pool #2017. Dr. Richmond was denied access to pool #2019 by the abutter. No Jefferson salamander were found in any other Jig vernal pool on the site. No wood turtles were found. No Jefferson salamander has been identified in any of the upland area of the site proposed to be developed by either Dr. Richmond or the biologist who conducted the unauthorized field study of the site. With respect to wetlands permits, the applicant previously applied for a wetland permit on a prior project, but has not applied for a wetland permit for this project. No resource area regulated by the wetland protection act is proposed to be altered. The applicant has avoided all wetland, buffer zone, riverfront, vernal pool and other sensitive natural areas in his proposed development and no wetland permit will be required as a result. B. The applicant contends that his proposed development will not "take" a species of special concern. Natural Heritage has indicated in prior correspondence, relating to the applicant's prior plans, that an alteration of this site may result in the take of rare species but Natural Heritage has not identified any specific upland area of the site that is actual habitat for rare species. Natural Heritage has only identified the wetland and riverfront to be actual habitat and the applicant has avoided all areas identified as actual habitat. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Citp Hall • 2z o Main Street, Room ii • Northampton, MA oz oho - 3 1 9 8 - (4 • Fax: 587 -2264 wa-9ne Feiden, Director • planning @northamptonplanning.org • www.northamptonplanning.org 9 July 2003 Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Re: EOEA No. 13057 MEPA Analyst — William Gage Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Gage, The Northampton Office of Planning & Development believes that it is important that a full alternatives analysis be provided for the proposed Beaver Brook Subdivision through the EIR process. The subject ENF description does not provide enough detail to adequately determine and evaluate all potential impacts to wetland resources and habitat, or to land use, traffic patterns and neighborhood integration. Though the applicant has submitted various plans to the City for the subdivision of this land, a full alternatives analysis has not been completed that specifically identifies environmental, land use and traffic impacts of each alternative. A full EIR should assess all potential impacts that development within the upland area might have on the habitat of the vernal pool species. The area of proposed development, while not within a resource area or buffer zone under the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act, has been determined by NHESP to provide critical upland habitat for the Jefferson salamander and the wood turtle, two state - listed species of special concern. The assessment should also include detailed information from the applicant's biologist regarding the large "uncertified" vernal pool that has been identified on site, but that has yet to be mapped. The information regarding this and other vernal pools within the same complex, both on and off site, as well as migratory patterns of vernal pool species through the upland areas to and from the breeding sites, should be documented and analyzed in order to determine all potential impacts from the proposed development. In particular, this may affect the plan for the 6 townhouses proposed along the Route 9 frontage. Sincerely, Gloria McPherson Conservation and Land Use Planner planning board • conservation commission • zoning boa rdof appeals - housing partnership • redevelopment authorit,9 • northampton GIS economic development - communit,9 development. historic district commission • historicaIcommission • central business architecture originalprintedon rupcledpaper July 1 I. 2003 Deb Jacobs 92 Grove Avenue Leeds, MA. 01053 413 584-3989 Ellen Roy I Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office E'OFA No. 13057JIVIEPA Analyst -- William Gage 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Secretary Herzfelder: I remember the first time I saw Vernal Pool 6201 8, It's the big one, set off` the path, a swath of water_ shimmering among the oaks and pines, the maples and hemlock- It's going on 30 years, but the wonder and delight in that moment remain- I was looking For ducks. I could hear a cacophony (-)!'quacking, I didn't know about tree hogs and the duck -like racket they make. I didn't know about the ephemeral nature of vernal pools either. When the pool had dried out as It's suppose to I tramped through thickets Ofq.101,mlaili laurel and past the shrubby wispy witch hazel to no avail. I Couldn't figure out where it could have gone to, This is the same pool that Patrick J. Melnick on hehall'of the proponent, John J. Hanley, of beaver Brook Nomince Trust (BENT) stated in his letter to the 'Northampton Conservation Commission dated April 5, 2002 that fie, was contemplating a request to Natural I Tentage to "decertily the area as a vernal pool" because the "area is completely dry," We were as you may recall in the midst of multiyear drought. 1 Melni i is part ol'an area that was declared a "rare species area" by Natural Heritage in June of 200 - > t14 h s r. ck by that time should have known that the pools do not always fill on time. It filled late that year. It was the latest I can recall. It was a tough year for obl1g species. Most years, the pool down by the old railroad bed (VP H2017) where Jefferson Salamanders, the primary species of special concern involved are known to breed retains a wet mucky corner. In the spring fringed poiygala (Polygala paucifolia) blooms in scattered patches and the occasional moccasin-flower, or pink lady's slipper (Cypripedium acaule) appears along side the well worn trails that pass by Inc vernal pools. Heading down to the Beaver Brook fi V1 IS, offto the right, are trailing arbutus (Fpigaea re.pens) our own state May flower. Fhis is the part ofthe property that I am most familiar with as my home abuts the old railroad bed as it follows along side the Mill River to f layderiville. The MEPA site visit undertaken OtIJUIV 10, 2003 by William Gage, the MEPA Analyst and Craig Givens of the Western Region of the Massachusetts Dl?P did not visit this part of the parcel due to time constraints. I do have an idea of'where the vernal pool that has vet to be certified on the property that was mentioned at the MEPA I fearing in Northampton's City Hall also on the I O' is and have been to Vernal Pool f 2020 and the one on Daniel Keith's abutting property (VP42019) another known breeding pool for the Jefferson Salamanders All in all, this is an area rich in wetlands, vernal pools and the river front with their varied flora, and fauna. The brook itself is a : Joy to walk alon-, It's best not to linger though when the mosquitoes and those pesky (leer flies are out \am delighted that BQNT iw proposing /o put almost 37 acre, inpermnouconservation restriction. 7um however concerned that not enough is known about the impact of the propose(] developmen, and what oMe,c\oWould no the ability n[ the Jefferson Ko|umandork`survive. A subdivision ofi9 house sites oRu new roadway and h additional building lots with Iwo coommo driveways will involve detention ponds, the rcn`nvd of mature trees and road salt io the winter and lawn and garden chemicals iu1ho spring and summer. |('y not unreasonable tn speculate that due to the placement and relative privacy o[ the hhomes which &y the way would have much longer that xveru�od�vowayyux!6oy are quite removed frumany existing road, that they will be McManainomanJ take up moro city resources like water and xmv,ord/an most o[nur homes do, DotontinoponJeamnot.inapeuodinNoc/6amp/000ndurekc4uoni|yovurgnu"vn and (ho/o/'oro|omo effective an can ho seen by the one already on 6vorgroon Road tor the abutting condos. The 6 unit housing proposed along Rt. 9 will be shoehorned Lip to the very wetlands that Natural I leritaoc did not want disturbed inm, earlier plan that Mr. Mdoick mentions in his narrative, | don't work construction but there doesn't seem mbeenough wiggle room to get a back hoe in there and riot disturb this essential habitat. > worry that development that ia not done with the utmost care will lead on the "taking nfuupo6os,^inthis case t jofl`Cra`n Salamander. | have been following 8DNT`a var proposals since the brp ,inning. | have been u` more meetings and hea than ) cou have imagined. We even had a neighborhood 1ug ad*, We dragged stuffout of our basernents and oUr fticnd'w basements and baked cookies and 1111.1fims to help pay the cer flees /n protect these vulnerable little mnphib, ans, h makes sense tumuioencourage �P j�Auaindimounmmcompnkonsivoha�/atmodyundtonquimmnR|K Oo the other hand, Mr. \1doick made i| clear olthe M8PAroviovv hearing that a multiyear study would roaJ! in the 30 73 acres of the site proposed for permanent construction restriction and o8�mdtn either the City o[Nouhumptonora local land trust being "taken off the tuh1o.^ Some oF1him land. down by the arched stone railroad bridge where the 800mx Brook flows into the Mill River ix former conservation |und the ui/yhad acquired by eminent domain for unpaid taxes. in u legal nwuunor by the Hanley on`op it was taken away from the citizenry and added tutheir parcel tohoused unu bargaining chip A *uen'| a|m nF|xnd ` but it momm u im|u the neighborhood | wou hwxtn see that o|nno with the other pieces that make tip the almost 77 acres pr b | believe inchampioning these elusive and uncommon creatures Most o(ox have never yoon |honz but *e have grown to understand that they and the Wood Turtle also of concern and associated with this site are worthy nF our support, I am hopef that oveo in these difficult economic times you guide this project in a direction that will benefit us all. The FINF was not enough. Thank you. Deb Jacobs cc Nancy Putnam Endangered Species Project Analys Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program Karen (6mchberg Department cf Envir Protection Western Region Office Gloria McPherson 0OfiucnFMaonog and Deve City ofNorthamp July 14 Deb Jacobs 82 Grove Avenue Leeds, MA0]O53 4i3584-]98V Ellen RoyHnzfe|der, Secretary Executive UtficeofEnvironmental Affairs AUw M8P/\OtDco R0E&Nol057,IMEPAAnalyst William Gage 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, Ma 02! 14 Dear Secretary I-Jerzfelder: � //; , . � --- '_-� | would like »n correct ao error inmy letter dated July ||.2003nn Beaver Brook Mnminoo Trusts proposals for development n[upaod that Natural Heritage has declared to contain a ^'naro species area" due to the presence nf Jefferson Salamanders and the sigh of the Wood Turtle. |o describing my first expe with one mF the cmrtifiodve pools oo the land (Vernal Pool 920|8)\ called wood frogs tree Frogs. It's the kind of brain cramp that wakes You up N 3um and onndsymu running downstairs hoping You kuvou'\ written something dumb which clearly y did, | apologize I've been working to sx,o several mature elms that have survived Dutch Elm Bixoamo and may now be taken down so Route 60 can 6o widened aspart o[u cbaogo\n\bodoxigop>anoGnrtbodovoinpmootn[thcOuono,Nnubu/nptonStmoX}oupho|000tbocpnojuc/ you may be familiar with i have trees nn my mind Since |am writing again | would like totake thixhrnemexpress my gratitude for the eythe hearing on July |V2003 was conducted. | had no idea what k, expect. VVJ)iamOogo |ho��KP/\ Analyst, made a pointo[inc|udiog all who came and in particularwas very kind to an elderly gentleman who can and does goonmgmo|length. Mr Gage gently reminded him \\ was hmo10 get back ootrack ||waxukiudooxx that did not go unnoticed, When complimented Mr Gage said i| was just part ofbisjob. \/v,aomjohwcii done. William Givens also in the questions lie raised gave rne a sense that although the state is dismantling so much of the excellent work that has been done in regard to the environment the people who are 101 are doing the best they can iu what are sure toho shorthanded departments Thank you again and (apologize for having tocorrectusloppymistake- r� cc: NxncyPmnum Endangered Species Project Analys Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program Karen irochborg Department of Environmental Protection Western Region Office Gloria McPomo Office o{Monnin& and Developmen City ofNorthampton July 1, 2003 Daniel T. Keith 68 Leonard St. Leeds, Ma. 01053 (413) 584 -5028 Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office EOEA No. 13057, [MEPA Analyst- William Gage] 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114 Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Gage: I am an abutter to Beaver Brook Nominee Trust's proposed development. The entire proposed building site was declared a "Rare Species Area" in June of 2000 by the Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program of the Mass. Fish and Wildlife Division of D.E.M. This is due to the presence of Jefferson Salamanders (a Species of Special Concern) found in two of four vernal pools. Three vernal pools are on BBNT's land and one is on my land. The breeding pools are VP #2017 and VP #2019. VP #2019 is on my land. VP #2019 is the dominant breeding pool of those two. The other vernal pools, VP #2018,Vp #2020, and the forested upland habitat around these vernal pools are important migration resource areas for this species and have to be scrutinized further by NHESP and MEPA. According to the NHESP fact sheet for the Jefferson Salamander, the species requires "500 to 1000 meters of upland forested habitat" surrounding each vernal pool for "foraging, hibernation, and other terrestrial and fossorial activities ". In addition, the fact sheet strongly suggests a "detailed environmental study conducted by a qualified researcher over a period of years, charting the movements of the animals to and from the site ", to customize careful development near the upland habitat resource areas. If a study is not done, the building of this sub division, as shown, will result in a "take" of a species. Therefore I challenge BBNT's position on the ENF- Rare Species section 11 -13 based on the above. Also NHESP has stated the Mill River and Beaver Brook water shed areas are Wood Turtle breeding areas. The Wood Turtle is also a Species of Special Concern. The fact that wood turtles are rarely seen accounts for why they are a "Species of Special Concern ". That does not diminish the fact that this area is wood turtle habitat. Maybe the wood turtle's status should be raised to "Threatened ". In 1999 Beaver Brook Nominee Trust logged the front 36 acres, what is referred to as the Whitburn parcel. The City of Northampton claimed ownership of a 5 acre parcel at the intersection of Beaver Brook and the Mill River. BBNT had a Forestry Plan. The Wetland Delineations along Rt. 9 and Beaver Brook were under appeal with DEP. The vernal pools were not certified at that point but were discussed at the DEP appeal site visit with Karen Hirschberg (agent for DEP) and Charles Dauchy, BBNT's environmental consultant. The Northampton Conservation Commission and Planning Dept were told about the vernal pools but had little experience with the process, NHESP and rare species. Instead of stopping the logging and amending the Forestry Plan around the vernal pools, the logging progressed, doing severe damage to the forested upland Jefferson Salamander habitat. The four vernal pools were then certified that next spring June 2000, by several concerned neighborhood residents, 1 vernal pool on city land (VP #2017), 1 on my land (VP #2019) that is connected to another on BBNT's land (VP #2020) and the forth on BBNT's land close to the city land (VP #2018). BBNT's land was posted in August of 2000. BBNT found a land title problem with the City's conservation parcel and proceeded to acquire it about the same time. BBNT was told by NHESP and the Northampton Conservation Commission there would be "NO DISTURBANCE" of the Vernal Pools, Wetlands, River and Buffer Zones. In addition a Mass. Endangered Species Review or MESA review would be necessary to establish buildable area outside of the buffer zones and into the upland habitat resource areas on the site. NHESP and BBNT began the process with a site visit last May 2002. Mr. Melnik of BBNT, Nancy Putnam of NHESP, Karen Hirshberg of DEP, John Body and Joanne Montgomery of the Northampton Conservation Commission, Carolyn Misch of the Northampton Planning Dept and Dr. Allen Richmond, BBNT's environmental consultant were present at the site visit. Dr. Richmond during that walk pointed out an additional fifth Vernal Pool and confirmed the previous data from NHESP. It was also pointed out, by Karen Hirshberg of D.E.P., that there needed to be additional wetland delineation and high water delineation along the Mill River and at some interior parts of the site to establish true buffer and reparian zones. The fifth vernal pool and the additional Wetland and River delineations have not been shown on recent submittals to our Planning Board and Conservation Commission, which worries me and my neighbors. As far as I know, the MESA review is stalled because of lack of necessary site information submitted by BBNT. This is a very complicated site with the intersection of Beaver Brook into the Mill River and the presence of at least 5 vernal pools (4 on BBNT's land and I on my land) with 2 Species of Special Concern. We also have black bears, deer, beaver, bob cat, turkeys, an occasional moose, palliated wood peckers, bard owls and many other birds and animals. Who knows what other flora and fauna exist here unless an independent professional does a detailed review? I am not against development within appropriate areas, but let's find the appropriate areas first. With that in mind I hope you will conduct an E.I.R. to make sure this proposed sub division is done with the utmost sensitivity and respect in the appropriate areas. Beaver Brook's E.N.F. is stating thirty one houses or units will be built. They discuss the 31 units in their narrative section. All will have significant impact on the upland habitat resource areas and neighborhood. The new road and numerous driveways, the long winding common driveways (which will function like roads), the deforestation, and lawn and road chemicals will all have profound effects on these two species. The 6 units along Route 9 will also be in what is considered upland habitat. It should be noted, my house was built in 1950. There were only 3 or 4 other houses on the street at that time. Since then the neighborhood has in filled to a much denser situation at a much slower rate. The addition of 31 units all at once will be a large shock to this habitat and ecosystem. Other areas of concern include blasting, traffic, drainage and water. There are no blasting records kept in our city government or Fire Dept but many of us have witnessed blasting at the end of Grove Ave (post World War 11) and the building of condominiums on an abutting property (early 1980's). These events impacted ground water routing all over the neighborhood for years afterwards. Obviously, 31 houses or units with road and foundation blasting and possible well drilling will impact ground water conditions for the vernal pools and wetlands as well. The residents here know this land and its history. It is a very old neighborhood. The drainage has to be looked at carefully. Detention pond locations with their high concentrations of yard and road chemicals have to be scrutinized. The rerouting of ground water from impervious surface, deforestation and storm drainage, may have severe impacts on the existing vernal pools and wetlands. Either more water or less water will upset the delicate balance that now exists in these vernal pools and supporting wetlands. Beaver Brook's ENF has checked all "no" in the transportation section. They are proposing 31 units which will generate 310 trips. Did they do a traffic study to come to these conclusions? The neighborhood residents have been asking for one for four years at every Planning Board meeting. Clearly we need a comprehensive traffic study, including winter conditions and effects on the existing neighborhood. They will also need a state "curb cut" permit from the Mass State Highway Dept to access Route 9 from their 6 units. That is not stated in their ENF under "Roadways and Other Transportation Facilities Section -I1 -13. Beaver Brook Nominee trust has always claimed to have enough city water, yet one of their first plans submitted to the Northampton Planning Board in 1999 was denied because of insufficient fire flow water pressure. Their plans were amended showing cisterns filled from wells. That plan was denied. Obviously well drilling will impact the vernal pools, wetlands and upland resource areas. Their subsequent plans submitted have shown very little information regarding domestic and fire flow water sources and pressures. This also needs to be studied carefully with respect to habitat. This project will have a major impact on the Jefferson Salamander's upland migration patterns to the other vernal pools. They need 500 -1000 meters of upland migration habitat, based on NHESP research, as stated before. That is the main reason for MEPA involvement here. Only an E.I.R by independent researchers will facilitate a desirable outcome to this situation for all the parties involved. I would like to be informed and participate in any public hearings and site visits that may be arranged for this project. As I said before, the Vernal Pool #2019 (on my land) is the main breeding pool for the Jefferson Salamanders present in and around Beaver Brook Nominee Trust's building site. Thank you -- I — - / d- - A Daniel T. Keith Cc: Gloria McPherson- Land Use and Conservation Planner Office of Planning and Development City of Northampton Patricia Huckery- Endangered Species Project Analyst Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program Nancy Putnam- Ecologist Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program Karen Hirschberg- Department of Environmental Protection Western Regional Office made. In the meantime, while we are still in the wet spring season, Mr. Hanley would like the Conservation Commission to do a site visit to determine whether or not this area meets any of the vegetative o,• other tests of the Wetlands Protection Act to qualify as a protected resource area. The primary vegetative cover appears to be white oak, which is not a particularly water loving species. Even though we have had a dry winter, vernal pool #2017 is full of water and appears to be a genuine vernal pool. The observations of pool #2018 were made the day after a 1 inch rainstorm that followed earlier snow and rain storms in the previous week. The attached photograph was taken on March 31 of this year. The year that the pool was certified as a vernal pool (2000) was an extraordinarily wet year and the observations made at that time may have resulted from an extraordinarily high water table. Further analysis of the site is going to be undertaken to see if this area is seasonally flooded often enough to qualify as a vernal pool. Mr. Richmond is primarily concerned with an analysis of rare species on the site. To date he has observed two Jefferson salamander egg masses and one individual animal in vernal pool #2017 (abutting the old rail bed). There were no observations of egg mass of any species of any kind made in pool #2020 (near Route 9). Vernal pool #2019 (off site on the Keith property) is posted with multiple no trespass signs and could not be observed. These observations seem consistent, so far, with the observations made in 2000 when 4 egg masses were located. Since the breeding Jefferson Salamander female produces several egg masses per individual, it appears that there are only a very few number of animals on this site, possibly only one or two breeding pairs. In order to see if there is a "mother pool" of Jefferson's offsite that migrate on to the site, the area abutting the property was investigated for vernal pools. The only additional vernal pool that was discovered was a small (5' x 8') pool near the St. Mary's cemetery across Beaver Brook. There does not appear to be a significant mother pool on site or nearby, and the few animals found may be the remnant of an earlier larger population that was displaced by existing house construction. I appreciate you arranging the site visit and the evaluation of this area as soon as possible while we are still in the spring season. p Sier'ly, Patrick J'Melnik PJMIjn enc. 0611eto)(53) cc:Nancy Putnam - Natural Heritage MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Telephone (413) 584 -6750 Fax(413)584 -6789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. May 1, 2006 Planning Board of the City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, Ma 01060 Re: Beaver Brook Estates Dear Mr. Chairman and Members: P1 ` , `` ?66 email: pmelnikgverizon.net patmelnikj rgverizon. net As you know, you held a hearing in connection with a preliminary plan filed by myself and my brother -in -law, John Hanley, in connection with a proposed subdivision of land off Evergreen Road, Leeds on April 27, 2006. At the time of the hearing, which ran late, a motion was made and approved to "deny" the preliminary subdivision plan. In connection with that vote there was no discussion about, or indication of, reasons for the denial. I refer you to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 41, Section 81(s) and the rules and regulations of the Planning Board concerning denial of a preliminary subdivision plan. In connection with the denial, the Planning Board must "state in detail the reasons for its disapproval ". As you know, the purpose of a preliminary plan is to get public input, to discuss issues that need resolution, and to give the proposed developer of a -2- property guidance so that when a final subdivision plan is presented the developer and the neighbors would know what the issues that are that the planning board is concerned about. A simple denial, without stating the reasons therefore, gives no guidance whatsoever as to what the Planning Board might approve in a definitive submission. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Planning Board reschedule a hearing on the decision of the denial of the preliminary plan for the purpose of setting forth in detail the reasons for denial. I hereby waive for myself and John Hanley any rights of strict compliance with the statutory time periods within which the Planning Board must undertake actions on preliminary plans. If the Planning Board was inclined to reopen the public hearing to reconsider its vote on the preliminary plan, I would also waive time standards for this purpose as well. I realize it was late in the evening, midnight, when the planning board reached its conclusion and there was another hearing scheduled after ours. It was also unfortunate that the letter from the Conservation Commission expressing its opposition came into the record at the end of the meeting. Under your subdivision rules any comments from City boards are supposed to be made within 15 days of submission of the plan. The letter should not have been accepted by the Board as we had no opportunity to respond to its contents. We were not made aware of the meeting of the Commission when this plan was discussed by them. We are now in the process of seeking to determine if the concerns of the Commission can be addressed in the context of the current plan. I think it would be useful for the Planning Board to reconvene to render the detailed decision as to the reasons for denial so that any re- submission can be a knowing one and adequately address the concerns of the Planning Board. I would like to come out of this process with some clear direction. Specifically, from what I heard at the hearing I am unable to understand the Planning Board's decision on the following issues that were brought up in connection with the review of the plan: 1. Will the planning board grant a waiver of the 500 foot cul -de -sac rule? 2. If the planning board will grant a waiver, what conditions will the planning board impose upon such waiver? 991! (a) Will it accept the waiver in exchange for a deed of the 17 acre open space parcel to the city? (b) Will it accept the waiver in exchange for the developer creating two units of affordable housing and not conveying the open space to the city? (c) Will it accept the waiver only on the condition that the 6 out lots, a, b, c, d, e and f be eliminated? Related issues to the issue to the length of the cul -de -sac are the following: 1. Is there a ceiling on the number of housing units that the planning board would find acceptable to consider in connection with the subdivision of this land? 2. Would the planning board prefer that the roadway be looped from Evergreen Road back to Grove Avenue to prevent the creation of a dead end street? These plans have been reviewed by various planning boards over the past eight years and, apart from the initial plan of 54 lots that was preliminary approved by the planning board, the planning board has denied the alternative development options that have been presented. However, each time a development option was presented the planning board did not like, plans have been modified to try to address the concerns of the planning board. Most recently, as I indicated at the hearing, there was proposed loop between Grove Avenue and Evergreen Road that would have created over 40 lots. The planning board and the neighborhood appeared to object to the looping of the road as well as to the number of units being proposed, and the plans were accordingly re -drawn to eliminate the loo in of the road and to eliminate 16 housing units. p g There are two development options, a. no lot line cluster and b. a loop road from Evergreen to Grove, that would not require waivers. Neither of these options, in my opinion, are as good as the proposed plan. Without clear guidance from Planning, however, I will be forced to pursue a plan that complies with all the rules C! with no waivers that may not be in the City's or neighborhood's best interest. I appreciate your cooperation in rescheduling this matter for hearing for the purpose of making a detailed decision with respect for the specific reasons for disapproval as outlined in the subdivision regulations or for reconsidering the vote on denial. PJM /j 1p 0506leto)(10 -12) f y, J. Melnik PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON To: City Clerk Citp Haft • 21 o Main Street, Room ii • Northampton, MA of o60 -3198 • (413) 587 - 1266 • Fax: 587 - 1264 Wavgne Feiden, Director www.NorthamptonMa.gov NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION DENIAL The Planning Board on April 27, 2006 by 7 -0 DENIED the following preliminary subdivision plan: "Mixed Residential Cluster, Beaver Brook Estates ", prepared by Heritage Surveys, Inc. for John J. Hanley, Trustee, Beaver Brook Nominee Trust, Patrick J. Melnik. Dated February 6, 2006, Revised April 19, 2006, Submitted by: Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 Signed ��, 5�77� Chair, N a pton Planning Board Date: 5/2/06 The Planning Board found that the preliminary subdivision, as submitted with a cluster open space, did not meet the criteria in the subdivision rules given the waivers requested for the creation of a cul -de -sac extended beyond that which is allowed, the elimination of the hammerhead, and fire flow requirements. The Board determined that it would not be appropriate to grant waivers for the project shown given the sensitive nature of land on which the subdivision is proposed without further work to reduce the overall impact. During deliberation, the Board determined that if the following design changes were incorporated, the Board would be willing to grant a waiver for the street length: Elimination of lots 20 -26 and the associated building /clearing footprints and driveways as shown on plans dated February 6, 2006 (Lots A -F as shown on plans with Rev. Date of April 19, 2006). In addition to the guidance on the reconfiguration of the lots, the Board discussed other issues that would need to be addressed to comply with the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land including: 1. Submission of a full traffic analysis that should be conducted that evaluates traffic calming measures for the surrounding neighborhood intersections. Sidewalks and traffic calming devices may be required as mitigation. Prior to study, applicant shall consult with Office of Planning and Development to ensure that all applicable intersections are being analyzed. 2. A private booster pump system for the subdivision shall be required if 500 gpm standard cannot be met. The Designs shall be approved through the definitive subdivision process. planning board • conservation commission • zoning 6ardo o f appeals • housing partnership • redevelopment authoritvq • northampton GIS economic development - communitN development . historic district commission - historical commission - central6usiness architecture originaI printed on regcled paper • 3. The Board reserves the right to apply other conditions and or evaluation upon review of definitive subdivision data and technical information required at that stage. Though not discussed specifically, departmental comments related to various infrastructure improvements are: 1. Catch basins shall be spaced in accordance to subdivision rules. 2. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Recommendations. 3. If there is high groundwater, a subdivision -wide system for installation of footing /foundation drains must be submitted and addressed comprehensively at the definitive stage and will not be considered on a lot - by -lot basis. 4. A stormwater permit application must be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to submission of the definitive subdivision. 5. The detention ponds should be designed for easy enforcement of maintenance and the covenants. 6. Catch basins shall be connected with manholes. 7. Stormwater management must achieve 80% TSS removal. 8. Stormwater structures shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association 9. All waivers from the subdivision rules must be specifically requested at the time definitive subdivision plans are submitted. 10. In accordance with concerns of the Board of Health, the applicant shall submit as part of the definitive subdivision, soil logs to for all detention basins showing the hightes observed water and mottling. Depending upon results, mosquito control may be necessary and shall be designed accordingly through bio /eco- remediation or other methods. 11. Definitive plans must show the total area planned for cutting trees. Trees on site must be saved to the extent practicable This vote of the Planning Board is duly recorded in the minutes of their meeting. C.C. Applicant Police Department Building Inspector Board of Assessors Board of Public Works Register of Voters Fire Department File Board of Health Conservation Commission After twenty (20) days without notice of appeal, endorsed blueprints, if approved, will be transmitted to: Applicant -- 1 mylar Register of Voters -- 1 print City Engineer -- 1 mylar Police Department - -1 print Assessors -- 1 print Fire Department -- 1 print Bldg. Inspector -- 1 print File -- 1 print 04/27/06 04:00pm P. 002 • — INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: N'0101 I,N,%Ilyl'()N Ill. NNNING, BOARD FROM- NFI) I fi-INTI.FY, /ASSISTAN 1'(T1Y SUBJECT: 1W,_N\'k,R Bt((X)K FSTATFS flit INAIZYSUBDIVISION DATE• 1PRI1,27,2000 CC: 1:1111J, ABOVF. BUT CANNOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE PLAN BASFI) (IN)N'I'l TH F013,0WING ('(),\4XfFNTS; 1. WATER: a. Fasemeni: line for the cross-country water line were not shown. b. The applicant, through other applications for projects on this land has not given sufficient i I submitted ,, icient 'nformation to evaluate water issues. Previous information subn itted shows that adequate pressure and fire flows arc not met. No public water is available. Provisions to provide potable water must be addressed in future revisions to any plans. If /when a way to tic-in to the City water system is eventually approved, no dead-ends will be allowed unless the dead -end occurs at a hydrant AND has received written permission froth the I division that allows this. No tie-ins to waterline will be allowed after, the list hydrant. c. Definitive plan must show all shut-off-, and gate valves, and where individual services shall fie into each lot. 2. Street Construction/ Layout: a, No borings for street construction were submitted. Ivfust be submitted with Definitive plans. b. Is street cast of station 6+25a private driveway or proposed street? If a proposed Street, it Must have a cul-de-sac or. a hammerhead shown. c. Applicant needs to submit profile(s) of utilities for further evaluation. d. All proposed utility casements must be shown on a. Definitive Plan. All. proposed gas and electric line locations must be shown in relation to proposed utility locations. I Orig*al date: 4/18/03 04/27/06 04:00pm P. 00 • e. Island at the center of the cul -de -sac should be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and should be so stated within all legal homeowner's association documents. f As available personnel resources decrease and budget constraints tighten, the DPW will recommend to the Board of Public Works the street retrain a private way, if requested to be accepted, by the City. g• Where will the clecttical service and /or gas services be located in relation to other major uUlities� h. .Although the DPW supports the alignment of the new road with Chestnut Avenue, the DPW does not believe Chestnut Avenue should continue through the intersection. The proposecl street should have a separate name. 3. Stormwater Systetn: a. No stormwater calculations were with the DPI'. submitted, nor was a Stormwater- Permit applied f h. Drainage calculations must be submitted to the DPI', stamped by a P.F. All stormwater management systetns must meet 11)e City Stormwater Ordinance. C. All stormwater detention /retention system- must be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Detailed maintenance plan should be submitted for all drainage structures to be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. d. Driveway runoff will not be allowed to sheet flow into the roadway and must be addressed on each lot. e. Carchbasins should have deep sumps installed. All details for catchbasins and detention pond~ must be submitted for review with definitive plan. 4• Sewer System: a. No sewer use calculations were submitted_ No details of sewer sYstem submitted. Cannot evaluate. Oeanonts required at property line. 1) •HERITAGE SURVEYS fNC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail. bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com April 24, 2006 City of Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street - City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Beaver Brook Estates Preliminary Cluster Subdivision Plan Evergreen Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Dear Board Members: To better clarify the scope of this project and as discussed with Douglas McDonald at Northampton DPW, we have revised the Preliminary Cluster Subdivision Plan with a revision date of April 19, 2006 and are re- submitting sixteen full scale prints of a plan entitled, Cluster Subdivision Plan, dated February 6, 2006, and revised April 19, 2006, prepared for Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts. Also enclosed are seven reduced size (11" x 17 ") copies of the revised Cluster Subdivision Plan. The proposed Cluster Subdivision Plan contains nineteen (19) new building lots and a cul -de -sac roadway connecting to Evergreen Road. The plan also show Parcels A thru F having frontage on Hydenville Road and are not part of the proposed Preliminary Cluster Subdivision. Parcels A thru F will be file at a later date under the provisions of "Approval Not Required" and for Special Permits for the common driveways to access the proposed houses as shown. The Custer Plan outlines a parcel of land that is currently owned by Patrick J. Melnik and is not part of this Application for Approval of the Cluster Subdivision Plan. The same two waivers are being requested with this Preliminary Subdivision Submission. According to the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, Section 7:00 Design Standards, 7:01, 5a, a proposed street shall be less than five hundred feet (5001. The proposed cul -de -sac is seven hundred eighty eight feet (7881 from Evergreen Road to the center of the cul -de -sac and eight hundred and seventy feet (8701 from Evergreen Road to the rear street line. The second waiver requested is to eliminate the hammerhead at the end of the extended pavement off the proposed cul -de -sac, which will serve lots 12, 13, 14 & 15 and connect to the proposed common driveways for parcels D, E & F. A hammerhead roadway is allowed under Section 7 :01 5f of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land. I have also enclosed a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. McDonald from William A. Canon, dated April 19, 2006 for your files. Please call me if you have questions regarding this re- submission. Sincerely, ark P. Reed cc: Douglas McDonald, Northampton DPW The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Patrick J. Melnik William A. Canon • April 19, 2006 Mr. Douglas McDonald Environmental Engineer City of Northampton DPW Department of Public Works 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 -2066 Re: Condominium Project at Beaver Brook Estates Dear Mr. McDonald, L A N D S C A P E ARCH[ T E C T U R E E N V I R ON MEN T A L D E S I G N C O M M U N I T Y P L A N N I N G 1 S8 NORTHAMPTON STREET E A S T H A M P TO N, M A 0 1 0 2 7 T E L. 4 1 1 S 2 7- 6 5 1 5 F A% 4 1 1 1 2 7 6 1 8 9 O F F I C E F9 C A N O N L A. C O M I am in receipt of a letter issued by you dated April 19, 2006 which states that the lot number shown on the site plan constitutes this project as part of the Cluster Subdivision Plan and therefore is required to be part of it for the purposes of the Storm Water Management Plan. I respectfully request that you accept what I consider to be an error on the plan indicating the project site as "Lot 24" which is not the case. The project has been purchased by Patrick J. Melnik (Book 8333, Page 275) and is being developed as a totally separate entity not contingent on the Cluster Subdivision Development. The 5.61 acre site provides sufficient open space for the units, the utilities for project are separate and the site is fairly isolated 600' away from the Cluster Subdivision Plan. Although this project disturbs only 30,000 s.£, under one acre, the plan incorporates adequate storm water management practices and protection for erosion control. If you should have any further questions as the legality of the parcels separate ownership and identity please don't hesitate to contact my office. incerel William A. Canon, Landscape Architect 04/02/1995 05:00 4135276389 WILLIAM A CANON npr sar Ub UP:31Ptr *rthiffiPten PualiC Works 41: 71676 Geotr$* Andrikidle, R6. Okftwa, oft anonw April 19, 2006 ens or NORTNAU"ON, 4iRiA6UCFlttMMS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 'WORKS 125 LOMM Slaty Nw d w spoon, MA 41040.2066 413- UT•1570 liar 413- 547' -1575 Mr. Patrick J, Melnik, Jr. Melnik tAw Offices 110 King Street Northampton, MA a 1060 Dear Attorney Melnik, PAGE 01 r.2 On April 11, 2006 the Northampton Departtnent of public. % .(DpWV I ) issued a disapproval of the Stormwater Permit Waiver Application for the'proposed Beaver Brook Condo development located on Hayderivilic Rd. in Leeds, Masiaohusetts. This disapproval was based on the finding that the Beaver Brook Condo project was pact of a larger common plaai of development that would disturb over 2 acre of land and as such would require an approved Stott watcr Management Permit as specified by the Northampton! Stormwater Management OrdirAnce (Chapter 22, Attick S). After Anther review of tho proposcd Beaver Brook Estatts, Cluster Subdivision Plan dared February 6, 2006 and submitted to the Northsmpton Planning Board March 22, 2006, PUcal 24 is shown as part of the Beaver Brook Estates Cluster Subdivision Plan As such any construotion activities on Pastel 24 is part of She common plan of development called Beaver Brook Estates and requires an approved Stormwatcr Ndariagetnent Permit as specMed by the Northampton Stormwarer Management Ordinance (Chapter 22, Attiele S). The DPW will not consent to allow gitlter the Boaver ,Brook Condo project or the Beaver Brook Bstate4 Cluster Subdivision Plan to be approved by the Plztttaing Board until this issue is resolved. Sincertly Dough McDonald Environmental Planner cc. Ocorgo Andrikidis, DPW Director Ned Huntley, City Engineer Planning Board t0 39Vd _-Q MVI >41N - rzH iVd 6BL908SETV ZE:91 90OZ /6t /t>0 011ERITAG SURVEY -S, iNC Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: City of Northampton DATE: April 11, 2006 Planning Department Attn: Carolyn Misch 212 Main Street - City Hall JOB #: 3923 - 980831 Northampton, MA 01060 SUBJECT: Beaver Brook Estates - Parcel 24 Multifamily Development Haydenville Road, Northampton WR ARR SRNDTNG YOU: COPIES DATE PLAN # DESCRIPTION 2 03/17/06 3923- Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 060317 24 - Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006 14 03/17/06 3923- Reduced scale prints (11" x 17 ") of Plan entitled, 060317 Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 - Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006 1 04/04/06 Drainage Calculations - Multifamily Development for Parcel 24, Haydenville Road, Northampton, MA - dated September 29, 2005 - last revised April 4, 2006 1 03/30/06 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated March 30, 2006 1 02/06/06 Operation and Maintenance Plan - for Stormwater System (OMP) dated February 6, 2006 1 11/26/01 Deep Observation Test Holes For Use in Roadway Design - Deep Hole 9 & 8, Dated September 26, 2001 1 02/06/06 Letter addressed to Carolyn Misch, dated February 6, 2006 from Heritage Surveys, Inc. 1 04/04/06 Drainage Area Map Pre & Post Construction dated April 4, 2006 1 Topographical Locus Ma 1 04/04/06 Letter dated April 4, 2006, to Department of Public Works, Project Documentation / Stormwater Management Permit. Please contact this office if you should have any questions or comments relative to the above. Sincerely, Ilark P. Reed 0 Carolvn Misch From: Wayne Feiden Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 6:39 PM To: Carolyn Misch Subject: FW: Beaver Brook hearing 4 -27 -06 FYI Wayne Feiden, AICP Director of Planning and Development City of Northampton 210 Main Street, Room 11 Northampton, MA 01060 Direct: 413- 587 -1265 Office: 413- 587 -1266 Fax: 413- 587 -1264 Web: www.NorthamptonMA.gov WFeiden@NorthamptonMA.gov - - - -- Original Message---- - From: KATHLEEN BROWN [mailto:BROWNK @svahs.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:49 AM To: Wayne Feiden Cc: cheevers @crocker.com Subject: Beaver Brook hearing 4 -27 -06 23 Upland Road Leeds, MA 01053 Mr. Wayne Feiden, Director City of Northampton Planning Board Northampton, MA 01060 April 26, 2006 Dear Mr. Feiden: We urge you to reduce the size and scope of the Beaver Brook development planned in Leeds As parents of a young child, living on Upland Road, we are deeply concerned about the effect that the anticipated increase of car trips ( +190 trips per day) will have on the safety of all the neighborhood children. Our streets (Upland, Chestnut, East Center) are narrow, have no sidewalks, are filled with children every day, and were not built years ago to accommodate more traffic. Of special concern is that, in winter, snow banks often make it necessary to stop to allow a car to pass in the opposite direction. High mounds of snow at intersections, particularly at the East Center - Upland and Chestnut - Upland intersections, can severely limit visibility for both cars and pedestrians. All the neighborhood children walk to and from Leeds school and there are also many elderly people who walk each day. Add a parent pushing a stroller or child on a bike and the situation is already hazardous without the increased traffic. Many of us have voiced these same concerns at previous public hearings on the development. We use these streets every day and know their limitations. Has a proper traffic study been conducted to show, with data, what we already know from experience? We will be unable to attend the hearing on Thursday, April 27. Please add our voices to the others who will be speaking out against the proposed development. We would hope that solely limiting access to the new development via Route 9 is another possible solution. We feel it is crucial to retain the quality of our neighborhood, in the interest of keeping with the city's planning goals and maintaining the quality of life we all moved here for. Please consider our deep concerns and your duty to protect the safety of our children. Sincerely, Nancy Cheevers Kathie Brown 23 Upland Road C Lora Sandhusen 32 E. Center St. Leeds, MA 01053 March 23, 2006 Chairman and Members of the Planning Board City of Northampton Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Members and Chairman, My name is Lora Sandhusen, and I live at 32 E. Center St., Leeds. I am concerned about Patrick Melnik's recent discussions with the Planning Department regarding payment in lieu of further traffic study or mitigation for the proposed Beaver Brook Rt. 9 six unit cluster plan. In particular, his March 2 letter mentions the related Evergreen Rd. 25 -unit subdivision: "Although I do not believe this (the 6 -unit) project will have any substantial direct or indirect traffic impacts on Route 9, or the neighborhood, the project is tied indirectly to the proposed subdivision of abutting land owned by myself and my brother in law, John Hanley, and together, both projects will have some impact." The vast majority of the 250 vehicle trips a day the Evergreen Road subdivision would generate would go down East Center Street, as this is the natural path to Rt. 9 east. This would change a narrow (19 ft. wide, much less with winter snow) local road with no sidewalks into a collector road, negatively affecting the character and safety of the neighborhood. Children are expected to walk on E. Center Street to Leeds School, or to a bus stop across from Leeds School, for several months in the dark. Other pedestrians and cyclists also use this street. I am concerned that Atty. Melnik's discussions about payment in lieu of traffic study and mitigation for the 6 -unit subdivision also encompass the 25- unit subdivision and completely ignore potential traffic problems on E. Center St. The Planning Department should not limit Atty. Melnik's responsibility for working out the traffic problems inherent in this project to a very modest payment. A comprehensive multiseason traffic study, and indeed an alternative to funneling a large volume of traffic down E. Center Street, is needed. Sincerely Lora usen s HERITAGE URVEY INC. Professional Surveyors and 1Mineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com April 4, 2006 City of Northampton Department of Public Works Attn: Douglas McDonald 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Stormwater Management Permit Beaver Brook Estates/Multifamily Development for Parcel Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Dear Mr. McDonald: A Stormwater Management Permit Waiver Application and a letter addressed to yourself dated 3/20/06 was submitted by the applicant Patrick Melnik for the Multifamily Development Proposed for Parcel 24. The project parcel of land consists of 5.61 acres of land, of which 29,800 square feet are proposed to be disturbed. This disturbance is less than an acre, however the Department of Public Works has requested that a Stormwater Management Permit be submitted. Therefore three (3) copies of the following plan and documents have been submitted with the Stormwater Management Permit Application. 1. Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 - Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton. Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006. (One copy of 11 x 17 Site Plan) 2. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated March 30, 2006 3. Operation and Maintenance Plan - for Stormwater System (OMP) dated February 6, 2006 4. Deep Observation Test Holes For Use in Roadway Design - Deep Hole 9 & 8, Dated September 26, 2001. 5. Letter addressed to Carolyn Misch, dated February 6, 2006 from Heritage Surveys, Inc. 6. Drainage Calculations - Multifamily Development for Parcel 24, Haydenville Road, Northampton, MA - dated September 29, 2005 - last revised April 4, 2006 7. Drainage Area Map Pre & Post Construction dated April 4, 2006 8. Topographical Locus Map 9. Letter dated April 4, 2006, to Department of Public Works, Project Documentation/Stormwater Management Permit. We would appreciate your directing any correspondence regarding the above referenced project to Patrick J. Melnik, Esq., 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060, (413) 584 -6750, with copies of the same to Heritage Surveys, Inc. Sincerely, cF MASSq m ot' BRUCE ° tip Bruce A. Coombs, PLS COpMBS N cc: Northampton Planning Boa No. 27814 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. (with William A. Canon (with enclos e Y: LETTERFILE /DEFSUB /3923CONPRE.DOC E City of Northamptou Departmeut of Public Works STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Fee Paid: Date Paid: Permit #: Approved By: Approval Date: (For DPW use only) 1. Project / Site Information Project / Site Name: Beaver Brook Estates - Multifamily Developme Plan for Parcel 24 Project Street / Location: Haydenville Road - Route 9 Assessor's Map: 06 Parcel(s): 062 Estimated Area to be Disturbed (ft): 29,800 square feet - 0.69 acres Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: Existin Proposed (paved, parking, decks, roofs, etc) (ft2) 0 10,431 square feet Project Type (check one) Permit Review and Inspection Fee • Residential Site (1 -5 Acres Disturbed) $700 • Residential Site (greater than 5 Acres Disturbed) $1,100 • Minor Residential Subdivision (1 lot and disturbing 1 to 5 $700 or $1 per linear foot of roadway or common acres of land ) driveway (which ever is greater) • Residential Subdivision and Other Residential such as $2000 or $2 per linear foot of roadway or Townhouse or Retirement Development (2 or more lots in a common driveway (which ever is greater) common plan of development that will disturb over 1 acre ❑ Commercial Subdivision (disturbing over 1 acre of land) $2000 or $2 per linear foot of roadway or common driveway which ever is eater ❑ Commercial or Industrial Site (all individual commercial or $700 per acre disturbed (maximum of $5,000) industrial sites that will disturb over 1 acre or that is part of a common plan of development or sale that will disturb over 1 acre 2. Applicant Information 3. Owner Information (if different from Applicant) Name: Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Address: 110 King Street, Northampton MA 01060 Telephone: (413) 584 -6750 E -Mail: Fax: (413) 584 -6789 4. Certification I herby certify that the information contained herein including all attachments is true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. Further, I grant the Northampton Department of Public Works and its agents permission to enter the property to review this application and make inspections during and after construction. Applicant's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date • 5. Application Requirements The application to the Northampton Department of Public Works (DPW) for a Stormwater Management Permit must include submission of the following: Completed and Signed Stormwater Management Permit Application ❑ Non - Refundable Permit Review and Inspection Fee C" 1"'Operation, Maintenance, and Inspection Agreement Three complete copies of the Stormwater Management Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a professional engineer licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and including the minimum documentation listed below (see the Northampton Stormwater Management Ordinance (Chapter 22, Article V) for more information): Proiect Documentation: (Check circles below indicating that you have provided the following minimum information) &' all operators for the project site and the potions over which each operator has control. OKA11 plans submitted have been prepared and stamped by a professional engineer licensed by . ;he Commonwealth of Massachusetts CV The applicant has certified on the drawings that all clearing, grading, drainage, construction, ��d development shall be conducted in strict accordance with the plan ,, ,and map CYThe existing zoning, and land use at the site (W' The proposed land use (l The location of existing and proposed easements C( The location of existing and proposed utilities Q" he site's existing & proposed topography with contours at 2 foot intervals C� Soils investigation (by a Certified Soil Evaluator or Certified Professional Soil Scientist) including borings or test pits, to a depth greater than 4 ft. below estimated seasonal ground / water for areas where construction of infiltration practices will occur. (a Estimated seasonal high groundwater elevation (November to April) in areas to be used for storm water retention, detention, or infiltration (by a Certified Soil Evaluator or Certified Professional Soil Scientist). A description & delineation of existing stormwater conveyances, impoundments, and / wetlands on or adjacent to the site or into which storm water flows. Q� A delineation of 100 -year flood plains, if applicable. O The existing and proposed vegetation and ground surfaces with runoff coefficient for each. C� A drainage area map showing pre and post construction watershed boundaries, drainage area, /storm water flow paths, and receiving water. (0 A description and drawings of all components of the proposed drainage system including: 1) the structural details for all components of the proposed drainage systems and storm water management facilities (including size, inverts, and grade); 2) all measures for the detention, retention or infiltration of water; 3) all measures for the protection of water quality; 4) notes on drawings specifying materials to be used, construction specifications, and typicals; 5) the existing and proposed site hydrology with supporting drainage calculations (including the 1,2, 10, and 100 year NRCS design storms); Northampton Department of Public Works Stormwater Management Permit Page 2 • 6) proposed improvements including location of buildings or other structures, impervious surfaces, and drainage facilities, if applicable; 7) location, cross sections, and profiles of all potentially impacted brooks, streams, drainage swales and their method of stabilization; and 8) proposed ownership of drainage system structures. Estimate of the total area expected to be disturbed by excavation, grading or other _ / construction activities. (l A description and location of all measures (i.e., Best Management Practices) that will be implemented as part of the construction activity to control pollutants in storm water discharges. A description of when each control measure will be implemented in the construction schedule, which operator is responsible for the implementation of each control measure and a maintenance and inspection schedule for each control measure during onstruction. (Y description of construction and waste materials expected to be stored on -site, and a description of controls to reduce pollutants from these materials including storage practices to ��inimize exposure of the materials to storm water, and spill prevention and response. Cd Timing, schedules, and sequence of development including clearing, stripping, rough grading, construction, final grading, and vegetative stabilization. 6. Application Submission, Review, and Approval Procedures 1. Application Submittal The application to the Northampton DPW for a Stormwater Management Permit must be submitted prior to or concurrently with any land use permit application. Submission of an application should be made to the Northampton Department of Public Works, 125 Locust St., Northampton, MA 01060. For more information and copies of the Northampton Stormwater Ordinance visit the DPW web site at www.nohodpw.org or contact Doug McDonald at 413 -587 -1582 ext 308 or dmcdonalda,nohodpw. org 2. Administrative Review The Northampton DPW will have 7 days from the receipt of the application to review the application for administrative completeness. Incomplete applications will be disapproved and returned to the applicant based on the determination that they are administratively incomplete. 3. Review If the application is found to be complete, the Northampton DPW will review the application and supporting documents based on the criteria set forth in the Northampton Stormwater Management Ordinance (Chapter 22, Article V) and will take final action within 21 days (including the 7 day administrative review period) of the receipt of a complete application unless such time is extended by agreement between the applicant and the DPW. 4. Final Action The Northampton DPW's final action will be in writing and will be sent to the applicant and the appropriate City Department(s) and Board(s). Northampton Department of Public Works Stormwater Management Permit Page 3 HIERITAGE SURVEYJh INC. Professional Surveyors and RRPineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@,heritagesurueys.com Website: heritagesurueys.com April 4, 2006 City of Northampton Department of Public Works Attn: Douglas McDonald 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Project Documentation/Stormwater Management Permit Beaver Brook Estates/Multifamily Development for Parcel 24 Haydenville Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Dear Mr. McDonald: The following is being provided to aid in locating the information sought to meet the requirements of the Project Documentation section of the Stormwater Management Permit Application. • Operators Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) dated March 30, 2006 Operation and Maintenance Plan — for Stormwater System (OMP) dated February 6, 2006 The SWPPP does not specify the contractor responsible this information is not established at this phase of the project. The OMP specifies that a Homeowner Association shall be established and is responsible of the maintenance. • Professional engineer licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 — Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006. Professional Engineer, Heritage Surveys, Inc., Richard P. Weisse, PE. • Strict accordance with the plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) dated March 30, 2006 • Locus Map Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 — Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006. See Locus Map & Topographical Map. • The existing zoning, and land use at the site Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 — Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006. See Land Use Data — Suburban Residential • The proposed land use Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 — Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006. Two Multifamily Buildings — 6 housing units. • The location of existing and proposed easements Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 — Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006. Y: LETTERFILE/DEFSUB /3923CONPRE. DOC Page 2 of 2 April 4, 2006 HSI Job # 3923 - 980831 • • The location of existing and proposed utilities Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 - Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006. Project to be connected to City Sewer, Wells are proposed per City request not to connect to existing water main located across the street from project. • Existing & proposed topography Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 - Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006 • Soils investigation Deep Observation Test Holes For Use in Roadway Design - Deep Hole 9 & 8, Dated September 26, 2001. Letter addressed to Carolyn Misch, dated February 6, 2006 from Heritage Surveys, Inc. Soil testing was performed, by Mark P. Reed a Certified Soils Evaluator, for an alternative project design in 2001, however T.P. #9 is in the location of the proposed basin for this project. • Stormwater - description & delineation Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 - Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006. The wetland boundaries shown on the plan are based upon a wetland resource area plan by Killam Associates New England with a revised date of April 22, 1999 and additional delineation performed by Charles H. Dauchy, Environmental Consultant, 24 Old Long Plain Road, Leverett, MA 01054 in June, 2000. The delineation has been confirmed through a Request for Determination of Applicability. The vernal pools shown on the plan are as certified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. The project site is approximately 600 feet south of Beaver Brook. • Delineation 100 -year flood plain Not Applicable • Existing & proposed ground cover Drainage Calculations - Multifamily Development for Parcel 24, Haydenville Road, Northampton, MA - dated September 29, 2005 - last revised April 4, 2006 Drainage Area Map Pre & Post Construction • Drainage Area Map Drainage Calculations - Multifamily Development for Parcel 24, Haydenville Road, Northampton, MA - dated September 29, 2005 - last revised April 4, 2006. See schematic flow diagrams Drainage Area Map Pre & Post Construction • Proposed Drainage System Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 - Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006. Drainage Calculations - Multifamily Development for Parcel 24, Haydenville Road, Northampton, MA - dated September 29, 2005 - last revised April 4, 2006. See schematic flow diagrams Drainage Area Map Pre & Post Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated March 30, 2006 Operation and Maintenance Plan - for Stormwater System (OMP) dated February 6, 2006 • Disturbed Area Plan entitled, Multifamily Development Plan for Parcel 24 - Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, dated December 7, 2005, last revised March 17, 2006. The disturbed area proposed is 29,800 s.f. (0.69 AC) • Best Management Practices Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated March 30, 2006 • Construction and Waste Material Maintenance Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated March 30, 2006 • Sequence of Development Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated March 30, 2006 Y:LETTERFILE/DEFSUB /3923 CONPRE.DOC HERITAGE SURVEY I NC .f � Pro essional Surveyors and liners College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com Page 1 of 4 March 30, 2006 HSI Job # 3923 - 980831 Beaver Brook Estates Multifamily Development - Parcel 24 Haydenville Road Northampton, MA 01060 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) MOTE. This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be retained onsite at the project location. Project Name and Location: Beaver Brook Estates Multifamily Development - Parcel 24 Haydenville Road Northampton, MA 01060 Assessors Map 06 Parcel 062 42 21'31" N -72 41' 11" W Owner Name and Address: Patrick J. Melnik 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 Narrative Description Existigg Site Description: The existing property is located on the westerly side of Haydenville Road (Route 9), Northampton. The parcel is a vacant piece of land approximately five acres in size. The parcel contains a large area of bordering vegetated wetlands and a vernal pool is located to the north and south of the property. The property is mostly wooded with a smaller brush open area. Project Description: The proposed project involves the construction of two buildings, which make up six multifamily units with a paved driveway/ parking area. The driveway entrance to the units is located in the center of the parcel frontage off of Haydenville Road. All units will have a one -car garage and a patio. The stormwater drainage from the impervious areas shall be directed into proposed detention basin. (See Operation and Maintenance Plan dated February 6, 2006 for additional information). The stormwater runoff from the proposed roof areas shall be directed into dry wells. The sanitary sewage shall be connected to the existing sanitary sewer facilities available on Haydenville Road. Pre- Construction Actions Some of the most important actions should take place during the pre - construction phase. These include: Protecting tree roots from compaction by construction equipment. Delineating trees and vegetation to be protected during construction with clear markings in the field. Hold a pre - construction meeting with the owner, contractor, project consultant and the City of Northampton to discuss the construction schedule. Page 2 of 4 March 30, 2006 HSI Job # 3923 - 980831 Stormarater Runoff/ Management The stormwater management for the proposed project consists of a detention basin. The basin will receive stomwater runoff from the proposed driveway/ parking area, into the forebay of the basin. The detention basin will allow for pretreatment of runoff within the forebay of the basin before entering into the main part of the basin. The outlet control structure for the basin is a broad crested rectangular weir, which discharges the pretreated stormwater to a stone rip -rap area leading to a wooded area. Install Sediment Control Measures • The proposed limits of work shall be the existing tree /woods line as shown on the plan. No tree removal is proposed. • Sedimentation barriers shall be installed per plan specifications before any clearing or construction work begins and shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project until disturbed areas have been stabilized. • Avoid disturbing vegetation on steep slopes or other critical areas and locate material stock piles, borrowed areas, and access roads away from critical areas. Project Construction Sequencing • The project shall be constructed as follows. o The proposed driveway/ parking areas and stormwater basin shall be constructed. o Construction of proposed multifamily buildings and connection of utilities to constructed buildings. o Stabilization of disturbed areas by loam and seeding. Land Clearing and Grading • Schedule project so clearing and grading are done during periods of low rainfall or the time of minimum erosion potential. Clearing only those areas that are essential for completing site construction. Temporary Surface Stabilization • Stage construction so that one area can be stabilized before another area is disturbed. This reduces the time that an area is left unstablized. • Sedimentation barriers shall be installed immediately on all disturbed areas and shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project until disturbed areas have been stabilized. Permanent Surface Stabilization • Stabilize all denuded areas within 15 calendar days after final grading. Disturbed areas that are inactive and will be exposed to rain for 30 days or more should also be temporarily stabilized. Landscaping and Final Stabilization • During favorable seeding dates and in areas where vegetation can be established, the following should be implemented: o Use seeding and fertilizing in very flat, nonsensitive areas with favorable soils. o Use seeding and mulching for less erosive soil or on moderately steep slopes with moderately erosive soils in relatively sensitive areas. o Use seeding with multiple mulching treatments or sodding for highly erosive soil, very steep slopes, or sensitive areas with highly erosive soils. • If stabilization is required during the time of the year that vegetation cannot be established, implement the following practices: o On moderate slopes or soil that is not highly erodible, mulching should be employed. o On steep slopes or highly erodible soils, multiple mulching treatments should be used. • Route construction traffic to avoid existing or newly planted vegetation. • Divert runoff away from denuded areas or newly seeded slopes. Waste Disposal • Waste Disposal All waste materials will be collected and stored in a proper receptacle in accordance with all local and State solid waste management regulations. All trash and construction debris from the site will be deposited in dumpsters. The trash will be hauled to an appropriate waste disposal site. No construction waste materials will be buried onsite. All project personnel will be instructed regarding the correct procedure for waste disposal. Page 3 of 4 March 30, 2006 HSI Job # 3923 - 980831 • • Hazardous Waste All hazardous waste materials will be disposed of in the manner specified by the manufacturer and as required by local or State regulation. Site personnel will be instructed in these practices. • Sanitary Waste All sanitary waste will be collected from the portable units as required by local and State regulation. Spill Prevention The following are the materials management practices that will be used to reduce the risk of spill or other accidental exposure of materials and substances to stormwater runoff. Good Housekeeping The following good housekeeping practices will be followed onsite during the construction of the project. • All materials stored onsite will be stored in a neat, orderly manner in their appropriate containers. Materials which have the potential for contaminating runoff during storm events will be stored in their appropriate watertight containers, stored under a canopy, tarpaulin, shrink wrapped or otherwise precluded from direct exposure to precipitation. • Empty containers that may contain chemical residues shall be disposed of in accordance with State and local regulations. Products, where possible, will be kept in their original containers with the original manufacture's label. • Chemical or petroleum product will be used up before disposing of the container. • Manufacturers' recommendations for proper use and disposal will be followed. • The site superintendent will inspect daily to ensure proper use and disposal of materials onsite. Petroleum Products • All onsite vehicles will be monitored for leaks and receive regular preventive maintenance to reduce the chance of leakage. • It is recommended that, if practicable, all refueling, repair and changing of equipment and vehicle fluids shall be conducted in a designated area and outside the 100' buffer zone. This area will be designed in a manner to reduce the potential for contamination of onsite resources. For refueling, repair and changing of equipment and vehicles outside of the designated area, care should be taken to avoid activities within ±100 of wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas. • Petroleum products will be stored in tightly sealed containers, which are clearly labeled. • An area will be designated for the collection and storage of all chemical and petroleum based products and containers for the collection and storage of all chemical and petroleum based products and containers for these products. The containers shall be protected from rain events. • Any asphalt substances used onsite will be applied according to the manufacturer's recommendations. • The project superintendent will regularly inspect the site to insure proper disposal methods of used antifreeze, oil, filters and other hazardous materials are followed. Fertilizers • Fertilizers used will be applied according to manufacturer's product standards. The contents of any partially used bags of fertilizers will be transferred to a sealable plastic container to avoid spills. Paints • All containers will be tightly sealed and stored when not required for use. Excess paint will be properly disposed of according to manufacturers' instructions or State and local regulations. Concrete Trucks • Concrete trucks will not be allowed to wash out or discharge surplus concrete or drum wash water on the site. Page 4 of 4 March 30, 2006 HSI Job # 3923 - 980831 • Spill Prevention In addition to the good housekeeping and material management practices discussed in the previous section of this plan, the following practices will be followed for spill prevention and cleanup: • Manufacture's recommended methods for spill cleanup will be clearly posted and site personnel will be made aware of the procedures and the location of the information and cleanup supplies. • Materials and equipment necessary for spill cleanup will be kept in the material storage area onsite. Equipment and material may include but not be limited to brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, absorbent material (e.g. kitty litter, sand, sawdust) and plastic and metal trash containers. • All spills will be cleaned up immediately after discovery. • In the event of a spill of a hazardous substance, the spill will be immediately contained and the spill area will be kept well ventilated. Personnel will wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent injury from contact with a hazardous substance during cleanup operation. • Spills of toxic or hazardous material will be reported to the appropriate State or local government agency, as required by regulatory standards. Pollution Prevention Plan Certification I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signed: Patrick J. Melnik 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 Telephone: (413) 584 -6750 Fax: (413) 584 -6789 Date: Contractor's Certification I certify under penalty of law that I understand the terms and conditions of the general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit that authorizes storm water discharge associated with the construction site activity identified as part of this certification. Signed: Date ?ICV[ ,t, 1:11> HERITAGE SURVEYS*NC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box I Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com February 6, 2006 HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Beaver Brook Estates Multifamily Development For Parcel 24 Haydenville Road Northampton, MA OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN Schedule for Inspection and Maintenance of the Stormwater System: The *owner shall inspect the system after major storm events and contact a licensed contractor as outlined below, sediment and debris shall be properly disposed of off the site. Routine and Non - Routine Maintenance Tasks: The *owner shall keep the stormwater system in working condition at all times. These tasks shall be performed daily and any material shall be disposed of properly. During the inspection of the stormwater system the pavement areas and travel ways shall be swept and the debris and sediment shall be properly disposed of off site. It is also recommended that an additional sweeping be performed after fall leaf debris has ceased. The detention basins shall be cleaned a minimum of every five to seven years by a licensed contractor. Plan for Sediment, Debris, and Oil Disposal: The *owner shall obtain the services of licensed contractor to perform this operation and maintenance plan. These contractors shall provide to the *owner records of the approved sites for disposal of sediment, debris and oil and schedule of work to be performed. Copies of these records shall be made available upon request to the Northampton Board of Health. Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2006 HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Maintenance of Stormwater Controls: The proposed drainage system is designed to minimize and simplify maintenance requirements. Until construction is completed and all tributary areas are stabilized, frequent inspections and maintenance of the drainage system will be required by the *owner. The detention basins shall be cleaned every five to seven years. The *owner shall contact a licensed contractor qualified to perform the necessary maintenance Construction Related Controls: Prior to construction a synthetic filter and /or straw bale barriers shall be installed, as shown on the accompanying plans. All erosion and sediment control measured shall be inspected daily during grading and after all rain storms by the contractor and shall be kept in functioning condition until tributary areas are stabilized. Sediment shall be removed from silt fences, check dams, and filter dams when it reaches a depth of six inches. Filters shall be cleaned or replaced when water continuously ponds over six inches deep. Ponded water shall be discharged to an upland area with sediment controls, as required. The forebay shall be cleaned a minimum of four times per year and inspected monthly. A fixed vertical, concrete sediment depth marker shall be installed in the bottom of the forebay to measure the sediment deposition. The sediment depth marker will allow the owner* to monitor the accumulation and anticipate maintenance needs.The sediment shall be cleaned out when an accumulation of 6" of sediment is reached. All sediment and hydrocarbons should be handled properly and disposed in accordance with local, state and federal guidelines and regulations. A stone tracking mat shall be installed and maintained at any point where construction traffic from an unpaved road enters into the paved portion of the site or street. If any questions arise regarding erosion and sedimentation control measures the Environmental Professional and /or Project Engineer shall be consulted immediately. *Owner = Homeowners Association u l " ERITAGE S I NC. Professional Surveyors and .}ineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@.eritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com February 6, 2006 City of Northampton Carolyn Misch, AICP Senior Land Use Planner/ Permits Manager 212 Main Street - City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Stormwater Management Beaver Brook Estates Multifamily Development for Parcel 24 Haydenville Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Dear Ms. Misch, This letter has been prepared to address the questions and comment you made, within an e -mail forwarded from Attorney Pat Melnik dated February 1, 2006 to myself, in regards to the stormwater management for the multifamily development proposed on Parcel 24. The proposed detention basin has been designed to be a dry bottom basin, not a wet bottom basin. The soil maps indicate that the soils belong to Hydrologic Soil Group C, Ridgeburg (ReA), Woodbridge (PaB, PbB), Paxton, therefore no infiltration was accounted for in the sizing of the basin. However, the groundwater elevation was established from deep hole observations performed on August 26, 2001, by myself, a certified soil evaluator. The testing was performed for the original project design in the proposed roadway location. We have provided a reduced scale plan showing the original project design, which illustrate the location of test pits #8 and #9. Also provided is a sketch showing that the location of test pit #9 is where the currently proposed detention basin will be located. The ground elevation of T.P. #9 is approximately 404.5 and the soil logs indicate soil mottling to be at sixty (60 ") inches below the surface, which puts the estimated seasonal high ground water at elevation 399.5. The bottom of the proposed basin is at elevation 401.0 this will maintain a separation distance of 12 " -18" for the bottom of the basin and the estimated seasonal high groundwater elevation, therefore the basin will be able to function as a dry bottom basin. An operation and maintenance plan has been enclosed for the stormwater basin. A benchmark is proposed to be placed within the basin, as you have requested, to aid in the timely maintenance of the stormwater basin. We hope the information provided has addressed your concerns regarding the stomwater management design for this project and if you need any additional information please contact this office. Sincerely, �_Ki_kP. cc: Attorney Pat Melnik William A. Canon HERITAGE SURVEYS Professional Surveyors and EngtWs College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys. com Website: heritagesurveys. com Deep Observation Test Dotes For Use in Roadway Design Deep Hole Number: 9 Date: 9/26/01 Time: 11:00 Weather: SUNNY Location (identify on site plan): T.P. #9 @ 1 +70f HANLEY PLACE ON EAST SIDE OF S/W @ EDGE LOGING LANDING DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Boulders, Surface Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) T.P. #9 Consistency, % Gravel) (I nches ) 399.5 0 -10" Ap SANDY LOAM ORGANIC TOPSOIL 10 " -30" Bw SANDY LOAM 30" -60" C1 LOAMY SAND 10YR 6/2 MEDIUM TO FINE LOAMY SAND EXTREMELY FIRM W /SOME COBBLES & STONES 60 -120" C2 SANDY LOAM 10YR 3/2 @60" MEDIUM TO FINE SANDY LOAM VERY FIRM W /SOME GRAVEL & COBBLES Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: @60" Beaver Brook Estates Multifamilly Development for Parcel 24 Haydenville Road Northampton, MA Depth to Bedrock: NONE @10' Weeping from Pit Face: NONE T.P. # GROUND ESTIMATED SEASONAL ESTIMATED SEASONAL ELEVATION AT HIGH GROUNDWATER HIGH GROUND WATER T.P. INCHES BELOW GRADE ELEVATION T.P. #9 404.5 60" 399.5 EXISTING GRADE AT BASIN = 405 PROPOSED BOTTOM OF BASIN =401 rage is of io HHERITAGE SURVEYS *NC Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@keritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com Deep Observation Test Holes For Use in Roadway Design Deep Hole Number: 8 Date: 9/26/01 Time: 10:30 Weather: SUNNY Location (identify on site plan): T.P. #8 @ 0 +30 HANLEY PLACE @ EDGE CLEARING FOR OLD LOGING LANDING AREA DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other (Structure, Stones, Boulders, Surface Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) Consistency, % Gravel) (I nches ) 0" -8" Ap SANDY LOAM ORGANIC TOPSOIL 8" -32" Bw SANDY LOAM 32" -66" C1 LOAMY SAND 10YR 6/2 MEDIUM TO FINE LOAMY SAND EXTREMELY FIRM W /SOME GRAVEL & STONES 66" -120" C2 LOAMY SAND 10YR 6/3 @66" MEDIUM TO FINE LOAMY SAND VERY FIRM W /SOME GRAVEL & STONES Standing Water in the Hole: NONE Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: @66" Depth to Bedrock: NONE @10' Weeping from Pit Face: NONE NOTE: TESTING PERFORMED THE DAY AFTER HEAVY RAINS SOILS ARE VERY DRY. f Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. email: pmelnik @verizon.net patmelnikjr@verizon.net March 20, 2006 Douglas McDonald Q Department of Public Works O of the City of Northampton Locust Street Northampton, Ma 01060 Dear Mr. McDonald, Enclosed please find waiver application in connection with the project I have proposed that is currently pending before the Northampton Planning Board to construct two buildings on the west side of Route 9 in Northampton. The site proposed to be developed will have its own water distribution system and will not be connected to city water. The abutting property that is owned by my brother in law that will hopefully be developed in the future will connect with. city services. The only thing my property has in common with the abutting property is that it was previously part of land owned by John Hanley. Apart from the fact that it was previously in common title with abutting property it has no connection with the abutting property. My property was purchased last year from my brother -in -law, John Hanley. Mr. Hanley no longer has any interest, financial or otherwise, in this parcel of land. This is a stand alone project that I am doing on my own, for my own interest, and has no connection whatsoever to the remaining property which is being proposed for subdivision approval. The project that I am currently proposing will involve the construction of two buildings, which will have three units each, which will be maintained under a single scheme of common ownership and an independent association of homeowners will be developed that will be responsible for the control and maintenance of the common property, including the proposed storm water detention basin to be MELNTK LAW OFFICES • Attorneys At Law 110 Kiang Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Telephone (413) 584 -6750 Fax (413)5846789 Z0 39t/d d0 MVI MIN13W lVd 68L908961b 6b :tt 900Z/b0/b0 located on the site. Th—, property, and the homeowners Aciatioti attributable to r it, will have no connection whatsoever, legal, financially or otherwise with any homeowners association that may be formulated in connection with the development of the abutting property. In fact, this parcel 'is disconnected from the remaining land by virtue of a conservation restriction corridor that is requirement to be implemented for the protection of the rare species that have been found on the site. There is also an intervening wetland area that cannot be crossed. None of the storm water run off, or development on the site can have any impact on the abutting property by virtue of the conservation permit that is being issued, for this project by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program. The area of development on my site is approximately .one -half acre and, as such, the total disturbance to my site will be less than that often times occurs in connection, with the construction of a single family dwelling. The construction is going to be condensed into a small upland area, partly due to the fact of the nature of the site, and also the specific design was not to impact any of the wetlands on the site. The remaining property has been proposed at various times by application to the Northampton Planning Board for development. None of the previous proposed subdivision plans showing a connection with Evergreen Road have been approved by Northampton Planning and there is no way to know if the abutting property will ever be approved for development or, if approved, will ever be developed as planned. If the abutting property is ever approved for development and constructed my brother in law and I will; of course, have to apply for a storm water management permit, since the disturbance of the abutting site will be greater than an acre. At that time any filing fee appropriate to that project,(or both.projects if both are deemed connected) would have to be paid. If there are never any permits granted for the abutting project then I think you would agree, that no storm water permit is necessary. In other words, if it is a question of collecting the appropriate fee, the appropriate fee should be collected in connection with the approval of the abutting project, not this one. I would be glad to meet with yourself and Ned Huntley or George Andrikidis to discuss this application for a waiver further this week or next. Please call my office to set up a time. I think that Mark Reed would also like to meet with you as well a>r>,d he will bring his revised storm water plan with the revisions you. requested. If you do not think as meeting is necessary I would appreciate it if you would process this waiver application for approval. If you need additional information to process this waiver application please let me know what it is. 60 39Vd d0 MV MIN13W lVd 68L96896Tb 60:TT 9002 /b0 /b0 in Iy, Patrick J. lnik PJM/j Ip 03 061eto)(60 -61) b0 39Vd d0 MVI MIN13W lVd 68L96896Tb 6b :TT 9002 /b0 /b0 STORMWATEP, MA*FM NT . PERMIT WAIYER A ff U CAT I ON 1. project / Site / Owner information Project / Site Name: 1',1 rL4 if K `-fl f Project Street/ Location: ; S'i" J ► J t '4a 7 el"'d VA �� A-o d Assessor's Map: 06 Pareel(g): �a") - Owner's Name: & A, t k � ' ^^ �l✓'' f k Owner's Phone: s'g�t ro Owner's Address: ?1i C 14 cc TWL jC i cc of f A*A � Lf Q'4 J ...►, — k am Total Lot Size (f e) Y 3 9 S Estimated Area to be Disturbed (e): 2. Waiver Type The project describod above is exempt from meeting the storm% - ater performance standards as outlined in the Northampton Storrnwater Managernent Ordinance (Chapter 22 Article 5) for the following reason (please check one): 14 Land Disturbance will be less titan one acre. Construction activity on sites with an overall area greater than one acre must att$ch written certification by a registered professional engineer or registered land surveyor that the land disturbance will be less than one acre. 0 Agricultural OcdVity that is eortaistettt with an approved soil conservation plan prepared or approved by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1U. Logging activity that is consistent with a timber management plan approved under The Forest Cutting Practices Act by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. Additions or modifications to existing single family structures. Q Emergency activity that is immediately necessary for the proWotion of life, property, or the envirotunent, as determined by the Northampton Dgartment of public Works. Q Discharges into soil based systems or Isolated low areas which will not overflow into a. surface flow and has been demonstrated to have a minimum of four -month residence time between discharge point and any waters ofthe United States by a certified professional soil scientbt, hydrologist, or registered professional engineer. Attach certification. Q Projects permitted and approved by the City of Northampton prior to the effective date of this ordinance, which is June t 7, 2004, 4. Certification I hereby certii!v that the Information Contained heroin Including all attachments is true, securate and complete to the best of my ledga per's Signature to (Co? 90 39bd d0 MVI MIN13W lt/d 68L96896tb 6b:tt 900Z/b0/b0 DIM DRAWGE AREA %WATCHMDff 1 E - 35.292 S.F. COVER 13,772 S.F. - WJSH 21,520 S.F. - WJSH Now MdF/=MIL a MAN MIL B WNL mw� DRAINAGE AREA MAP PRE CONSTRUCTION ' --- ... ' /~ ^f~ \ ' � / / / / ' ~~_---- � � i | / / \ i-- \ \ pla "mmm "I'll '"ll cm (ORMAGE TO NMI COVER ��NN��[ A�[� k�A� Oy�[7 y�y�N[7�Uy�T|y�N �K/i||���L �iKL� KU�ir POST CONSTRUCTION KU�� | |U|� APRIL 4. 2006 HERITAGE SUItVEYS INC. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com April 24, 2006 City of Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street - City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Beaver Brook Estates Preliminary Cluster Subdivision Plan Evergreen Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Dear Board Members: To better clarify the scope of this project and as discussed with Douglas McDonald at Northampton DPW, we have revised the Preliminary Cluster Subdivision Plan with a revision date of April 19, 2006 and are re- submitting sixteen full scale prints of a plan entitled, Cluster Subdivision Plan, dated February 6, 2006, and revised April 19, 2006, prepared for Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts. Also enclosed are seven reduced size (11" x 17 ") copies of the revised Cluster Subdivision Plan. The proposed Cluster Subdivision Plan contains nineteen (19) new building lots and a cul -de -sac roadway connecting to Evergreen Road. The plan also show Parcels A thru F having frontage on Hydenville Road and are not part of the proposed Preliminary Cluster Subdivision. Parcels A thru F will be file at a later date under the provisions of "Approval Not Required" and for Special Permits for the common driveways to access the proposed houses as shown. The Custer Plan outlines a parcel of land that is currently owned by Patrick J. Melnik and is not part of this Application for Approval of the Cluster Subdivision Plan. The same two waivers are being requested with this Preliminary Subdivision Submission. According to the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, Section 7:00 Design Standards, 7:01, 5a, a proposed street shall be less than five hundred feet (5001. The proposed cul -de -sac is seven hundred eighty eight feet (7881 from Evergreen Road to the center of the cul -de -sac and eight hundred and seventy feet (8701 from Evergreen Road to the rear street line. The second waiver requested is to eliminate the hammerhead at the end of the extended pavement off the proposed cul -de -sac, which will serve lots 12, 13, 14 & 15 and connect to the proposed common driveways for parcels D, E & F. A hammerhead roadway is allowed under Section 7 :01 5f of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land. I have also enclosed a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. McDonald from William A. Canon, dated April 19, 2006 for your files. Please call me if you have questions regarding this re- submission. Sincerely, ark P. Reed cc: Douglas McDonald, Northampton DPW The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Patrick J. Melnik William A. Canon April 19, 2006 Mr. Douglas McDonald Environmental Engineer City of Northampton DPW Department of Public Works 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 -2066 Re: Condominium Project at Beaver Brook Estates Dear Mr. McDonald, L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E E N V I R O N M E N T A L D E S I G N C O M M U N I T Y P L A N NI N G 1 58 NORTHAMPTON STREET E A S T H A M P T O N, M A 0 1 0 2 7 T E L 4 1 l 3 2 7 6 5 3 F A X 4 1 1; 2 7 6 3 8 9 O F F C E 9 C A N O N L A. C O M I am in receipt of a letter issued by you dated April 19, 2006 which states that the lot number shown on the site plan constitutes this project as part of the Cluster Subdivision Plan and therefore is required to be part of it for the purposes of the Storm Water Management Plan. I respectfully request that you accept what I consider to be an error on the plan indicating the project site as "Lot 24" which is not the case. The project has been purchased by Patrick J. Melnik (Book 8333, Page 275) and is being developed as a totally separate entity not contingent on the Cluster Subdivision Development. The 5.61 acre site provides sufficient open space for the units, the utilities for project are separate and the site is fairly isolated 600' away from the Cluster Subdivision Plan. Although this project disturbs only 30,000 s.f., under one acre, the plan incorporates adequate storm water management practices and protection for erosion control. If you should have any further questions as the legality of the parcels separate ownership and identity please don't hesitate to contact my office. V inceArel� William A. Canon, Landscape Architect 04102/1995 05:00 4135276389 WILLIAM A CANON PAGE 01 npr IV us U2: 31 N01- thaffipton rubl iC Work; 4135871576' Gloat" Andrikidls, P.R. DA'tic* oft Eno'now April 19, 2006 cmr or NORTHAU"ON, turAN"a sam DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 'WORKS 125 LOMA Sued NWd=11P%*2. MA 01060.2066 . 413 - 07.1570 FOr 413- 537 -1$76 Mr. Patrick 1, Melnik, Jr. Melaik L,aw Offices i I King Street Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Attorney Melnik, p,2 On April 1 1, 2006 the Northampton DepaMnemt of public.%'orks (DPW) issued a disapproval of the Stormwater Permit Waiver Application Por theproposcd Beaver Brook Condo development loomed on 141%y&nville Rd. In heeds, Massachusetts. This disapproval was based on the finding that the Beaver Brook Condo project was part of a larger common p1mi of development that would disturb over I acre of land and as such would require an approved Stormwatcr Management Permit as specified by the Northampton Stormwater Managemem OrdinAnce (Chapter 22, Attick 5). After Anther review of the propowd Beaver Brook Estates, Cluster Subdivision Plan dared February b, 2006 and Submitted to the Northampton Planning Board March 22, 2006, Marcel 24 is shown as part of the Beaver Brook EsweT, Cluater Subdivision plan. As such any construction activities on Parcel 24 is part of the common plan of development coiled Beaver Brook Estates aid requires an approved Stonnwater Managarient Permit as spad ed by the Northampton Stormwatcr Managemem Ordinance (Chapter 22, AnWe 5). The DPW will not consent to allow either the Beaver Brook Condo project Or the Beaver Brook Estates Cluster Subdivision .Plan to be appxpved by the Planaibg Berard until this issue is resolved. Sincerel ]D�� Douglas McDonald Environmental Planner cc. Ocorgo Andrikidis, DPW Direeror Ned Huntley, City Engineer Planning Board TO add d0 M'oq MIN - M lad GOL908 ZEST 9002 /6t/va File # MP- 2004 -0058 APPLICANT /CONTACT PERSON WILLIAM A CANON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ADDRESS/PHONE 158 NORTHAMPTON ST (413) 527 -6535 O PROPERTY LOCATION HAYDENVILLE RD MAP 06 PARCEL 020 001 ZONE SR THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST ENCLOSED REQUIRED DATE Building Permit Filled out Fee Paid Tvneof Construction: ZPA - COMMON DRIVE TO 3 HOUSES New Construction Non Structural interior renovations Addition to Existin Accessory Structure Building Plans Included: Owner/ Statement or License 3 sets of Plans / Plot Plan THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION BASED ON INFORMATION PRESENTED: Approved kAdditional permits required (see below) PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § i s - , Z -7 /Z Intermediate Project : y Site Plan AND /OR Special Permit with Site Plan Major Project: Site Plan AND /OR Special Permit with Site Plan ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § Finding Special Permit Variance* Received & Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed Other Permits Required: Curb Cut from DPW Septic Approval Board of Health Permit from Conservation Commission Well Water Potability Board of Health Permit from Elm Street Commission Signature of Building Official Permit from CB Architecture Committee Lo Z �� Date Note: Issuance of a Zoning permit does not relieve a applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Department of public works and other applicable permit granting authorities. Water Availability Sewer Availability * Variances are granted only to those applicants who meet the strict standards of MGL 40A. Contact the Office of Planning & Development for more information. File No. a� & ZONIlVG PERMIT APPLICATION (§ 10.2) Please type or print all information and return this form to the Building Inspector's Office with the I $10. filing fee (check or money order) payable to the City of Northampton 1. Name of Applicant: Robert Jeffway If Address: 66 Old State Road South Deerfield, MA 01373 Telephone: 413.6652124 2. Owner of Propert same as above Address: same as above Telephone: same as above 3. Status of Applicant: Owner X Contract Purchaser Lessee Other (explain) 4. Job Location: Haydenville Road Northampton, MA (formerly Beaver Brook Subdivision) Parcel Id: Zoning Map# 5 Parcel# 6,7,12 District(s): SR (Suburban Residential) 6 18,19,0 21, 58 URA (Urban Residential -A) In Elm Street District In Central Business District (TO BE FILLED IN BY THE BUR DING DEPARTNIENI) 5. Existing Use of Structure/Property Undeveloped land I� 6. Description of Proposed Use /Work/Project/Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary): Construct common driveway access to three (3) house sites within lots shown on attached site plan. l i 7. Attached Plans: Sketch Plan X Site Plan Engineered/Surveyed Plans 8. Has a Special Permit/Variance/Finding ever been issued for /on the site? NO X DONT KNOW YES IF YES, date issued Ga IF YES: Was the pennit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? NO DON'T KNOW YES IF YES: enter Book Page and/or Document # Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO DON'T KNOW YES X IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission? Needs to be obtained X Obtained , date issued: (Form Continues On Other Side) 10. Do any signs exist on the property? YES NO X IF YES, describe size, type and location: Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property? YES a NO X IF YES, describe size, type and location: I I. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION. This column to be fined in by the Buucu De rtrnent 12. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained J in i and acctuate to the best of my knowledge. Date: 11/19/03 Applicant's Signature 1/ Robert Jeffway I NOTE: Issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve an applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Historic and Architectural Boards, Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities. EXISTING P PROPOSED R REQi3TREI)Y ? "`;: ZONING::;; Lot Size 5 57.07 acres T To provide access for 3 house sites. Frontage 1 125' 2 250' min (see site plan) Setbacks Front 3 30' 30' Side L L: 20' R• 20' L L 20' R: 20' Rear 4 40' 4 40' Building Height 3 35'/ 2 stoires 35'/ 2 stories Building Square Footage N/A U Unknown % Open Space: pot area minus building & paved U Unknown U Unknown p arkin g # of Parking Spaces N/A N N/A # of Loading Docks N/A N N/A Fill: (volume & location) N N/A N N/A De rtrnent 12. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained J in i and acctuate to the best of my knowledge. Date: 11/19/03 Applicant's Signature 1/ Robert Jeffway I NOTE: Issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve an applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Historic and Architectural Boards, Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities. • THE STREETS OF YANKEE HILL: SAFETY ISSUES Yankee Hill has sidewalks only on part of Front Street. There are pedestrians, including schoolchildren, in the roads everywhere. 1) Intersection of Leonard St. and Rt. 9 /Haydenville Rd. • Cars traveling from the direction of Haydenville take the curve onto Leonard too fast, race down the straightaway • Cars exiting Leonard onto Rt. 9 have poor visibility and are hard to see, especially in winter • The right turn exiting Leonard is too sharp for trucks and too sharp for merging with fast - moving traffic 2) Intersection of Leonard St. and Evergreen Rd. • Poor visibility • School bus stop without sidewalk —kids waiting in the road • Too -sharp right turn from Evergreen onto Leonard • Cars on Leonard travel too fast through the intersection 3) East Center St. • Road is less than 17 feet wide in places, with no sidewalks —the addition of 200+ vehicles per day poses a major threat to the safety of pedestrians • Hill can be slippery with ice in winter, sand in spring— danger of sliding out onto Rt. 9, or sliding back at hilltop stop sign • Cars coming up Rt. 9 from the direction of Northampton and turning onto East Center will block Rt. 9 traffic —there is no space to pass them on the right 4) Intersection of East Center, Leonard, Upland • Offset intersection — unsafe flow of traffic between Upland and East Center 5) Junction of Leonard St. and Front St. (+ dead end) • Dangerous curve • Dead -end portion of Leonard also connects here 6) Junction of Front St. and Grove Ave. • Crossing point for all children from the Hill going to /from Leeds School: no crosswalk (and none possible, according to DPW) no crossing guard crossing point too close to curve- -poor visibility • School bus stop for JFK, high school 7) Curve /hill on Front St. • Road only 23 feet wide — unsafe for two cars passing, even more so for cars passing buses (school, PVTA) and trucks • Poor visibility due to hill, wall, trees • Sidewalk is narrow, with no grass strip • Snow plows bury sidewalk, people on foot forced into the street in winter • Drivers coming up the hill try to keep up speed, come around corner and into school crossing area too fast • Hill slippery with ice /snow in winter, sand in spring 8) Junction of Front St. and Mulberry • Long (diagonal) crosswalk, fast - moving traffic on hill • Poor visibility • Difficult turn from Front onto Mulberry westbound 9) Grove Ave. • Road narrow, no sidewalks • Road leads directly to and from Leeds School, people on foot coming down from Upland and Evergreen as well as from homes on Grove (plus children from new subdivision) • Plan calls for funneling two -way traffic plus people on foot through 20- foot -wide dead -end section • Plan offers no traffic- calming measures for cars exiting subdivision and traveling downhill along Grove Ave. straightaway Chestnut St., Evergreen Rd., Front St., East Center St., Upland Rd.: Steep sections on these narrow roads are slippery for cars and pedestrians in winter, and for pedestrians and bicycles in spring (due to sand). Stop signs can create rather than solve problems where hills are concerned. Yankee Hill Conservation Group • Memorandum To: Carolyn Misch From: Duane Nichols* Date: September 22, 2006 CC: Brain Duggan Re: Beaver Brook Estates After reviewing the plans for this project, I am still in question that it would meet the required water flow calculations. This area of the city as low water pressure and I am unsure if this project would meet the ISO fire flow requirements. The fire department would like to see the documentation of water flow calculations to ensure ISO requirements are met. Also hydrant spacing needs to be in accordance with national standards along with appropriate signage at the end of any common driveway clearly showing house numbers for that drive. • Page 1 0 Daniel T. Keith 68 Leonard St. Leeds, Ma. 01053 Planning Board Chairman Northampton Planning Board City Hall 210 Main St. Northampton, Ma. 01060 Dear Mr. Chairman and members: I am an abutter to the proposed Beaver Brook Estates plan and have several comments. Since time will be limited at the hearing of September 28, 2006 I am writing a letter, which I hope you will read. 1. The whole parcel was designated "Rare Species Area" because of the Jefferson Salamander and Wood Turtle. The Jefferson Salamanders were found in my vernal pool (2019) and venal pool 2017. There are a total of 5 vernal pools- 4 Beaver Brook and 1 on my land but all are connected as a system. Through the MESA process, the land being shown as "open space" and "conservation restriction" was mandated by NHESP through a MESA review for a Conservation Pen It is land that can not be disturbed. The applicant should not be given waivers for his over extended cul -de -sac because of land he can't build on anyway. That's wrong! 2. The biggest concern to the neighborhood is traffic. The proposed project will generate too much traffic for the 3 current neighborhood exits- Front St., East Center St. and Leonard St. There are only sidewalks on part of Front St. We know most of the traffic will exit down East Center St., a very narrow street which varies in width. Vehicles frequently have to pull over to let others pass by. Front St has a steep curvy hill with a stop sign at the bottom and very young school children walking and riding bikes to Leeds Elementary school. Very dangerous! And Leonard St has a dangerous acute angle to Rt. 9 with a very poor line of sight from the Florence direction. Traffic goes 60 MPH on Rt 9. The Planning Board has previously said, many times over 8 years, the applicant was responsible for some neighborhood traffic mitigation measures for his plans to be accepted. What happened to that? He is asking for waivers for tight radii, non - aligned intersections and over extended cul -de -sacs. All of which are public safety issues affecting fire trucks, traffic and pedestrians adding yet another hazardous intersection. Why did you change the laws if you are going to hand out waivers like cookies. Trading $2000 per unit in lew of a proper traffic study or for a bike path does nothing for our neighborhood safety. A comprehensive neighborhood traffic study and how this proposed sub division affects the neighborhood traffic and safety is absolutely necessary. Please do not cut corners when our kids are at risk. 3. There are still issues about water. The applicant has been denied access to city water along Rt 9 and will have similar issues on Evergreen Rd. A previously submitted plan • was denied because of lack of adequate domestic and fire flow, in 1999. I would like an explanation on how emergency vehicles such as long fire trucks would be able to negotiate the cul -de -sac. I fire under dry conditions could be a disaster beyond the 500' cul -de -sac and into those woods. A little common sense might be prudent here. 4. The logical solution for the Board to consider is to require the applicant to build his development under the current Zoning Ordinance of 500 foot cul -de -sac limits. He should have 1 common driveway with three houses off of a 500' cul -de -sac. That would be consistent with what was approved previously for Robert Jeffway (3 houses accessed from a common driveway from Grove Ave.).. This solution would be a compromise with the traffic issue. This solution would be a responsible environmental solution to what is all "Rare Species Area ". This solution would protect the integrity of Grove Ave. 5. "Smart Growth ", after all, is what the Zoning Ordinance is all about. Exceptions and waivers should not be automatic, but be carefully considered around individual situations. The waivers proposed for this project by the applicant work against what is best for our neighborhood and the environment. Thank you for your time, Daniel T. Keith �� of M,�s Commot, th of Massachusetts Division of � °f FISAERIES�� `~o , Wildlife MassWi /d /ife September 1, 2006 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Melnik Law Offices 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 acCallum, Director 2006 RE: Beaver Brook Estates NHESP Tracking No. 01 -9552 Dear Mr. Melnik: Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Conservation & Management Permit for the above - listed project. The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program is satisfied that this project and associated endangered species mitigation, as currently proposed, meet the standards for issuance of a Conservation & Management Permit. However, as discussed by telephone, the NHESP will wait until a plan showing the final lot lines is provided to us before issuing the permit. v In addition, it is my understanding that you will deed the proposed open space parcel to the City of ��- Northampton subject to a deed restriction, and that you will provide us with the text of said deed restriction for inclusion as an attachment to our permit This is necessary as the City was proposed to be both the Conservation Restriction Grantee and the fee owner of this parcel. Provided that this land is deeded to the City for conservation purposes, subject to restrictions specified in the deed, the proposed CR need not cover this separate open space parcel. While we await the final plan showing both lot and CR boundaries, we will begin work on the draft Conservation & Management Permit. I look forward to working with you to complete the MESA permitting process for this project. Sincerely, Jon Regosin, Ph.D. Senior Project Analyst cc: Northampton Planning Department Northampton Conservation Commission www. masswildli e. org Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792 -7270 Fax (508) 792 -7275 An A.¢encv of the Department of Fisheries. Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement IERITAGE SURVEYS, *C. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys. com August 28, 2006 City of Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street — City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Beaver Brook Estates Cluster Subdivision Plan Application Evergreen Road & Hydenville Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Dear Board Members: On behalf of our clients, The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik, we are pleased to submit sixteen full scale prints of the enclosed plans entitled, Cluster Subdivision Plan - Preferred Option, Cluster Subdivision Plan - Option B and, Development Area Calculations Plan - Preferred Option, all dated August 28, 2006 and prepared for The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust and Patrick J. Melnik in Northampton, Massachusetts. Also enclosed are seven reduced size (11" x 17 ") copies of the three plans referenced above. The preferred plan by the developer shows an Open Space Residential Development with fourteen (14) lots and a cul -de -sac roadway connecting to Evergreen Road. Lot 1 will contain three Multifamily Dwellings, of which building #2 is the existing apartment building. Parcel A, as shown on the plans, has frontage on Haydenville Road and is not part of the proposed Preliminary Cluster Subdivision Submission. Three waivers are being requested with the Cluster Subdivision Plan - Preferred Option submission: • The first waiver request is in accordance with the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, Section 7:00 Design Standards, 7:01, 5(a), "a proposed street shall be less than five hundred feet (500')." The proposed cul -de -sac is eight hundred forty eight feet (848') from Evergreen Road to the center of the cul -de -sac and nine hundred twenty eight feet (928') from Evergreen Road to the rear street line. • The second waiver is that the Preferred Plan does not meet the City of Northampton's Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Design Standard for the following: "the center line of all intersecting streets shall be a straight line from the point of intersection of said center line for a distance of no less than one hundred (100') feet" per section 7:01(4)(b). Y:\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\ SUBDIVISION \3923preliminary2006.doc �J Page 2 of 2 Northampton Planning Board August 28, 2006 • The third waiver is to allow a proposed centerline roadway radius to be a minimum of 100', according to the City of Northampton's Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Design Standard, section 7:01(9), Horizontal Alignment, "a Local Street shall have a minimum radius of center line of 250 feet." If the Planning Board chooses the Cluster Subdivision Plan - Option B, only one waiver would be requested with this Preliminary Subdivision Submission. Option B shows seventeen (17) cluster lots and the removal of the existing multifamily dwelling. Parcel A consists of the same area of land and contains the same number of dwelling in both options and is not part of the Preliminary Subdivision Submission. • According to the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, Section 7:00 Design Standards, 7:01, 5a, "a proposed street shall be less than five hundred feet (500')." The proposed cul -de -sac is seven hundred eighty eight feet (788') from Evergreen Road to the center of the cul -de -sac and eight hundred and seventy feet (870') from Evergreen Road to the rear street line. Both plans reflect an alternative concept that requires no alterations to any Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Riverfront Areas or Vernal Pools as well as buffer zones to these areas. Either plan option provides a Permanent Conservation Restriction Area containing 40.95 acres of land that shall be permanently protected, of which 27.04 acres of this land will be conveyed to the City of Northampton and dedicated to the Conservation Commission. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter addressed to the Northampton Planning Board from Melnik Law Offices regarding an offer to the City of Northampton in lieu of a full traffic study. See attached letter for details of proposal. We would appreciate your directing any correspondence regarding the above referenced project to The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik, 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060, (413) 584 -6750 with copies of the same to Heritage Surveys, Inc. Sincerely, Mark P. Reed cc: The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Patrick J. Melnik William A. Canon Y:\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\ SUBDIVISION \3923preliminary2006.doc • APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAN - -Form B File with the Office of Planning and Development, City of Northampton, Massachusetts File sixteen completed forms and plans and file seven additional copies, showing wetlands, which may be 11" x17" reduced scale plans, with the City Clerk and the Planning Board, in accordance with the requirements of Section 4:02. All plans must be folded and a copy of this application attached to each plan. All submittals must be accompanied with a disk showing the entire filing in Dj Vu or TIFF format. To the Planning Board: The undersigned herewith submits the accompanying Preliminary Plan of Property located in the City of Northampton for approval as allowed under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the Planning Board in the City of Northampton. We further rant a Planning Board and its agents the right to enter our property for the purpose of evaluating this applicatio Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik 1. Applicant Signature 110 King Street (V3) 58 -6750 Address Northampton, MAO 1060 Phone Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik 2. Owner Signature 110 King Street Address Northampton, MAO 1060 Phone ( P3)58 750 3. Engineer Heritage Surveys, Inc. - Richard P. Weisse Signature T College Highway & Clark St. P.O. Box 1 (413) 527 -3600 Address Southampton, MA 01073 Phone Heritage Surveys, Inc. - Bruce A. Coombs 4. Surveyor Signature 5. Deed of property recorded in Hampshire County Registry or Land Court (circle one), Book Page SEE BELOW 6. Location and Description of Property: SEE BELOW # of Commercial Lots: 0 # of Residential Lots: 14 Map 5 Parcels 6, 7, 12 7. Assessor's Map ID: Lot(s): Map 6 Parcels 18, 19, 20, 21, 58, 61 Map 11 A Parcel 3 Date sub ed to Planning Bo Date Decision Filed: a City Cl City Clerk (Si ature) (Signature) (form created 5/8/200 ) Book 5493 Page 23, Book 5869 Page 6, Book 5917 Page 206, Book 8333 Page 275 The parcel of land is located on the northerly side of Evergreen Drive and the westerly side of Haydenville Road. The existing site consists of woods, an existing 4 unit multifamily building, vernal pools and bordering vegetated wetlands. See plan entitled, Cluster Subdivision Plan, Preferred Option, dated August 28, 2006. Also see enclosed letter to the City of Northampton, Planning Board, dated August 28, 2006, which describes the submission. Northampton Subdivision Regulations - - - - -- -PAGE 48 MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Telephone (413) 584 -6750 Fax (413)584 -6789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. July 27, 2006 Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street Northampton, Ma 01060 Re: Beaver Brook Estates revised preliminary subdivision plans Dear Members of the Planning Board: email: pmelnik @verizon.net patmeinikjr@verizon.net Please be advised that on behalf of myself, and my brother -in -law, John Hanley, in connection with our proposed planned subdivision of the Beaver Brook property, we are prepared to offer the equivalent to an aggregate sum of $2,000.00 per unit for each unit approved of new residential housing on the site we are proposing. We are prepared to connect the subdivision road with the proposed Northampton bike path by way of the bike path connector shown on the plans. We are additionally prepared to construct the bike path main corridor from the connector to Grove Avenue north toward the Williamsburg line. We will construct as much of this section of the bike path as possible until the $2,000.00 per unit is used up. If the bike path is completed with additional funds remaining, or if the city receives alternative funds for construction of this portion of the bike path, the remaining money will be given directly to the city to be used as it sees fit. We propose to pay the cost of constructing this portion of the bike path connection, construction of the bike path's main corridor, and possible direct payment to the city, as traffic mitigation and in lieu of a full traffic study. We still plan on completing a traffic study on the impact to the intersection to Evergreen Road. i c rely Patrick J. Me nik PJM /jlp �� c�� � cam. �� 'Y� Q �� ����.���_ � C �� �� ' a ,lam �,� � � C� � ��____�'� -�. err C� W.�� \C) (A • THE STREETS OF YANKEE HILL: SAFETY ISSUES Yankee Hill has sidewalks only on part of Front Street. There are pedestrians, including schoolchildren, in the roads everywhere. 1) Intersection of Leonard St. and Rt. 9 /Haydenville Rd. • Cars traveling from the direction of Haydenville take the curve onto Leonard too fast, race down the straightaway • Cars exiting Leonard onto Rt. 9 have poor visibility and are hard to see, especially in winter • The right turn exiting Leonard is too sharp for trucks and too sharp for merging with fast - moving traffic 2) Intersection of Leonard St. and Evergreen Rd. • Poor visibility • School bus stop without sidewalk —kids waiting in the road • Too -sharp right turn from Evergreen onto Leonard • Cars on Leonard travel too fast through the intersection 3) East Center St. • Road is less than 17 feet wide in places, with no sidewalks —the addition of 200+ vehicles per day poses a major threat to the safety of pedestrians • Hill can be slippery with ice in winter, sand in spring— danger of sliding out onto Rt. 9, or sliding back at hilltop stop sign • Cars coming up Rt. 9 from the direction of Northampton and turning onto East Center will block Rt. 9 traffic —there is no space to pass them on the right 4) Intersection of East Center, Leonard, Upland • Offset intersection — unsafe flow of traffic between Upland and East Center 5) Junction of Leonard St. and Front St. (+ dead end) • Dangerous curve • Dead -end portion of Leonard also connects here 6) Junction of Front St. and Grove Ave. • Crossing point for all children from the Hill going to /from Leeds School: no crosswalk (and none possible, according to DPW) no crossing guard crossing point too close to curve- -poor visibility • School bus stop for JFK, high school 7) Curve /hill on Front St. • Road only 23 feet wide — unsafe for two cars passing, even more so for cars passing buses (school, PVTA) and trucks • Poor visibility due to hill, wall, trees • Sidewalk is narrow, with no grass strip • Snow plows bury sidewalk, people on foot forced into the street in winter • Drivers coming up the hill try to keep up speed, come around corner and into school crossing area too fast • Hill slippery with ice /snow in winter, sand in spring 8) Junction of Front St. and Mulberry • Long (diagonal) crosswalk, fast - moving traffic on hill • Poor visibility • Difficult turn from Front onto Mulberry westbound 9) Grove Ave. • Road narrow, no sidewalks • Road leads directly to and from Leeds School, people on foot coming down from Upland and Evergreen as well as from homes on Grove (plus children from new subdivision) • Plan calls for funneling two -way traffic plus people on foot through 20- foot -wide dead -end section • Plan offers no traffic- calming measures for cars exiting subdivision and traveling downhill along Grove Ave. straightaway Chestnut St., Evergreen Rd., Front St., East Center St., Upland Rd.: Steep sections on these narrow roads are slippery for cars and pedestrians in winter, and for pedestrians and bicycles in spring (due to sand). Stop signs can create rather than solve problems where hills are concerned. Yankee Hill Conservation Group • Memorandum To: Carolyn Misch From: Duane Nichols* Date: September 22, 2006 CC: Brain Duggan Re: Beaver Brook Estates After reviewing the plans for this project, I am still in question that it would meet the required water flow calculations. This area of the city as low water pressure and I am unsure if this project would meet the ISO fire flow requirements. The fire department would like to see the documentation of water flow calculations to ensure ISO requirements are met. Also hydrant spacing needs to be in accordance with national standards along with appropriate signage at the end of any common driveway clearly showing house numbers for that drive. • Page 1 0 Daniel T. Keith 68 Leonard St. Leeds, Ma. 01053 Planning Board Chairman Northampton Planning Board City Hall 210 Main St. Northampton, Ma. 01060 Dear Mr. Chairman and members: I am an abutter to the proposed Beaver Brook Estates plan and have several comments. Since time will be limited at the hearing of September 28, 2006 I am writing a letter, which I hope you will read. 1. The whole parcel was designated "Rare Species Area" because of the Jefferson Salamander and Wood Turtle. The Jefferson Salamanders were found in my vernal pool (2019) and venal pool 2017. There are a total of 5 vernal pools- 4 Beaver Brook and 1 on my land but all are connected as a system. Through the MESA process, the land being shown as "open space" and "conservation restriction" was mandated by NHESP through a MESA review for a Conservation Pen It is land that can not be disturbed. The applicant should not be given waivers for his over extended cul -de -sac because of land he can't build on anyway. That's wrong! 2. The biggest concern to the neighborhood is traffic. The proposed project will generate too much traffic for the 3 current neighborhood exits- Front St., East Center St. and Leonard St. There are only sidewalks on part of Front St. We know most of the traffic will exit down East Center St., a very narrow street which varies in width. Vehicles frequently have to pull over to let others pass by. Front St has a steep curvy hill with a stop sign at the bottom and very young school children walking and riding bikes to Leeds Elementary school. Very dangerous! And Leonard St has a dangerous acute angle to Rt. 9 with a very poor line of sight from the Florence direction. Traffic goes 60 MPH on Rt 9. The Planning Board has previously said, many times over 8 years, the applicant was responsible for some neighborhood traffic mitigation measures for his plans to be accepted. What happened to that? He is asking for waivers for tight radii, non - aligned intersections and over extended cul -de -sacs. All of which are public safety issues affecting fire trucks, traffic and pedestrians adding yet another hazardous intersection. Why did you change the laws if you are going to hand out waivers like cookies. Trading $2000 per unit in lew of a proper traffic study or for a bike path does nothing for our neighborhood safety. A comprehensive neighborhood traffic study and how this proposed sub division affects the neighborhood traffic and safety is absolutely necessary. Please do not cut corners when our kids are at risk. 3. There are still issues about water. The applicant has been denied access to city water along Rt 9 and will have similar issues on Evergreen Rd. A previously submitted plan • was denied because of lack of adequate domestic and fire flow, in 1999. I would like an explanation on how emergency vehicles such as long fire trucks would be able to negotiate the cul -de -sac. I fire under dry conditions could be a disaster beyond the 500' cul -de -sac and into those woods. A little common sense might be prudent here. 4. The logical solution for the Board to consider is to require the applicant to build his development under the current Zoning Ordinance of 500 foot cul -de -sac limits. He should have 1 common driveway with three houses off of a 500' cul -de -sac. That would be consistent with what was approved previously for Robert Jeffway (3 houses accessed from a common driveway from Grove Ave.).. This solution would be a compromise with the traffic issue. This solution would be a responsible environmental solution to what is all "Rare Species Area ". This solution would protect the integrity of Grove Ave. 5. "Smart Growth ", after all, is what the Zoning Ordinance is all about. Exceptions and waivers should not be automatic, but be carefully considered around individual situations. The waivers proposed for this project by the applicant work against what is best for our neighborhood and the environment. Thank you for your time, Daniel T. Keith �� of M,�s Commot, th of Massachusetts Division of � °f FISAERIES�� `~o , Wildlife MassWi /d /ife September 1, 2006 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Melnik Law Offices 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 �" acCallum, Director 2006 RE: Beaver Brook Estates NHESP Tracking No. 01 -9552 Dear Mr. Melnik: Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Conservation & Management Permit for the above - listed project- The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program is satisfied that this project and associated endangered species mitigation, as currently proposed, meet the standards for issuance of a Conservation & Management Permit. However, as discussed by telephone, the NHESP will wait until a plan showing the final lot lines is provided to us before issuing the permit. v In addition, it is my understanding that you will deed the proposed open space parcel to the City of ��- Northampton subject to a deed restriction, and that you will provide us with the text of said deed restriction for inclusion as an attachment to our permit This is necessary as the City was proposed to be both the Conservation Restriction Grantee and the fee owner of this parcel. Provided that this land is deeded to the City for conservation purposes, subject to restrictions specified in the deed, the proposed CR need not cover this separate open space parcel. While we await the final plan showing both lot and CR boundaries, we will begin work on the draft Conservation & Management Permit. I look forward to working with you to complete the MESA permitting process for this project. Sincerely, Jon Regosin, Ph.D. Senior Project Analyst cc: Northampton Planning Department Northampton Conservation Commission www. masswildli e. org Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792 -7270 Fax (508) 792 -7275 An A.¢encv of the Department of Fisheries. Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement IERITAGE SURVEYS, *C. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys. com August 28, 2006 City of Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street — City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Beaver Brook Estates Cluster Subdivision Plan Application Evergreen Road & Hydenville Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Dear Board Members: On behalf of our clients, The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik, we are pleased to submit sixteen full scale prints of the enclosed plans entitled, Cluster Subdivision Plan - Preferred Option, Cluster Subdivision Plan - Option B and, Development Area Calculations Plan - Preferred Option, all dated August 28, 2006 and prepared for The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust and Patrick J. Melnik in Northampton, Massachusetts. Also enclosed are seven reduced size (11" x 17 ") copies of the three plans referenced above. The preferred plan by the developer shows an Open Space Residential Development with fourteen (14) lots and a cul -de -sac roadway connecting to Evergreen Road. Lot 1 will contain three Multifamily Dwellings, of which building #2 is the existing apartment building. Parcel A, as shown on the plans, has frontage on Haydenville Road and is not part of the proposed Preliminary Cluster Subdivision Submission. Three waivers are being requested with the Cluster Subdivision Plan - Preferred Option submission: • The first waiver request is in accordance with the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, Section 7:00 Design Standards, 7:01, 5(a), "a proposed street shall be less than five hundred feet (500')." The proposed cul -de -sac is eight hundred forty eight feet (848') from Evergreen Road to the center of the cul -de -sac and nine hundred twenty eight feet (928') from Evergreen Road to the rear street line. • The second waiver is that the Preferred Plan does not meet the City of Northampton's Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Design Standard for the following: "the center line of all intersecting streets shall be a straight line from the point of intersection of said center line for a distance of no less than one hundred (100') feet" per section 7:01(4)(b). Y:\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\ SUBDIVISION \3923preliminary2006.doc �J Page 2 of 2 Northampton Planning Board August 28, 2006 • The third waiver is to allow a proposed centerline roadway radius to be a minimum of 100', according to the City of Northampton's Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Design Standard, section 7:01(9), Horizontal Alignment, "a Local Street shall have a minimum radius of center line of 250 feet." If the Planning Board chooses the Cluster Subdivision Plan - Option B, only one waiver would be requested with this Preliminary Subdivision Submission. Option B shows seventeen (17) cluster lots and the removal of the existing multifamily dwelling. Parcel A consists of the same area of land and contains the same number of dwelling in both options and is not part of the Preliminary Subdivision Submission. • According to the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, Section 7:00 Design Standards, 7:01, 5a, "a proposed street shall be less than five hundred feet (500')." The proposed cul -de -sac is seven hundred eighty eight feet (788') from Evergreen Road to the center of the cul -de -sac and eight hundred and seventy feet (870') from Evergreen Road to the rear street line. Both plans reflect an alternative concept that requires no alterations to any Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Riverfront Areas or Vernal Pools as well as buffer zones to these areas. Either plan option provides a Permanent Conservation Restriction Area containing 40.95 acres of land that shall be permanently protected, of which 27.04 acres of this land will be conveyed to the City of Northampton and dedicated to the Conservation Commission. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter addressed to the Northampton Planning Board from Melnik Law Offices regarding an offer to the City of Northampton in lieu of a full traffic study. See attached letter for details of proposal. We would appreciate your directing any correspondence regarding the above referenced project to The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik, 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060, (413) 584 -6750 with copies of the same to Heritage Surveys, Inc. Sincerely, Mark P. Reed cc: The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Patrick J. Melnik William A. Canon Y:\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\ SUBDIVISION \3923preliminary2006.doc • APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAN - -Form B File with the Office of Planning and Development, City of Northampton, Massachusetts File sixteen completed forms and plans and file seven additional copies, showing wetlands, which may be 11" x17" reduced scale plans, with the City Clerk and the Planning Board, in accordance with the requirements of Section 4:02. All plans must be folded and a copy of this application attached to each plan. All submittals must be accompanied with a disk showing the entire filing in Dj Vu or TIFF format. To the Planning Board: The undersigned herewith submits the accompanying Preliminary Plan of Property located in the City of Northampton for approval as allowed under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the Planning Board in the City of Northampton. We further rant a Planning Board and its agents the right to enter our property for the purpose of evaluating this application Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik 1. Applicant Signature 110 King Street ( 3) 58467 Address Northampton, MAO 1060 Phone Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik 2. Owner Signature 110 King Street Address Northampton, MAO 1060 Phone ( P3)58 750 3. Engineer Heritage Surveys, Inc. - Richard P. Weisse Signature T College Highway & Clark St. P.O. Box 1 (413) 527 -3600 Address Southampton, MA 01073 Phone Heritage Surveys, Inc. - Bruce A. Coombs 4. Surveyor Signature 5. Deed of property recorded in Hampshire County Registry or Land Court (circle one), Book Page SEE BELOW 6. Location and Description of Property: SEE BELOW # of Commercial Lots: 0 # of Residential Lots: 14 Map 5 Parcels 6, 7, 12 7. Assessor's Map ID: Lot(s): Map 6 Parcels 18, 19, 20, 21, 58, 61 Map 11 A Parcel 3 Date sub ed to Planning Bo Date Decision Filed: a City Cl City Clerk: (Si ature) (Signature) (form created 5/8/200 ) Book 5493 Page 23, Book 5869 Page 6, Book 5917 Page 206, Book 8333 Page 275 The parcel of land is located on the northerly side of Evergreen Drive and the westerly side of Haydenville Road. The existing site consists of woods, an existing 4 unit multifamily building, vernal pools and bordering vegetated wetlands. See plan entitled, Cluster Subdivision Plan, Preferred Option, dated August 28, 2006. Also see enclosed letter to the City of Northampton, Planning Board, dated August 28, 2006, which describes the submission. Northampton Subdivision Regulations - - - - -- -PAGE 48 MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Telephone (413) 584 -6750 Fax (413)584 -6789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. July 27, 2006 Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street Northampton, Ma 01060 Re: Beaver Brook Estates revised preliminary subdivision plans Dear Members of the Planning Board: email: pmelnik @verizon.net patmeinikjr@verizon.net Please be advised that on behalf of myself, and my brother -in -law, John Hanley, in connection with our proposed planned subdivision of the Beaver Brook property, we are prepared to offer the equivalent to an aggregate sum of $2,000.00 per unit for each unit approved of new residential housing on the site we are proposing. We are prepared to connect the subdivision road with the proposed Northampton bike path by way of the bike path connector shown on the plans. We are additionally prepared to construct the bike path main corridor from the connector to Grove Avenue north toward the Williamsburg line. We will construct as much of this section of the bike path as possible until the $2,000.00 per unit is used up. If the bike path is completed with additional funds remaining, or if the city receives alternative funds for construction of this portion of the bike path, the remaining money will be given directly to the city to be used as it sees fit. We propose to pay the cost of constructing this portion of the bike path connection, construction of the bike path's main corridor, and possible direct payment to the city, as traffic mitigation and in lieu of a full traffic study. We still plan on completing a traffic study on the impact to the intersection to Evergreen Road. i c rely Patrick J. Me nik PJM /jlp �� c�� � cam. �� 'Y� Q �� ����.���_ � C �� �� ' a ,lam �,� � � C� � ��____�'� -�. err C� W.�� \y� lam, v ,s���,' � ,� \C) (A • THE STREETS OF YANKEE HILL: SAFETY ISSUES Yankee Hill has sidewalks only on part of Front Street. There are pedestrians, including schoolchildren, in the roads everywhere. 1) Intersection of Leonard St. and Rt. 9 /Haydenville Rd. • Cars traveling from the direction of Haydenville take the curve onto Leonard too fast, race down the straightaway • Cars exiting Leonard onto Rt. 9 have poor visibility and are hard to see, especially in winter • The right turn exiting Leonard is too sharp for trucks and too sharp for merging with fast - moving traffic 2) Intersection of Leonard St. and Evergreen Rd. • Poor visibility • School bus stop without sidewalk —kids waiting in the road • Too -sharp right turn from Evergreen onto Leonard • Cars on Leonard travel too fast through the intersection 3) East Center St. • Road is less than 17 feet wide in places, with no sidewalks —the addition of 200+ vehicles per day poses a major threat to the safety of pedestrians • Hill can be slippery with ice in winter, sand in spring— danger of sliding out onto Rt. 9, or sliding back at hilltop stop sign • Cars coming up Rt. 9 from the direction of Northampton and turning onto East Center will block Rt. 9 traffic —there is no space to pass them on the right 4) Intersection of East Center, Leonard, Upland • Offset intersection — unsafe flow of traffic between Upland and East Center 5) Junction of Leonard St. and Front St. (+ dead end) • Dangerous curve • Dead -end portion of Leonard also connects here 6) Junction of Front St. and Grove Ave. • Crossing point for all children from the Hill going to /from Leeds School: no crosswalk (and none possible, according to DPW) no crossing guard crossing point too close to curve- -poor visibility • School bus stop for JFK, high school 7) Curve /hill on Front St. • Road only 23 feet wide — unsafe for two cars passing, even more so for cars passing buses (school, PVTA) and trucks • Poor visibility due to hill, wall, trees • Sidewalk is narrow, with no grass strip • Snow plows bury sidewalk, people on foot forced into the street in winter • Drivers coming up the hill try to keep up speed, come around corner and into school crossing area too fast • Hill slippery with ice /snow in winter, sand in spring 8) Junction of Front St. and Mulberry • Long (diagonal) crosswalk, fast - moving traffic on hill • Poor visibility • Difficult turn from Front onto Mulberry westbound 9) Grove Ave. • Road narrow, no sidewalks • Road leads directly to and from Leeds School, people on foot coming down from Upland and Evergreen as well as from homes on Grove (plus children from new subdivision) • Plan calls for funneling two -way traffic plus people on foot through 20- foot -wide dead -end section • Plan offers no traffic- calming measures for cars exiting subdivision and traveling downhill along Grove Ave. straightaway Chestnut St., Evergreen Rd., Front St., East Center St., Upland Rd.: Steep sections on these narrow roads are slippery for cars and pedestrians in winter, and for pedestrians and bicycles in spring (due to sand). Stop signs can create rather than solve problems where hills are concerned. Yankee Hill Conservation Group • Memorandum To: Carolyn Misch From: Duane Nichols* Date: September 22, 2006 CC: Brain Duggan Re: Beaver Brook Estates After reviewing the plans for this project, I am still in question that it would meet the required water flow calculations. This area of the city as low water pressure and I am unsure if this project would meet the ISO fire flow requirements. The fire department would like to see the documentation of water flow calculations to ensure ISO requirements are met. Also hydrant spacing needs to be in accordance with national standards along with appropriate signage at the end of any common driveway clearly showing house numbers for that drive. • Page 1 0 Daniel T. Keith 68 Leonard St. Leeds, Ma. 01053 Planning Board Chairman Northampton Planning Board City Hall 210 Main St. Northampton, Ma. 01060 Dear Mr. Chairman and members: I am an abutter to the proposed Beaver Brook Estates plan and have several comments. Since time will be limited at the hearing of September 28, 2006 I am writing a letter, which I hope you will read. 1. The whole parcel was designated "Rare Species Area" because of the Jefferson Salamander and Wood Turtle. The Jefferson Salamanders were found in my vernal pool (2019) and venal pool 2017. There are a total of 5 vernal pools- 4 Beaver Brook and 1 on my land but all are connected as a system. Through the MESA process, the land being shown as "open space" and "conservation restriction" was mandated by NHESP through a MESA review for a Conservation Pen It is land that can not be disturbed. The applicant should not be given waivers for his over extended cul -de -sac because of land he can't build on anyway. That's wrong! 2. The biggest concern to the neighborhood is traffic. The proposed project will generate too much traffic for the 3 current neighborhood exits- Front St., East Center St. and Leonard St. There are only sidewalks on part of Front St. We know most of the traffic will exit down East Center St., a very narrow street which varies in width. Vehicles frequently have to pull over to let others pass by. Front St has a steep curvy hill with a stop sign at the bottom and very young school children walking and riding bikes to Leeds Elementary school. Very dangerous! And Leonard St has a dangerous acute angle to Rt. 9 with a very poor line of sight from the Florence direction. Traffic goes 60 MPH on Rt 9. The Planning Board has previously said, many times over 8 years, the applicant was responsible for some neighborhood traffic mitigation measures for his plans to be accepted. What happened to that? He is asking for waivers for tight radii, non - aligned intersections and over extended cul -de -sacs. All of which are public safety issues affecting fire trucks, traffic and pedestrians adding yet another hazardous intersection. Why did you change the laws if you are going to hand out waivers like cookies. Trading $2000 per unit in lew of a proper traffic study or for a bike path does nothing for our neighborhood safety. A comprehensive neighborhood traffic study and how this proposed sub division affects the neighborhood traffic and safety is absolutely necessary. Please do not cut corners when our kids are at risk. 3. There are still issues about water. The applicant has been denied access to city water along Rt 9 and will have similar issues on Evergreen Rd. A previously submitted plan • was denied because of lack of adequate domestic and fire flow, in 1999. I would like an explanation on how emergency vehicles such as long fire trucks would be able to negotiate the cul -de -sac. I fire under dry conditions could be a disaster beyond the 500' cul -de -sac and into those woods. A little common sense might be prudent here. 4. The logical solution for the Board to consider is to require the applicant to build his development under the current Zoning Ordinance of 500 foot cul -de -sac limits. He should have 1 common driveway with three houses off of a 500' cul -de -sac. That would be consistent with what was approved previously for Robert Jeffway (3 houses accessed from a common driveway from Grove Ave.).. This solution would be a compromise with the traffic issue. This solution would be a responsible environmental solution to what is all "Rare Species Area ". This solution would protect the integrity of Grove Ave. 5. "Smart Growth ", after all, is what the Zoning Ordinance is all about. Exceptions and waivers should not be automatic, but be carefully considered around individual situations. The waivers proposed for this project by the applicant work against what is best for our neighborhood and the environment. Thank you for your time, Daniel T. Keith �� of M,�s Commot, th of Massachusetts Division of � °f FISAERIES�� `~o , Wildlife MassWi /d /ife September 1, 2006 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Melnik Law Offices 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 acCallum, Director 2006 RE: Beaver Brook Estates NHESP Tracking No. 01 -9552 Dear Mr. Melnik: Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Conservation & Management Permit for the above - listed project. The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program is satisfied that this project and associated endangered species mitigation, as currently proposed, meet the standards for issuance of a Conservation & Management Permit. However, as discussed by telephone, the NHESP will wait until a plan showing the final lot lines is provided to us before issuing the permit. v In addition, it is my understanding that you will deed the proposed open space parcel to the City of ��- Northampton subject to a deed restriction, and that you will provide us with the text of said deed restriction for inclusion as an attachment to our permit This is necessary as the City was proposed to be both the Conservation Restriction Grantee and the fee owner of this parcel. Provided that this land is deeded to the City for conservation purposes, subject to restrictions specified in the deed, the proposed CR need not cover this separate open space parcel. While we await the final plan showing both lot and CR boundaries, we will begin work on the draft Conservation & Management Permit. I look forward to working with you to complete the MESA permitting process for this project. Sincerely, Jon Regosin, Ph.D. Senior Project Analyst cc: Northampton Planning Department Northampton Conservation Commission www. masswildli e. org Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792 -7270 Fax (508) 792 -7275 An A.¢encv of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement IERITAGE SURVEYS, *C. Professional Surveyors and Engineers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys. com August 28, 2006 City of Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street — City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Beaver Brook Estates Cluster Subdivision Plan Application Evergreen Road & Hydenville Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Dear Board Members: On behalf of our clients, The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik, we are pleased to submit sixteen full scale prints of the enclosed plans entitled, Cluster Subdivision Plan - Preferred Option, Cluster Subdivision Plan - Option B and, Development Area Calculations Plan - Preferred Option, all dated August 28, 2006 and prepared for The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust and Patrick J. Melnik in Northampton, Massachusetts. Also enclosed are seven reduced size (11" x 17 ") copies of the three plans referenced above. The preferred plan by the developer shows an Open Space Residential Development with fourteen (14) lots and a cul -de -sac roadway connecting to Evergreen Road. Lot 1 will contain three Multifamily Dwellings, of which building #2 is the existing apartment building. Parcel A, as shown on the plans, has frontage on Haydenville Road and is not part of the proposed Preliminary Cluster Subdivision Submission. Three waivers are being requested with the Cluster Subdivision Plan - Preferred Option submission: • The first waiver request is in accordance with the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, Section 7:00 Design Standards, 7:01, 5(a), "a proposed street shall be less than five hundred feet (500')." The proposed cul -de -sac is eight hundred forty eight feet (848') from Evergreen Road to the center of the cul -de -sac and nine hundred twenty eight feet (928') from Evergreen Road to the rear street line. • The second waiver is that the Preferred Plan does not meet the City of Northampton's Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Design Standard for the following: "the center line of all intersecting streets shall be a straight line from the point of intersection of said center line for a distance of no less than one hundred (100') feet" per section 7:01(4)(b). Y:\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\ SUBDIVISION \3923preliminary2006.doc �J Page 2 of 2 Northampton Planning Board August 28, 2006 • The third waiver is to allow a proposed centerline roadway radius to be a minimum of 100', according to the City of Northampton's Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Design Standard, section 7:01(9), Horizontal Alignment, "a Local Street shall have a minimum radius of center line of 250 feet." If the Planning Board chooses the Cluster Subdivision Plan - Option B, only one waiver would be requested with this Preliminary Subdivision Submission. Option B shows seventeen (17) cluster lots and the removal of the existing multifamily dwelling. Parcel A consists of the same area of land and contains the same number of dwelling in both options and is not part of the Preliminary Subdivision Submission. • According to the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, Section 7:00 Design Standards, 7:01, 5a, "a proposed street shall be less than five hundred feet (500')." The proposed cul -de -sac is seven hundred eighty eight feet (788') from Evergreen Road to the center of the cul -de -sac and eight hundred and seventy feet (870') from Evergreen Road to the rear street line. Both plans reflect an alternative concept that requires no alterations to any Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Riverfront Areas or Vernal Pools as well as buffer zones to these areas. Either plan option provides a Permanent Conservation Restriction Area containing 40.95 acres of land that shall be permanently protected, of which 27.04 acres of this land will be conveyed to the City of Northampton and dedicated to the Conservation Commission. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter addressed to the Northampton Planning Board from Melnik Law Offices regarding an offer to the City of Northampton in lieu of a full traffic study. See attached letter for details of proposal. We would appreciate your directing any correspondence regarding the above referenced project to The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik, 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060, (413) 584 -6750 with copies of the same to Heritage Surveys, Inc. Sincerely, Mark P. Reed cc: The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Patrick J. Melnik William A. Canon Y:\PROJECT DOCUMENTS\ SUBDIVISION \3923preliminary2006.doc • APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAN - -Form B File with the Office of Planning and Development, City of Northampton, Massachusetts File sixteen completed forms and plans and file seven additional copies, showing wetlands, which may be 11" x17" reduced scale plans, with the City Clerk and the Planning Board, in accordance with the requirements of Section 4:02. All plans must be folded and a copy of this application attached to each plan. All submittals must be accompanied with a disk showing the entire filing in Dj Vu or TIFF format. To the Planning Board: The undersigned herewith submits the accompanying Preliminary Plan of Property located in the City of Northampton for approval as allowed under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the Planning Board in the City of Northampton. We further rant a Planning Board and its agents the right to enter our property for the purpose of evaluating this application�V Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik CC�� 1. Applicant Signature 110 King Street ( 3) 58 -6750 Address Northampton, MA 01060 Phone Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik 2. Owner Signature 110 King Street Address Northampton, MAO 1060 Phone ( A3)58 750 3. Engineer Heritage Surveys, Inc. - Richard P. Weisse Signature T College Highway & Clark St. P.O. Box 1 (413) 527 -3600 Address Southampton, MA 01073 Phone Heritage Surveys, Inc. - Bruce A. Coombs 4. Surveyor Signature 5. Deed of property recorded in Hampshire County Registry or Land Court (circle one), Book Page SEE BELOW 6. Location and Description of Property: SEE BELOW # of Commercial Lots: 0 # of Residential Lots: 14 Map 5 Parcels 6, 7, 12 7. Assessor's Map ID: Lot(s): Map 6 Parcels 18, 19, 20, 21, 58, 61 Map 1 I Parcel 3 Date sub ed to Planning Bo Date Decision Filed: a City Cl �� City Clerk: ature) (Signature) (form created (Si. 5/8/200 ) Book 5493 Page 23, Book 5869 Page 6, Book 5917 Page 206, Book 8333 Page 275 The parcel of land is located on the northerly side of Evergreen Drive and the westerly side of Haydenville Road. The existing site consists of woods, an existing 4 unit multifamily building, vernal pools and bordering vegetated wetlands. See plan entitled, Cluster Subdivision Plan, Preferred Option, dated August 28, 2006. Also see enclosed letter to the City of Northampton, Planning Board, dated August 28, 2006, which describes the submission. Northampton Subdivision Regulations - - - - -- -PAGE 48 MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Telephone (413) 584 -6750 Fax (413)584 -6789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. July 27, 2006 Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street Northampton, Ma 01060 Re: Beaver Brook Estates revised preliminary subdivision plans Dear Members of the Planning Board: email: pmelnik @verizon.net patmeinikjr@verizon.net Please be advised that on behalf of myself, and my brother -in -law, John Hanley, in connection with our proposed planned subdivision of the Beaver Brook property, we are prepared to offer the equivalent to an aggregate sum of $2,000.00 per unit for each unit approved of new residential housing on the site we are proposing. We are prepared to connect the subdivision road with the proposed Northampton bike path by way of the bike path connector shown on the plans. We are additionally prepared to construct the bike path main corridor from the connector to Grove Avenue north toward the Williamsburg line. We will construct as much of this section of the bike path as possible until the $2,000.00 per unit is used up. If the bike path is completed with additional funds remaining, or if the city receives alternative funds for construction of this portion of the bike path, the remaining money will be given directly to the city to be used as it sees fit. We propose to pay the cost of constructing this portion of the bike path connection, construction of the bike path's main corridor, and possible direct payment to the city, as traffic mitigation and in lieu of a full traffic study. We still plan on completing a traffic study on the impact to the intersection to Evergreen Road. i c rely Patrick J. Me nik PJM /jlp �� c�� � cam. �� 'Y� Q �� ����.���_ � C �� �� ' a ,lam �,� � � C� � ��____�'� -�. err C� W.�� \C) (A el s \ . r. 44 ze L1 196,6 S 200,3 t W Al 199,, 7 ' i 9 ' < • / � o/ i 71 < a AR a - 19 - --�- -- -- - - t i ols i S_ l i C- < B 1 K T \ i a/s ti J 19 n • ►�� ` 195 a <� _ � � � � a3 +mss •,, za a 199,4 �9 goo � � �� � � •s � � � 1� i f� o TEST v2 1 a < 7 �.� 20 , a ALE •� Ty. M. 7 viXr 4A�n IN THE S 200, 7 Du Oo `� W yv, v / �� / 1 % % A,'.97 A,'.97 /LA6GEf PK o 1 o b ti ti r < 203.{ ? GHKI�GE r �� 1791 •1 HOL \ o ' a ,• �L l 31 175 / '� / '• 1 70 4e \ w 9 6 20. ;2 18G. / �t ! i / 177,9 . /•�\��' / / ♦ .o = 177 T�iyooir/� -!r '�_ V 1 0 , ici 1A2 b woo ���Xo — � 1 < 1 / f / � � �i, / � Ih � \°� / V �� / \ 1 � _ / yam / , ♦/. 1 . _ , J i 401 ��� / / t 17 P— /P OPO Se D /ii ti Z \ VE DA __ 1x5,2 CU �1 201 Tc 1 9 /. / / IF-W C 059 - - -- - _! K �� 11 / / �, 1`• I u14, , P 'b x N 44- 1 i 1 \� / / / .� / • 177 �'� /j - - 177 < i ,� • � / � ♦i � e�J +�4'• 183, 8182 1 _ >' _ / `� 40 1 / - EX.ST .� / k / "1•.. 179, / ♦ / — STMAf4 100 / 77. r. 1 11a < 4 Q . fit 7, D� 193 ` /' 1757/ woo .. ; g - 17� c/ 78 - - • ,� ! � ' -•;�• . S OS / � I l / / °• / 197 5 , f / ` , I ` I • 17 1+ \ \ / ) / / / •` A n '• d � 181, A / . -' \'�0, '�. � • � ' / � t..__� 1E32 < 4 (y� 41 b � I I , • 190,? 1. t39 < 0 19 <9 4 / . 1131 •< 0 1 1 7 t 414 -,6 / -i I r 1 J �� 1+76 r is 1 < 1 , JFF s ;��'7 3 J 3 19E). / it _ 1 4 r ' 205,5 79 WAY Of MAL y •3 217 7 �' SSG E - /,2 �� t• J ,, f /� s/ a',) � P- / 21-1 f 7, , PeOP03C D DkI 1. T ts - A4J IS $ASFD ON 6ec- 7 D eA,4,e �l�SlrS 1A) 7 W , del�� 4L r/F6D x.'o m,,5 � - UPD6 TES l4 c.0 PZ10 u0oJ A. 4. u . - ro F> o 6 P-A F H IC ZD67 c3� Y`.e � r1 � � _•' �' �.5 S 7tif, C -'� t AJ kljlV T 4:5 IAJ ?i A/ / I - y ✓ 8X3 t`� Scanned , Digitized � - _ G U g t Checked N s \ . r. 44 ze L1 196,6 S 200,3 t W Al 199,, 7 ' i 9 ' < • / � o/ i 71 < a AR a - 19 - --�- -- -- - - t i ols i S_ l i C- < B 1 K T \ i a/s ti J 19 n • ►�� ` 195 a <� _ � � � � a3 +mss •,, za a 199,4 �9 goo � � �� � � •s � � � 1� i f� o TEST v2 1 a < 7 �.� 20 , a ALE •� Ty. M. 7 viXr 4A�n IN THE S 200, 7 Du Oo `� W yv, v / �� / 1 % % A,'.97 A,'.97 /LA6GEf PK o 1 o b ti ti r < 203.{ ? GHKI�GE r �� 1791 •1 HOL \ o ' a ,• �L l 31 175 / '� / '• 1 70 4e \ w 9 6 20. ;2 18G. / �t ! i / 177,9 . /•�\��' / / ♦ .o = 177 T�iyooir/� -!r '�_ V 1 0 , ici 1A2 b woo ���Xo — � 1 < 1 / f / � � �i, / � Ih � \°� / V �� / \ 1 � _ / yam / , ♦/. 1 . _ , J i 401 ��� / / t 17 P— /P OPO Se D /ii ti Z \ VE DA __ 1x5,2 CU �1 201 Tc 1 9 /. / / IF-W C 059 - - -- - _! K �� 11 / / �, 1`• I u14, , P 'b x N 44- 1 i 1 \� / / / .� / • 177 �'� /j - - 177 < i ,� • � / � ♦i � e�J +�4'• 183, 8182 1 _ >' _ / `� 40 1 / - EX.ST .� / k / "1•.. 179, / ♦ / — STMAf4 100 / 77. r. 1 11a < 4 Q . fit 7, D� 193 ` /' 1757/ woo .. ; g - 17� c/ 78 - - • ,� ! � ' -•;�• . S OS / � I l / / °• / 197 5 , f / ` , I ` I • 17 1+ \ \ / ) / / / •` A n '• d � 181, A / . -' \'�0, '�. � • � ' / � t..__� 1E32 < 4 (y� 41 b � I I , • 190,? 1. t39 < 0 19 <9 4 / . 1131 •< 0 1 1 7 t 414 -,6 / -i I r 1 J �� 1+76 r is 1 < 1 , JFF s ;��'7 3 J 3 19E). / it _ 1 4 r ' 205,5 79 WAY Of MAL y •3 217 7 �' SSG E - /,2 �� t• J ,, f /� s/ a',) � P- / 21-1 f 7, , PeOP03C D DkI 1. T ts - A4J IS $ASFD ON 6ec- 7 D eA,4,e �l�SlrS 1A) 7 W , del�� 4L r/F6D x.'o m,,5 � - UPD6 TES l4 c.0 PZ10 u0oJ A. 4. u . - ro F> o 6 P-A F H IC ZD67 c3� Y`.e � r1 � � _•' �' �.5 S 7tif, C -'� t AJ kljlV T 4:5 IAJ ?i A/ / I - y ✓ 8X3 t`� Scanned , Digitized � - _ G U g t Checked . v a F ;' ' { + } }j M ti' - ♦ - Y -, , h� - It , L i { I` Fry ra _ . - - .. r' . r ., , . . - t - . . , , , r', , r # Jj ` * _ . ' . ' i < - f . a I • -' • , - a \ - - } . I ., - . .. ms` . \, _ &*- _.- .�_.., - --- _-- ___. -_.._. 71 ' t _ _ __ _._� __ _ __ ..-- _ t Q . I ` - ____- --_- -- Q C, 1 *11 ' � V A i RaD e C> W NO S& � ` . co► .2 - - EkI-sT►Iv� ��"�� f-. _ - - _ ''nnhh - �� 4 -..,.............lt... — 14 . v , S. , • o _ �Y3L_ .* I--- --A - i • Y � , - .L - f . , - i j "` . s - «vC'J•�Ei� 6 � #, , toss - SECT'l oN - A I > _ a i , ' .S C A L� / ZO � 1 Ge r , € - ,f = Zo Y�1"' i .. rr - - -- . - .,._ -. 2 4 , — f 1 /` \ll\ I — , L , - - , - - . — - - - - ) ' t X ' - . . .- V, ,, • t 0 � k.... �f 1� )� �U s •.`' � . 171` � � J , � 1 I � t I 4 I I --- -- - -.. 5 - - - -- - 1 . -!�-* I ; - :-c Oarasa '1-0��"- r - I I -------- . _ -_ ` p GD -*-- 4—L----- I . I 10- k , ��_r Z •, I %%-- - - -- -- .- -.— . .. . . _ . _. , . _. — . .. -- A . - + - - - 14 1 o '. - —.- t 112 t)6w vlsT REAM F A CF �� , . L t .. -- . " , . - -- —.. — - - . 1-. — - .. . - - S 1 1 I . i I - 4 t' i _ > - tt - , e - J i, = 1 -- _ _ - -. f 1 ; _'F- v?, - i z � I . . e. _ - _ _ t I - 't - � •ter -+,r. r • �# - - • 4o I *� - , { ! • . �?�P• 6 (Q 1.S . - _ .. ___ � �'� � . . - �., L--._ I � . � . � . I � t � ,_ - �s 1-� I � - . I . -� � lT{' _ 'k V ice) . �_ � . . � , 1 � I �� � � . �L . �- �- � . � , 1 ,I * . r a . 1 , d ' . - t _ ! ' . -, - , . ` F- f,• 1 e r. h 1 �, T. - ! I> .' i . - . . ., _ ; . _ . �x - �t • " t � I I '�— 1 — 3 'k I 1 , '� ,\ ` . 'ti. , , . 1 ' I — , L , - - , - - . — - - - - / . . --------- ---- L ail , ►,, - -.. ----- ---•+ - --- _ . -- - • , . -,-.- - . . 14 . . .- .1 . , . .__ -' - 4 ' 0 � k.... ,Z.,1:4 r" I' a . / 4' v4er . - , ! i � � - . � , . . - I - , � �. . � I - � ,I f 1 1 v k ( * `, ; y` �� ' t ' ' j 1 ,�� i ', J. 1 'fit _- x <- I ' � � �� . �� } 4 , ,oi �� , . L t .. -- . " , . - -- —.. — - - . 1-. — - .. . - - S 1 1 I . i I - 4 t' i _ > - tt - , e - J i, = 1 -- _ _ - -. f 1 ; _'F- v?, - i z � I . . e. _ - _ _ t I - 't - � •ter -+,r. r • �# - - • 4o I *� - , { ! • . �?�P• 6 (Q 1.S . - _ .. ___ � �'� � . . - �., L--._ I � . � . � . I � t � ,_ - �s 1-� I � - . I . -� � lT{' _ 'k V ice) . �_ � . . � , 1 � I �� � � . �L . �- �- � . � , 1 ,I * . r a . 1 , d ' . - t _ ! ' . -, - , . ` F- f,• 1 e r. h 1 �, T. - ! I> .' i . - . . ., _ ; . _ . �x - �t • " t � I I '�— 1 — 3 'k I 1 , '� ,\ ` . 'ti. , , . 1 ' J . . ) . ; I . -) , . a i t Is _ - i - `_ F r , e _ ,�[ - a, - r . - y ,. . r ' .y ' - f i ? €'- - •' f 1 {y_ 1, Z.. -s •�Y s r. , 7 ; - *, .k'. • r,-x , :., g ` 1 t \ z -+ �'= t' } .r' a a J • f 1 i h t' > } I . � , ' r s { t'. f. p. - ! Z r t { '`` 3 ! 9 y - - f •i- _+S � -s • �S} p r:: a ' S, �., a , t r 4 — t ' 4 ` J Q 4 •f ' i ' 'S t 'i 2 - i p S • x - , ', •' - S i a; I R e #P , 1"!F , 1 . 4 � - y' ? �i '� • s _ _ , l , - . , t , , ` '1 ' >` + Y f t = Y 4 - -, i - ,4 'o . . it o f . f , f_ t ., ,'.- . t . •- s , s at , - 3 i ,_' .� __c »_ a # s LL, i ' g: a s 7* 3 , �'. 1 +# i - 11 I .,� t r . #: ' K33�_�. P a � -� - - • .� {' �r' .i - �; s # � � = i . s . F c� t' x _ s v y ; 3 .€ , ,J ?'. - - � + I. t 11 I- I Y { wi • y - t }• # r .i s + f_ , E y *�sy, 5 - "' R ` eta3 - X 4 �`- x ' - •': t• '� i s g. . , • { .. Y , 5 y a? f ! i x 'r • r ., , 3 ^i' , t'.. A 1 . I 5 f �3j S . 6t } ¢ Y F. - Y. f i . it s 4- ik '� 1 1 I! ; B - .. ., , s w'i % a. il , v ; * 4 , 1. r,... - ..t_ _- ._� a _ � I - - IJI I ' f a ', , - - -- - 176, 1 '. 3 _ • 11 + f • ' - F • c } I ­ t S Stij Y d - - - k t - , _ .1. .. ' f '�, F x Y ,_ �' t ` ' . - _ zi, . 4 ,."er ' < . . - - t Y t . • -. . . i ' . - { � • x " f 1 i 4 _ 1 1 _ - ,- ... . ,�. , ; i _ s ' • # f '. � . � � . '. �t , Z � - 1 . , � I � 4 - , I-. , � �. -- . I I � . - � 4 _ { { 1 80 �, ,. I ( f 1 . i- IZ " (r� i N . ., . ;� � .. '0 .. - --- - -- -- - - - __ - -- ? - -.- -- ---- r� 16 v . � > } t ' t' �Jl�_. tin . ---- , - . - -, ' -1. I . - i ;I, 1. I ` Y 1 I . r , i A' 1 - . L----r - - - --- ---- -- - - mprw S�fif,wkp Xfitop-ol" H I , ,� 1 _ , - o l � — 'i -4 iA CL455 A CemE coNc2Er� � } . - - 4 . i , . . ,, . 11 . , . . . ,. .. : -, 3 II _ ` ,ii — - } - ,-./, p 4 t 19 3 - — I i . . I - � . lk , . - - I - . r * I . . . . I I . . , � I - . . I - "I .a' • i. I , - , � � , 11 . I I . I . , . . I �, �l if- I � : - ' l . . I s x I - .:,z � - . , ," - � .f I € # >, >; • . � , g � , - qz� I • ' ` . � � % ,' . ' ' - . �, �� . I s - . I . . �: ` i r , - O F . i , t , ` ' � y p { ` � . . I .' 9 z I ..- �-, I I I . . I . T , . 9 - t 6 j -' . ' , . , r j_ f I --� '*� y - V , Y n ` 1 a . ... 1 s ` 3` I 4 r ` . - { , i # ' -; �3 : --- _ - �- Y ?t � s . - -, - � 37 .T� _: y � - k v � }� : a, " v kz s a a'`- ° t t •. - � 0 I it i - ;lob 11 r ( d 1 gy i c �) f a 1 ,- , , A ` �I - ` - _ K. }'� ••tt Y ■ V A t — . . - -q - - a , i I � � I - 11-1 j - Lk - & . . I . . 1 ��, � � �!�, , - * -, Z, I -,� . I , " , - . � ,I !^i•.+.a._ - y� —'� X - f ' R S , . ,{ 3, 't' f rt -f a i ' i � ' it I . ,�. I , J. \V/ ' -1 i L y, l i R t, , L. +ter ' �. .r �_ �.•-+ .�i a r- 'r— - } r • - - • • i 11 - �0 - — __- _ . ... .. �:- , , ' '` , . - . ; ` . ,; t ` * y , -- 6 , . ad`s , � c� I � . . - .. f I - . - � I I - 5f - .. 1. I 1 1 t I , . 1 . - * 1 ]�j/�j 1,4 r , . - . . . 11, , t . � � . -, � 11A, • t . - i 19 2 [ , -4 M � ; I I t .` .i Y - - ,. t,- a, f t .. ' _ - A i - 1 6 . O --- - - - . • - -- - - - — - . • , } � , � r t I r ; - - . i - -" - r . /� I + 9 2 91 M f � . 1 " Wom ,� ,� � 1 —ve� � F 14 • ' � •i + , 1 i' '� 1*` � t A f 't � - - _ ✓ " fry •- Lt t ✓ i ACA �J I Mo. 1., - '3�t �..; ti .. a • , ;`r r ' *- I a ' , t fl 4. t iI , , s { _ i� mo s 4 ' 'g lti 4 • t .. #} 4 Y.ti .f4 ' 'Y � . i l #_ ,,- j -1 y+ - i E ,i j ;, 4, . - - ° .`t Its 6 €. _. a y, _ {-t • 1', s •t �tJ; _ y Y j z jj Il . . s i a iI `. K`'} i _ #- ; .'Y - . R 4x - , IM w J •�. , ',) �' ,.q + R" - { . . r.• x z i - •, 'l- _ _ - A .� 4 ` s, s , ,$ 1�3 -'- - � �� = - - > }: . ;. � I f # {.' Checked A t , ,f 1 . :. , t ! + it #,; } y #� 2 r i � { r , l 6 �$ r a s •" ; . n 1 . -; 1 4 =. i tf •' f � I . - I', .. ✓. ,._- - .. ,i5. v � - • w .- ti ,� `- $6'r-- _ t. id+_t•L...•� +I+Ir.►,• -A--, af..>ari�-+. t-- 4 -1- _..i. -- :t-�..a� w.. -c.- >_.=.. - .._ . • - - - _ . y. - +.S.b.t+Li...l'.+r^. I — , L , - - , - - . — - - - - / . . --------- ---- L ail , ►,, - -.. ----- ---•+ - --- _ . -- - • , . -,-.- - . . 14 . . .- .1 . , . .__ -' - 4 __ : r :, �� rat 0 � k.... ,Z.,1:4 r" I' 1 = 4 k0 e . / 4' v4er J . . ) . ; I . -) , . a i t Is _ - i - `_ F r , e _ ,�[ - a, - r . - y ,. . r ' .y ' - f i ? €'- - •' f 1 {y_ 1, Z.. -s •�Y s r. , 7 ; - *, .k'. • r,-x , :., g ` 1 t \ z -+ �'= t' } .r' a a J • f 1 i h t' > } I . � , ' r s { t'. f. p. - ! Z r t { '`` 3 ! 9 y - - f •i- _+S � -s • �S} p r:: a ' S, �., a , t r 4 — t ' 4 ` J Q 4 •f ' i ' 'S t 'i 2 - i p S • x - , ', •' - S i a; I R e #P , 1"!F , 1 . 4 � - y' ? �i '� • s _ _ , l , - . , t , , ` '1 ' >` + Y f t = Y 4 - -, i - ,4 'o . . it o f . f , f_ t ., ,'.- . t . •- s , s at , - 3 i ,_' .� __c »_ a # s LL, i ' g: a s 7* 3 , �'. 1 +# i - 11 I .,� t r . #: ' K33�_�. P a � -� - - • .� {' �r' .i - �; s # � � = i . s . F c� t' x _ s v y ; 3 .€ , ,J ?'. - - � + I. t 11 I- I Y { wi • y - t }• # r .i s + f_ , E y *�sy, 5 - "' R ` eta3 - X 4 �`- x ' - •': t• '� i s g. . , • { .. Y , 5 y a? f ! i x 'r • r ., , 3 ^i' , t'.. A 1 . I 5 f �3j S . 6t } ¢ Y F. - Y. f i . it s 4- ik '� 1 1 I! ; B - .. ., , s w'i % a. il , v ; * 4 , 1. r,... - ..t_ _- ._� a _ � I - - IJI I ' f a ', , - - -- - 176, 1 '. 3 _ • 11 + f • ' - F • c } I ­ t S Stij Y d - - - k t - , _ .1. .. ' f '�, F x Y ,_ �' t ` ' . - _ zi, . 4 ,."er ' < . . - - t Y t . • -. . . i ' . - { � • x " f 1 i 4 _ 1 1 _ - ,- ... . ,�. , ; i _ s ' • # f '. � . � � . '. �t , Z � - 1 . , � I � 4 - , I-. , � �. -- . I I � . - � 4 _ { { 1 80 �, ,. I ( f 1 . i- IZ " (r� i N . ., . ;� � .. '0 .. - --- - -- -- - - - __ - -- ? - -.- -- ---- r� 16 v . � > } t ' t' �Jl�_. tin . ---- , - . - -, ' -1. I . - i ;I, 1. I ` Y 1 I . r , i A' 1 - . L----r - - - --- ---- -- - - mprw S�fif,wkp Xfitop-ol" H I , ,� 1 _ , - o l � — 'i -4 iA CL455 A CemE coNc2Er� � } . - - 4 . i , . . ,, . 11 . , . . . ,. .. : -, 3 II _ ` ,ii — - } - ,-./, p 4 t 19 3 - — I i . . I - � . lk , . - - I - . r * I . . . . I I . . , � I - . . I - "I .a' • i. I , - , � � , 11 . I I . I . , . . I �, �l if- I � : - ' l . . I s x I - .:,z � - . , ," - � .f I € # >, >; • . � , g � , - qz� I • ' ` . � � % ,' . ' ' - . �, �� . I s - . I . . �: ` i r , - O F . i , t , ` ' � y p { ` � . . I .' 9 z I ..- �-, I I I . . I . T , . 9 - t 6 j -' . ' , . , r j_ f I --� '*� y - V , Y n ` 1 a . ... 1 s ` 3` I 4 r ` . - { , i # ' -; �3 : --- _ - �- Y ?t � s . - -, - � 37 .T� _: y � - k v � }� : a, " v kz s a a'`- ° t t •. - � 0 I it i - ;lob 11 r ( d 1 gy i c �) f a 1 ,- , , A ` �I - ` - _ K. }'� ••tt Y ■ V A t — . . - -q - - a , i I � � I - 11-1 j - Lk - & . . I . . 1 ��, � � �!�, , - * -, Z, I -,� . I , " , - . � ,I !^i•.+.a._ - y� —'� X - f ' R S , . ,{ 3, 't' f rt -f a i ' i � ' it I . ,�. I , J. \V/ ' -1 i L y, l i R t, , L. +ter ' �. .r �_ �.•-+ .�i a r- 'r— - } r • - - • • i 11 - �0 - — __- _ . ... .. �:- , , ' '` , . - . ; ` . ,; t ` * y , -- 6 , . ad`s , � c� I � . . - .. f I - . - � I I - 5f - .. 1. I 1 1 t I , . 1 . - * 1 ]�j/�j 1,4 r , . - . . . 11, , t . � � . -, � 11A, • t . - i 19 2 [ , -4 M � ; I I t .` .i Y - - ,. t,- a, f t .. ' _ - A i - 1 6 . O --- - - - . • - -- - - - — - . • , } � , � r t I r ; - - . i - -" - r . /� I + 9 2 91 M f � . 1 " Wom ,� ,� � 1 —ve� � F 14 • ' � •i + , 1 i' '� 1*` � t A f 't � - - _ ✓ " fry •- Lt t ✓ i ACA �J I Mo. 1., - '3�t �..; ti .. a • , ;`r r ' *- I a ' , t fl 4. t iI , , s { _ i� mo s 4 ' 'g lti 4 • t .. #} 4 Y.ti .f4 ' 'Y � . i l #_ ,,- j -1 y+ - i E ,i j ;, 4, . - - ° .`t Its 6 €. _. a y, _ {-t • 1', s •t �tJ; _ y Y j z jj Il . . s i a iI `. K`'} i _ #- ; .'Y - . R 4x - , IM w J •�. , ',) �' ,.q + R" - { . . r.• x z i - •, 'l- _ _ - A .� 4 ` s, s , ,$ 1�3 -'- - � �� = - - > }: . ;. � I f # {.' Checked A t , ,f 1 . :. , t ! + it #,; } y #� 2 r i � { r , l 6 �$ r a s •" ; . n 1 . -; 1 4 =. i tf •' f � I . - I', .. ✓. ,._- - .. ,i5. v � - • w .- ti ,� `- $6'r-- _ t. id+_t•L...•� +I+Ir.►,• -A--, af..>ari�-+. t-- 4 -1- _..i. -- :t-�..a� w.. -c.- >_.=.. - .._ . • - - - _ . y. - +.S.b.t+Li...l'.+r^. r ,• �a t Scanned (1-1 Digitized �— I Checked r m NONE mom mom mom Non OEM NNE mom �iw �r M •M+ MEEK 1 SEEK ON I■v I MMMM NOON EHNEN MEMO Iwo MEN MEMINNININ IN "xo UNIMMINI IIIR�I■PIbNaHim ONE ONE NINE ONE mom OEM NUNN a ME IN ,�dhm oil mmpl Nowl INNER OMNI L; � RNMEMEMMININ MINNOMMMEMM 5 EMMONS ■ ear. �. ■�■■ 164 NO e �i ��,�II�iI�N�eO�■ e,t' %'�} ,'■ ■t ■11 ■■ e�E:U'? •t �i;�I�r�H�■ L A 55;11"JIMMEM MEN MAINE M ONEEMENE ■ ME on ME MURR Eris ROM 1p Sol NMI mommod M P No INN 1 imn a=. MENEM PIP ME ME No Elm ME IN ME ME I■91�19AINIIS ■11�911�11�■ BHI�����IIIR�IIl��■ 1lgI1��IM11RYll�l�l■�III MMMMENNEEMN I. Do Not Write In These Spaces - Ran rf .A1 Applical -, Number: e pae s Dale o e e oa o.v maPlsl Parcel (s) iwry 10 nthtllY MALE 10 THE CITY OF NORTHAM PTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: 1. Name of Applicant Joseph C. D Address Kennedy Road, Leeds, Massachuse [ts 2. Owner of Property SAME Address 3. Applicant is: ROwner; ❑ Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession. 4. Application is made for: T VARIANCE from the provisions of Section 6.137 -1 S p y 9 y City of Northampton. 6. 11 of the Zoning Ordinance of the .. - i SPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section page of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton. COTHER: 5. Location of Property Audubon Road, Leeds, Massachusetts the Northerly side of Audubon Road being situated on Street; and shown on the Assessors' Maps, Sheet No. 5 Parcel(s) 18 6_ 7. 8. (a) Sketch plan attached; 13Yes C No (b) Site plan: MAttched LiNot Required uescriphon of proposed work and /or on a parcel of land which contai 10. Abutters (see instructions; list on reverse side of form). 12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge. Date /rP �/ A pplicant's Signatur C V oC rite M These ces Application Number: 1�4 IJ B.I. Checked Film Foc Fri _ RaeN vRn ne.nam 0x...11.1 i JAI t I I � a`1 AFTd@1LWIT(DNAISIHEREBY MADE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: - _ _PLANNING BOARD 1. Name of Applicant - Joseph C. Dickinson _ -- - " -'- -- - __ Address Kennedy Road Leeds Massachusett 2. Owner of Property SAME Address 3. Applicant is: ®Owner, ❑Contract Purchaser; ❑Lessee; ❑Tenant in Possession. 4. Application is made for: ['VARIANCE from the provisions of Section - page of the Zoning Ordinance of the . .._ _ -: City of Northampton. _ ESPECIAL PERMIT under the provisions of Section 6.13 p age 6.11 o f the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Northampton. - 5. Location of Propert y -- Audubon Road, Leeds. - Massa ch s - - -'' - - being situated on ___ the Northerly side of Audubon Rnad Street; and shown On the Assessors' Maps, Sheet No. _5 .._ ; Parcel(s) 18 _ ._.. _.._ _.._.._ - 6. - - Zone _RR 7. Description of proposed work and /or use; Construction of a si e1 —fa 11 residenc on a parcel of land which contains approximately 46 79 acres and which has frontag of approximately 65 to 70 feet Sketch plan attached; ®Yes ONO __(b) Site plan:®Attched ONOt Required _9._ Set forth reasons upon which application is based: Althoueh the area of the lot is 46.79 10. Abutters (see instructions; list an reverse side of form). 12. 1 hereby certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge. Date A 0A� A pplicant's Signature C DECISION OF NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS At a meeting held on March 1, 1989, the Zoning Board of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to GRANT the request of Joseph C. Dickinson for two Variances under the Provisions of Sections 6.13(J)(1) and 6.13(J)(2) to allow construction of a driveway on a Flag Lot that is not sufficiently wide, and has grades steeper than allowed by the Ordinance in a Rural Residential District on Audubon Road, Leeds. Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr. The Findings were as follows: The variance requested is for a specific parcel of land. There are circumstances relating to the shape and topography especially affecting this parcel of land, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located; those circumstances being a parcel that is almost 47 acres in size, many times larger than any other residential parcel in the district; there is a stream which must be crossed by the driveway (to be accomplished by placing a culvert); and topography that offers very steep grades. In addition, the shape is unique, being 47 acres with only about 75 feet of frontage. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. If the deficiencies were to be corrected so that a Variance would not be required, an objectionable amount of fill would have to be brought to the site, and the increase in road width would probably violate State Wetlands Regulations which limit the length of a stream -bed that can be altered Granting the request will not be a substantial detriment to the public good, nor will it nullify or substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance. In a Rural Residential zone where building lots must be 40,000 square feet (slightly less than one acre), it would be incongruous to find that a one - family dwelling on a 47 -acre lot would be detrimental. In addition, this parcel will be a permanent buffer to the Hampshire County Hospital property. .. NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION JOSEPH C. DICKINSON VARIANCE REQUESTS PAGE TWO The following conditions shall apply: The dwelling shown on a "Sketch of Proposed House Location in Northampton, Massachusetts Prepared for Joseph C. Dickinson," on December 29, 1988 by Almer Huntley, Jr. & Associates, Inc. is to be the only dwelling ever to be constructed on this parcel. The driveway shown on the above - described plan is to be a minimum of twelve feet in width, and no grade can exceed 12 %. `. Robert C. Buscher. Chairman Dr. Peter Laband M. Sanford Weil, Jr. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT a 0 E c z a 0 z T 9 W Y 0 WlLH V, HAM[L CN fi RING WE, WILLIAM JAMES CHRISTENSEN and MILTON B. HOWARD, of 76 Ring Street, Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, for consideration of and 00 /100 -------------------- ( - DOLLARS grant to and _ husband and Wife, as tenants by the entirety and not as tenants in common, of with QUITCLAIM COVENANTS the land in Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, bounded and described more particularly as follows: Being Lot 1 shown on a Plan of Land entitled "Plan of Lots for Christensen - Howard, Inc.," dated August 8, 1988 with general revisions of January 23, 1989 prepared by Pharmer Engineering Corporation of Holyoke, Massachusetts, which said Plan is to be recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds, herewith. Beginning at a point on the Easterly side of Kennedy Road, as shown on said Plan, which said point is located at the Southwesterly corner of Lot 2 as shown on said Plan and the Northwesterly corner of the tract herein conveyed; thence running N. 84- 23' 48" E. along said Lot 2 a distance of Five Hundred Fifty -Three and Fifty -Four Hundredths (553.54) feet to a point; thence running S. 46 19' 47" E. along land now or formerly owned by Joseph Dickinson and Mary Dickinson a distance of Two Hundred Ten and No Hundredths (210.00) feet to a point; thence running S. O4� 54' 19" E. along land now or formerly of said Dickinson a distance of One Hundred Thirty-Five and No Hundredths (135.00) feet to a point; thence S. 23� 51' 49" E. along land now or formerly of said Dickinson a distance of Ninety -Seven and Seventy -One Hundredths (97.71) fee*_ to a point; thence N. 57 11' 34" W. along Lot 51 as shown on said Plan a distance of Three Hundred Forty -Three and Seventy Hundredths (343.70) feet to a point; thence running S. 81° 00' 23" W. along said Lot 51 a distance of Four Hundred Fiftv and Two Hundredths (450.02) feet to a point located on the Easterly side of said Kennedy Road; thence running N. 050 52' 57" W. a distance of Two Hundred and No Hundredths (200.00) feet along the Easterlv side of said Kennedy Road to the point of beginning. Containing 3.18 acres, more or less. This property may be subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, and Order of Conditions, and /or a determination of applicability from the Conservation Commission of the City of ,Northampton. Together with the right to pass and repass over a common driveway located in part on Lot 1 as shown on the above said Plan. Subject to the right of the owner of Lot 1 to pass and repass over a common driveway located in part on the lot herein conveyed as shown on said Plan. By acceptance of this deed, the Grantee herein -- agrees to contribute one - half (1/2) of the costs of maintenance and repair for the common driveway located in part on Lot 1 and in part on Lot 91. Vehicular access to the Lot herein conveyed shali be by the common driveway as shown on the above described plan Dinh. The common driveway is a private drive and is not a city; of public way. Being a portion of the premises conveyed to William James Christensen and Milton B. Howard by deed of Mary .Ann Alexander, dated June 30, 1988 and recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds, Book 3206, Page 1. Executed as a sealed instrument this of 1989 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Hampshire, ss. Milton B. Howard William James Christensen 1989 Then personally appeared the above named Milton B. Howard and William James Christensen and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their free act and deed, Before me, Scott J. Hamilton Notary Public My commission expires: January 18, 1991 WILosW. XPMI CCN 6 KING w iTd P NE YS ai L <W C� iMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSE'� an3' n EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS r DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 7 DIVISION OF FORESTS AND PARKS - REGION IV P O. 50X 484, AMHERST. MA 01004 413 -545 -5993 FAX 545 -5995 ( Final Report /Certificate of Compliance ''1 �� X ._ Massachusetts Forest Cutting Practices Act William F. Weld File No.: HS37 -95 GOVERNOR Argeo Paul Cellucci LT. GOVERNOR Town: Northampton Road: off Audubon Road Trudy Coxe Landowner. Joseph & Nancy Dickinson Phone: (413)584-3569 SECRETARY Address: 115 Audubon Rd., Leeds, MA 01060 Operator: Leonard D. Lashway - 936 Bridge Rd., Northampton, MA Peter C. Webber 01060 (413)586 -6798 COMMISSIONER Current Harvesting License Number: 95 -577 Date Cutting Began: 2/7/95 Date Completed: 4/6/95 Estimated volume cut by species (board feet, cords or percentage ), as provided forester Ea. White pine:138,485 bf W. ash: All hickory: Pilch pine: Aspen: Red maple: Ea. Hemlock: 14,250 bf Paper birch: No. Red oak: Red pine: S, maple: White oak:1,645 bf Other softwoods: Black birch: Other oaks: 4,082 bf Black cherry: Tota volume cut; 158,462 bf & 20 cords Acres cut: 38 Remarks: DEM completion field visits - 4/6/95pm, 0/95am, 8/3/95am & 8/6/95am; landing graded, seeded & limed. Were conditions of Form WL substantially complied with ?: Yes Remarks: Stream crossings unused. Were conditions of Form SS substantially complied with ?: n/a Remarks: Were conditions of the "Slash Law" (MGL Ch. 48, s.16) substantially complied with ?: Yes Remarks: Q Signature 6 dr - C/ /---. Date IR 7 9S" Director's Agent - Forester printed on recycled paper COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSEI ISasi° wu EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS y '. P I� DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT s DIb9SION OF FORESTS AND PARKS - REGION R' �'�n-un^+ � P.O. BOX 494. AMHERST, MA 01004 4I3 -54i 5997 FAX 545 -5995 Joseph & Nancy Dickinson 115 Audubon Road Leeds, MA 01060 Wmhal„ F_ weld November 22, 1994 GOVERNOR Argeo Paul Ccllucci Dear Joseph & Nancy, LT. GOVERNOR Enclosed please find a copy of Forest Cutting Plan HS37 -95, filed in this Trady Cow office on 11/16/94 under MGL CH. 132, describing a proposed timber SECRETARY harvesting on approximately 38 acres of your land in Northampton, Mass., Pete, C. Webber and disapproved for the following reasons: COMMISSIONER (1) failure to blaze and paint boundaries per MGL Ch. 61 and Ch. 132 (2) Wetland mapping incomplete, and (3) A significant discrepancy exists between the removal volume prescribed under MGL Ch. 61 Forest Management Plan, prepared by Mary Wigmore and approved by this office on 8/13/93, and the harvest volume indicated on the MGL Ch. 132 Forest Cutting Plan for the same property, received in this office on 11/16/94. Please contact this office when the above requirements have been met so that procession may continue, or should you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Carmine L. Angeloni, Forester Hampshire County xc: J. Sarafin, Northampton Assessors P1 nted nn 1 ee_ec'led paper' 1 e" — � DI\'Ision of Forests & Parks FOR D.E.H. USE ONLY - - ATTACHMENTS Master Hap ✓ Date Received w 9q Steep Slope Form(SS) — Locus Hap �/ File Number Wetlands Form (WL) Special Maps --- PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE TOWN Lee LANDOWNER OPERATOR ;EST. ACRES CUT 38 ac ;VOL.CUT: BOARD FEET_ TREE FARM NUMBER (OPTIONAL) Audubon Road - a m<, 01-6o CORDS Y'Jy [DADS k- f 4 i' DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE CUT 1. FOREST TYPE: A WP N4 B HH04 C WH /HH3 D 2. .ACRES: A B S ac C 7 ac D (ENTER APPROPRIATE STAND LETTER(S) FOR NOS. 3, 4, d 5) 3. PC3 ?OSE(S) OF CUT: EARVEST A ;INTERMEDIATE B &C ;AESTHETIC /RECREAIiON _ SAL ;1 <1'_DLIFE HABITAT IMPROVEMENT ;'WATER MANAGEMENT ; OTHER_ 4. SO::RCE OF REC-ENER.ATION: SEEDING FROM SURROUNDING /RESIDUAL STAND A ;PL.4 \iING SEEJiSG FRO'! CPT TREES ;ADVANCE GROWIH A ;DIRECT SEEDING Fun S1k+�utl#wCnl Per'y- nphevts Fodo. QNapVr61 1 1t14naKmeHt (�4rt 5. HARVEST SYSIEM USED: SELECTION CUT B &C ;SHELTERWOOD CUT n ;SEED TREE CUT_ CO ?PICE ;COPPICE WITH STANDARDS ;CLEARCUT ;SALVAGE CUT SPECIAL HARVEST CUTTING (ATTACH EXPLANATION) ;INTERMEDIATE CUT 6. DESIGNATION OF TREES TO BE CUT: INDIVIDUALLY MARKED A -C ;AREAS TO BE CLEARCUT DESIGNATED BY PARKED TREES OR FLAGGING OF BOUNDARY ;OTHER (SPECIFY SPECIES, DL4CIET£R, SIZE, d MARK BOUNDARY) $L -= pwr,tc> ETC.) 7. ESTIMATED VOLUME BY SPECIES: BOARD FEET, CORDS OR PERCENIAGE (OPTIONAL) n WHITE PINE 13 465 M6F ASH HICKORY F _ RED PINE ASPEN SUGAR MAPLE E < PIICH PINE BEECH RED MAPLE HEMLOCK iH ,I5c WHITE BIRCH RED OAK SPRUCE YELLOW BIRCH WHITE OAK 1445 - 5— v_3 OTHER SOFTWOODS BLACK BIRCH OTHER OAKS BLACK CHERRY OTHER e ) r Nor 9081E LOGGING AND ENGINEERING 8. MEASURES PLANNED TO CONTROL EROSION (CHECK): ROADS LANDING a. LAY OUT AND CLEAR ROADS IN ADVANCE x xxxxxxx b. LAY OUT AND CLEAR MAIN SKID ROADS IN ADVANCE x xxxxXxx c. WATER BARS x x d. HAY IMPOUND.MENIS e. SEEDING DISTURBED SOIL (if needed on roads x x f. REPAIRING RUTS for erosion) _ _ x x g. CULVERTS - XXXXXXX h. BRIDGES XXXXXXX i. CROSS STREAMS AT RIGHT ANGLES x xxxxXxx j. STOP SKIDDING DURING MUDDY CONDITIONS x x k. OTHER: Page 1 of G Notice of Intent / Forest Cutting1jan (NI.G.L. Chapter 132, secs. 40 46) (? *SEE FOOTNOTES a., b., 6 d. ON THE REVERSE SIDE . _I e .,z. j - - -'i Page 2 Of 6 9. a. WIDTH OF BEER STRIPS ALONG PUBLIC WAYS: -- FT. ;100 FT. N/A b. WIDTH OF Bt ER STRIPS ALONG WATER BODIES: FT. x ;100 FT. c. PLAN TO CUT LESS THAN 50% IN BUFFER STRIPS: YES x ;NO SHOW LOCATIONS ON ANY SUPPLEMENTARY MAPS ATTACHED TO FORMS WL AND SS. 10. MEASURES TO CONTROL HUD ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS: a. GRAVEL OR MULCH ACCESS ROAD b. STOP TRUCKING DURING MUDDY CONDITIONS x c. CLEAN MUD FROM HIGHWAYS 11. ARE CRITICAL AREAS INVOLVED? a. WETLANDS: YES NO . IF YES, COMPLETE FORM WL. b. STEEP SLOPES (OVER 30% FOR 200 FT.): YES_; NO_. IF YES, COMPLETE FORM SS. 12. CHECK IF LAND 1S UNDER CHAPTER 61 or CHAPTER 61A_ MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. Hr.1R ;EST. STUMPAGE VALUE $ ARE BOUNDARIES WITHIN 50 FT OF CUTTING AREA PAINTED BLAZED? YES; NO_. 13. REMARKS /OOMMENTS: The main skid roads have been flagged. The wetland area borders have been designated with two blue dots in paint. The landing zones have been flagged in red. 14. SIGNAILRE OF PERSON PREPARING THE PLAT: (IF OTHER THAN LAND01.'ti ER): Signatcre �l)la j� .,,o�fJ Date 15. LASDCI.]ER(s) November 4, 1994 SIGSATC3E(s): n ° �G4n.� Date Date I(GE) HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I(WE) HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED OPERATION. FAILURE TO ACCURATELY UPDATE THE MATERIAL HEREIN REQUIRED AND PROCIDE OTHER RELEVANT ISFORM.ATIOY CAN RESULT IN THE VOIDING OF THIS PLAN. GARNTNG: I`7S PLAN. ONCE SUBMITTED BY TO AND FOR C7 -J'7 PLAN APPROVED DATE FLAN DISAFFROVED DATE 11 THIS AFFRO'VAL IS OF ONLY THE CUTTING PLAN AND IN NO WAY DETERMINES THE RIGHT TO CARRY OUT IF.- DESCRIBED OPERATION. FILE(WORK OR 50. 11', y'I_ '7)y �— � r EkPIAAiION DATE 1; - j� -fir, DIRECTOR'S AGENT - FORESTER PLAN COMPLETION DATE EXTENDED TO DATE DIRECTOR'S AGENT - -FORESTER IMPORTANT: a. IT SHALL BE THE LANDOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM THE DIRECTOR OR HIS AGENT OF INFORMATION LEFT BLANK ON THE FORM INCLUDING THE OPERATOR'S NAME AND LICENSE NUMBER AND ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE DATE THE CUTTING IS TO BEGIN. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN VOIDING THIS PLAN. b. PERSONS HARVESTING FOREST PRODUCTS COMMERCIALLY IN MASSACHUSETTS MUST BE LICENSED UNDER SEC. 46, CH. 132 OF THE GENERAL LAWS, AND ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING STRICTLY WITH A SUBMITTED /APPROVED CUTTING PLAN. t. IF AN AGENI IS APPOINTED, A WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION MUST ACCOMPANY THIS PLAN AND MUST BE SIGNED BY THE AGENT AND THE PRINCIPAL (LANDOWNER). d. A LOCUS MAP AND MASTER MAP ARE REQUIRED (SEE INSTRUCTIONS). H7,RV 1 Magnetic North Map Scale: 1 inch: 36 Harvey og Landing Si ain Skid Roac etland Buffer etland Cross! ream Crossin Map prepa source is cnapter 61 Forest Management Plan Map. pagt Yak b 004 soos33� r,+ F0331 ( @o j3 It Fofm 5 OEGE Fie No. , (To be provided by OEGE) (� Commonwealth CityTOwo Northampton I' is 4 of Massachusetts Ami[ibm t J C. Dickinson v Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act G.L. c. 131, §40 From Northampton Conservation Commission To Josep C. Dickinson same (Name of Applicant) (Name of property owner) 311 Kennedy Road Address Leeds, MA 01053 Adore This Order is issued and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (date) L by certified mail, return receipt requested On November 30 1988 ( date) This project is located at T d b R d L d- A T ct Map t Lot 18 The property is recorded at the Registry of_ 1259 - 160 Certificate (if Hampshire County (as of date of application) The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on Apr. November 1, 1988 (date) The public nearing was closed cn Novembe 14, 1988 Findings The Northampton Conservation Commission has reviewed the above- referenced Notice of Intent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project. Based on the information available to the Conservation Commission at this time, the Commission has determined that the area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following interests in accordance with the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the Act (check as appropriate): • Public water supply U Flood control ❑ land containing shellfish • Private water supply U Storm damage prevention U Fisheries ❑ Ground water supply 13 Prevention of pollution Z Protection of wildlife habitat 5 -1 Effective 11/1/87 sex 335 .9 N ,F 03:32 Therefore,the conservation Commission hereby finds that the following canditions are Q necessary, in accordance with the Performance Standards set forth in the regulations, to protect those inter -� estachecked above. The Conservation Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with said conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the fol- lowing conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. _ General Conditions 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory meas- ures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. 2. This Order does not grant my property rights or my exclusive privileges: it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permidee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state or local statutes, ordinancas, by -laws or regu a:icns. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: (a) the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or (b) the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance and both that date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authenty for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. c 1 6. Any MI used in connection with this project shad be clean M. containing no trash, refuse, rubbish or de- bris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wife, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing. 7. No work snail be undertaken until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed or, if such an appeal has been hied, until ad proceedings before the Department have been completed. 8. No work shall be undertaken until the Final Order has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shad also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of registered land, the Fnal Order shall also ha noted or. the LsrA Court Certiflcate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Commission on the form at the end of this Order prior to commencement of the work. 9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or more than three square feet in sae bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Ede Number 246- 10. Where the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering is requested to make a determination and to issue a Superseding Order. the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before the Department- 11 Upon bompletion of the work described herein, the applicant shall forthwith request in writing that a / -- Certificate of Compliance be issued stating that the work has been satisfactorily completed. 12. The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions: - 5 -2 333 Plans ,P,,, Conditions (BSc additioal paper if a s Y ) 1) All contraction areas stall be restored to original condition or better upon completion of the project, including vegetation; 2) No areas within the 100 year floodplain nor within 100 feet of a wetland area, as defined in Chanter 131, Section, M.G.L., stall be permissable disposal sites, unless otherwise approved by the Conservation Commission; 3) Excavated material and topsoil stockpiles shall be located and stabilized so as to minipire washing into wetland areas or waterways; 4) Adepuate me sores shall be taken to prevent erosion and s ilt a tion of all disturbed areas; 5) This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in cant pl; 6) Members and agents of the Cpaservatipn Commission shall have the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate compliance with the Conditions and to require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Commission for that evaluation; ]) (if checked) Upon completion of the project, the Applicant shall submit a statement from the Project Engineer that all work has been done in conformance with the provisions of the approved Ordar of Conditions. " Y ( ) YO ............................... ........... ............................... (Leave Space Shalt) 5 -3A Dated Signed and Stamped by: On File with: Title Notice of Intent 10/28/88 N'Hampton Cons. Com. profile oS Crossing 10/5T/88 Daxnold N'Hampton Cons Co .. Proposed Driveway 10/31/88 Daruold N'Hampton Co, Cn m. Various Cross - Sections 10/31/88 Darnold N'Hampton Cons. Co m. ,P,,, Conditions (BSc additioal paper if a s Y ) 1) All contraction areas stall be restored to original condition or better upon completion of the project, including vegetation; 2) No areas within the 100 year floodplain nor within 100 feet of a wetland area, as defined in Chanter 131, Section, M.G.L., stall be permissable disposal sites, unless otherwise approved by the Conservation Commission; 3) Excavated material and topsoil stockpiles shall be located and stabilized so as to minipire washing into wetland areas or waterways; 4) Adepuate me sores shall be taken to prevent erosion and s ilt a tion of all disturbed areas; 5) This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in cant pl; 6) Members and agents of the Cpaservatipn Commission shall have the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate compliance with the Conditions and to require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Commission for that evaluation; ]) (if checked) Upon completion of the project, the Applicant shall submit a statement from the Project Engineer that all work has been done in conformance with the provisions of the approved Ordar of Conditions. " Y ( ) YO ............................... ........... ............................... (Leave Space Shalt) 5 -3A BOON.j PAGE Q,3.�Q DBOE File No 246- Special Conditions (continued) 8) The Applicant shall notify the Conservation Commission, in writing, as to the date that work will he commencing on the project. Said written notification most be received by the Commission no sooner than ten (10) days and no later than seven (7) days prior to the commencement of the approved activity. 9) (if checked) The Applicant shall complete and execute the attached AITACFMENT "A" /NOTICE OF POSSIBLE WEPLANBS RESTRICTIONS UNDER M.G.L. C. 131, S.40 relative to the entire lot Said ATTACPTD "A" shall be attached to, become a part of, and shall be filed with this Order Of Conditions at the Registry of Deeds. The Applicant shall return a copy of the completed and notarized ATTACIDUM "A" to the Conservation Commission when the bottom portion of Page 5 -4A of this Order of Conditions Of Conditions' is returned. " YES ( ) NO 10) Any fill Used in this project shall be clean fill only, which can include earth, sand, gravel, rock, and loam. The applicant is prohibited from using demolition materials, asphalt, large chunks of concrete, tree sumps and limbs, and general refuse. 11) All wetlands lost because of the stream crossing SHALL BE REPLICATED upstream of the stream crossing and the applicant's consultant shall certify that the replacement of wetlands have been properly constructed. 12) All construction related to the stream crossing shall take place only when there is a forecast for no rain for at least 48 hours after the commencement of that phase of construction. 13) All silt /erosion controls shall be installed prior to any construction. 14) All work in the wetlands, the stream, and the buffer area shall be supervised by a wetlands consultant. 15) No grass lawn shall be maintained, cut, or fertilized between the proch of the new house and the wetland area. 5 -3B .._......... . __ _ 3364 n +�e Q33,i ATTACHMENT "A" NOTICE OF POSSIBLE WETLAND RESTRICTIONS UNDER M.G.L. C.131, 5.40 I 111 l�lh$( n: , the owner GS c. P: �' 0 D Northampton, fHampshire p roperty County, located at A�,o�, Massachusetts, b the same property described in a deed from yA RY 0.0 " :Is . V to MARY d C"S' r'+ 0,ca"w5o;✓ dated and recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds at Book /.),� ', Page / c , do hereby state that said property may be subject to the provisions of the wetlands Protection Act , an Order of conditions and /or a determination of applicability from the Conservation commission of the City of Northampton. Any construction upon or alteration to said property may require action by said Conservation Commission. I hereby agree and state that any instrument conveying any or all of my interest in said property or any portion thereof shall contain language substantially as follows: This property may be subject to the wetlands Protection Act , an order of Conditions, and /or a determination of applicability from the Conservation Commission of the City of Northampton. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAMPSHIRE, ss // /3C 1988 Then appeared personally the above named and acknowledged the foregoing to be his /her free act and deed, before me. r p er- '� -� Notary Public My commission expires / � FT agcy 3?�S ".r�C �36 Issued By Northampton Conservation Commission This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. before me On this �=-R= day of i personally appeared �k to me (mown to be the person described in and who executed the f regoing ins ment ana acknowledged thattiefsoe e _cured the same as his/her free act and deed. 0 Notary Public _ _ My commission expires The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by ma Order, any owner of tend abutting the land upon whCh Me proposer, work is to be done or any ten residents of Me city or to., which wch land is located are hereby notified of there right to request Me 0eparttnent of Environmental Ouaiity Englnsanng to issue a Supersedn9 Order, prowling Me request a made by certified mail or hand delivery to Me Department within ten days "M th date of issuance of this Crder. A copy of me request shay at Me same dine be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to Me Conservation Commission and Me applicant. Dpohg.d Wllnean0sebmitl Ne Northampton Conservation Commissio � matcament of wort To NQrthamtOn Conservation Corrlmissio Issuing Aumonty Feese be advised Met Me Order pl Condtims for Ma AoMCt a I-sie Number 246— has been recorded at Me Regfeby of and has bean rated in Me chain of tlhe of to affected property in xcoA a wit General Condition a 19 If recorded Iadd. the instrument number which identifies Mis fansadhon If registered land, Me document number which Identifies this transaction 5 -4A p Dat 1989 Rv u'd enYd and exam'd- Ank This Order most be signed by a majonty of the Conservation Commission. On this / �_ day of � �y' 19 & , before me personalty appeared Lr -Sq "/ —. to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and deed- .9YNf /'r ? � E • v — my commission expires Notary ublic _ - _ ThewPi I. theowner. any(keePnaggrievedby Cr .arty owner ofhM abudm9fie hM wan ahbh Ne Dr000sed workum be done or residerrca of the ary «fwm b wNGt soon hM u betted ae Mfeby �wdflM of lnarngM m reWmt Na oeparbnen[ of Emrtpnmentu Ctullry E�gvieermg m iswe aSupemedmg Order. pwkrer9 dM remiestc nutle byeerefied�i «ham delwary m Me oep«h om.mui ten days ham medaMof iamance of M, order. A copy of ma reWertsYUeazmeaame INie hesent try tertiead molar rune deWarymme Conserrafian Carivni�mt aril maawacant. - " - OeLClt an dp[tedllneand ae o,,. M N0rth —toa Cons.N L ion CoOaiesl0iL__m�ppp oetotw P° f a Td �` N . ,thamoton 'Conser at'on go,,issioa - hwkg AUttaritY Pla®a0a adwed tNtdM ONeraf Wr6nwvfardie Orgeat P46— 214 tmtuen remdad rtdMRgabyaf - aril -.. Fis Nrsnbar - M1 _tm been notedb the rJien of lNe of Ckr adeclad PrPpedYb aaPO<tler�CewM Caenerdl l,ariaiean8m 9_ It reG«de0 Iand.. the irntr wt number which idendfiea mts tramxtbn . It registered land. the doaanent number whmh identifies this ba .b. a - 5 -4A Q �A —D - r OeLClt an dp[tedllneand ae o,,. M N0rth —toa Cons.N L ion CoOaiesl0iL__m�ppp oetotw P° f a Td �` N . ,thamoton 'Conser at'on go,,issioa - hwkg AUttaritY Pla®a0a adwed tNtdM ONeraf Wr6nwvfardie Orgeat P46— 214 tmtuen remdad rtdMRgabyaf - aril -.. Fis Nrsnbar - M1 _tm been notedb the rJien of lNe of Ckr adeclad PrPpedYb aaPO<tler�CewM Caenerdl l,ariaiean8m 9_ It reG«de0 Iand.. the irntr wt number which idendfiea mts tramxtbn . It registered land. the doaanent number whmh identifies this ba .b. a - 5 -4A Q �A —D OWA ALMER HUNTLEY, JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS P.O. B- 568130 INUI S'I RIAI PRINT EAST / NORTHANIPI ON, MASS -In II6I 16131 G847646 Mr. Joseph Dickinson 311 Kennedy Road Leeds, MA 01053 I� March 2, 1989. MAR Qr._t,_. nF AIV..+L�t� rnL i-W RE: Driveway Crossing Dear Joe: 9250- 078 -30 �y6-al As you have requested, we have reviewed the proposed use of a 4' x 8' precast box culvert in place of a 3' x 10' box for your driveway crossing. Simply sub stituting thi culvert will not effect th ak pe f-19-wg_py.�].00d eieva- ti The 100 -year storm, but it will cause approxima two tenths of a ,. foot r sese Ln stream e levation from 179.7 feet to 179.9 feet (see attached calculations). This should not have a significant effect on the upstream watershed; however, flow will occur across the driveway at slightly less than a 10 -year design storm. Installation of this taller box will also require a revision of the driveway profile. Flattening a portion of the slope up station of the culvert to 9% and reducing the length of vertical curve from 200 feet to about 165 feet, as shown in red on the attached print, will raise the grade of the driveway over the culvert and maintain the elevation of the existing low point. If we can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact this office Very truly yours, ALMER Hll LE / , JR. 5 ASSOCIATES, INC. St ven G. Mason, P.E. Project Engineer ALME HUNTIF,Y, JR., PE., RIS DOUGLAS"'.'THOMPSON, III .S WILLIAM R. GARRITY, LA JOHN G. RAYMOND, PE SGM:kmc Enclosures Data For DICKINSON BROOK CROSSING/ LEEDS ZSO- 078 -30 Paqe 12 Prepared by ALMER HUNTLEi Sr 5 ASSOCIATES INC.: ENGINEERING 09 -28 -83 HVdroCAD -a,. 3/25,'87 (c) 1986 Agglled Microcomputer SYSteme DETENTION POND 1 to 9999 ___ _______________________________ DETENTION POND 2 REACH I X,Y = 4.4 DETENTION POND 2 STARTING ELEV= 176.5 FT FLOOD ELEV= 180.4 FT ELEVATION STORAGE (FT) (AF) 176.5 0.00 1 178.3 .02 180.0 53. .3S 181.0 .8 .85 182.0 487.9 .80 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 DETENTION AT PROP. 3'X10' BOX CULVERT ELEV/HEAD DISCHARGE (FT) (CFS) 0.0 0.0 1 6.0 .0 .4 53. 6 116.7 .8 248.5 1.0 487.9 1.3 833.7 4.6 <1 Z. STOR -I140 METHOD PEAK ELEVATION= 178.0 PEAK STORAGE = .02 Din = 49.1 CFS @ 14.43 Dout= 49.0 CFS @ 14.4C ATTEN= 0 " LAG = 153 IN /OUT= 19.68 / 19.62 rT"e� AF HRS HRS SEC AF INVERT (F7; OUTLET DEVICES 176.5 10' x 3' CULVERT n =.013 L =16' S= .005'/' Ke=.S Cc-.9 Cd =.6 179.8 OVER ROAD SPECIAL CUTLET: Discharce table shown above TOTAL OISCHARGE vs ELEVATION FEET 0.0 i Z 178.5 t 0.0 1.0 2.7 4.9 7.4 10.1 iz.1 16.3 19.6 177.5 1 Z7,0 30.9 3S.0 39.3 43.7 48.3 S3.0 S7.9 .2.9 62.0 172.5 1 3.3 78.6 84.1 89.2 95.5 101.4 107.3 113.4 119.6 125.9 79.S 122.3 132.9 14S.S 152.2 165.0 120.4 195.9 311.2 180.5 1 362.5 457.5 S8S.6 3.9 837.2 960.2 1083.0 1204.8 1324.2 1443.5 161.5 1562.7 1631.9 1801.1 1920.1 2039.2 ZtS8.1 Aft Data `or DICKINSON BROOK CROSSING/ LEEDS Z50- 078 -30 Pane ID Premmred by PLNER HUNTLE`! jr 5 ASSOCIATE INC.: ENGINEERING 09 -28 -32 H <nrcCAD rev. 5;8 ^, (c) 1905 AP.Ilad Mlcrocomouter Svsteme DETENTION POND 2 INFLU! ^! & UUTFLUN DETENdTID;d HT PP(7P, - I'XIC' DOX CULw'EPT 45� STOF —IND METHOD 40 PERK ELEV= 178 FT 30 PERK. 5748= .02 RF ' L ! Clout= 45 CF 2C X � LRG= I5G GEC 10 r 5I- , 0 — nJ cli ul 10 r. IT � OD ro u� cu N N N N N TIME (hours) Aft Almer Huntley Jr. P—Assocs. Inc. 10a 4�� O �•=� �r=�' °" —' Surveyors - Engineers - L. .cape Architects SHEET NO 30 Industrial Drive NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061 CALCULATED BY �= f� DATE °—' • ? d - => (413) 584 -7444 �. CHECKED ev DATE SCALE CA+RNIJEI 45_ s V° z.4 437 rr Y= -Z EP-S Q roo = _Z33 'TS Y 180 _ I 175 7ERT DESIGN FOR DAY BROOK IN LEEDS PREPARED FOR JOSEPH DICKINSON OCTOBER, 1988 EXHIBIT 2 NOTICE OF INTENT The proposed d culvert is to be located on Day Brook about 650' north of Audubon Road in Leeds (see locus map). Another 1500 ft. downstream the brook crosses Audubon Road in a 4' x 4.5' stone box culvert. A 400 acre watershed is tribu- tary to the proposed culvert's location. About 65% of the watershed is com- prised of undeveloped woodland, 347 is open field, and the remaining 1% is made up of impervious roof and roadway areas. The soils throughout the watershed are primarily classified by the D.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as Type C, for hydrological purposes. This results in relatively large runoff rates (see soils map). The peak runoff rates were calculated by the SCS, TR -20 method for a Type III 24 hour storm. Since the proposed driveway will have very little effect on the runoff rate, it's effect can be neglected. For this design the proposed flow rates equal the existing flow rates. Once the flow rates were determined the flood elevations of the brook were calculated by the Manning equation for open channel flow, for the design section, and for a section 100 feet downstream. These cross - sections are shown on pages 14 and 15 of the calculations, with the flood evelations for the 2 -year, 10 -year and 100- -year storms. The proposed box culvert and driveway are designed to pass the design flows without raising the flood levels calculated above. A low point cut out of virgin soil has been created in the driveway approximately 50 feet away from the culvert. In the 100 year event, water flows through the culvert and over the driveway. Since the velocity of the flow is relatively slow (3.3 fps) the existing vegetated cover should be sufficient to prevent serious soil erosion. For the 10 -year storm or less, the flow does not overtop the driveway. The low - point in the driveway was set at about the flood elevation of the 10 -year design storm. The proposed culvert was then selected by varying it's size and calcula ting the headwater by inlet control, until the resulting headwater elevation was EM9 -21 ALMER HUNTLEY „JR., & ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYORS- ENGINEERS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS less than those flood elevations previously calculated by the Manning formula. This trial and error procedure was repeated until the governing flood elevation (the higher) was that calculated by the Manning formula and a balanced design was achieved. Pages 2 through 5 of the attached calculations are for the 100 -year event. Pages 6 through 9 are for the 10 -year storm, and pages 10 through 13 are for the 2 -year storm. The area behind the proposed culvert was modeled as a detention basin in order to determine the peak flood elevation. The following table summarizes the results of the attached hydrological calcula- tions. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the page number on which the value is shown. Design Storm 2 -year 10-year 100 -year Peak Flow (cfs) 49.1 (10) 137.3 (6) 283.4 (2) Flow velocity (cfs) Flood Elevation by Inlet Control (ft) Flood Elevation Due to Channel Roughness (Actual Pre and Post- Developed Flood Elevations) 3.2 (I4) 3.0 (I4) 3.3 (I4) 178.0 (13) 179.6 (9) 180.3 (5) 178.3 (14) 179,7 (14) 180.4 (14) On the Pages showing the flood elevations by inlet control, (detention pond A2), values are shown for: peak storage, Q in (inflow), Q out (outflow) and the total storm runoff volume. These values show that little or no decrease in peak flow results from detention at this brook crossing. The flood storage is very small compared to the total storm volume, and the outlet is so large, that all of the storms calculated are passed without significant restriction. £M9 -21 ALMER HUNTLEY, JR., & ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYORS- ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Form 3 ^.'' dEdE Fla No. DECE) '..A �w Commonwealth Q f Massachusetts (To W Orav,tlea oy Clry)TO.n Nor;,h ampton WN Applicant Dickinson Notice of Intent Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L c. 131, §40 and Application for a Department of the Army Permit Part I: General informatlon 1. Location: Street Address t+uuuuyn-KUau,Y. Lot Number Assessors' Tra Et Map 5, Lot 2. Project: This project consists of two related parts: 1. Construction of a 12' wide access driveway, with 3 precast concrete box culvert across Day Brook, for access to an extensive upland area where no reasonable alternative means of access Is available. Included are associated roadfill and grading, rip -rap, erosion control measures, and revegetation. This work is believed to qualify as a "limited project" under 310 Cl 10.53(3)(e). 2. Construction of a single dwelling within the butter zone of a wetland, with associated grading, erosion control measures, and revegetation. 3. Registry: County Hampshire Current sock 1259 &Page 160 Certificate Qf Registered Land) NA 4. Applicant Joseph C. Dickinson Tel ( 4 1 3 ) 584 -301 Address 311 Kennedy Road, Leeds MA. 01053 S. Property Owner Same Tel" 8. Representative Charles H. Dauchy, Environmental Consultant TeL (413) 548 -986 Address 24 Old Long Plain Rd., RFD #3, Amherst, MA. 01002 7. Have the Conservation Commission and the DEOE Regional Office each been sent, by certified mail or hand delivery, 2 copies of completed Notice of Intent, with supporting plans and documents? Yes 12 No ❑ i- Note: For notifications and correspondence, please also include: Mark Darnold, P.E., Almer Huntley, Jr. & Assoc. (413) 584 -7444 30 Industrial Drive East, P.O. Box 568, Northampton, MA. 01061 3 -1 Effective 11/1/87 8. Have all obtainable permits, variances and approvals required by local by -law been obtained? Yes ZI No ❑ Obtained: Applied For: Not Applied For: Variance 9. Is any portion of the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order pursuant to G.L. c. 131, §40A or G.L. C. 130, §105? Yes ❑ No ZI 10. fiat all plans and supporting documents submitted with this Notice of Intent. Identifying Number /Letter Title, Date Exhibit 1 fork Man Exhibit 2 "Culvert Design for Day Brock in Leeds" 10/88 by Almer Huntley , &Assoc Exhibit 3 Construction NethodL for F ion R CPdlment Contrni Proposed Driveway and Topographic Detail of Land in Leeds Exhibit 4 for Stream Crossing Purposes - By Huntley Assoc 10/ Varl pus Cross- Sections for Culvert Crossing in Leeds Exhibit 5 by Almer Huntley Assoc. 10/88 Exhibit 6 Profile of Proposed Wetland Crossing by Hunflei 10/8 11. Check those resource areas within which work is proposed: (a)❑ Buffer Zone (b) Inland: IU Bank' Land Subject to Flooding, E Bordering Vegetated Wetland' 13 Bordering IU Land Under Watar Body 8 Waterway' ❑ Isolated (c) Coastal: ❑ Land Under the Ocean ❑ Coastal Beach ❑ Barrier Beach ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shore• ❑ Land Under Salt Pond' ❑ Fish Run' ❑ Designated Port Area• ❑ Coastal Dune ❑ Coastal Bank ❑ Salt Marsh ❑ Land Containing Shellfish- Likely to involve U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers concurrent jurisdiction. See General Instructions for Completing Nonce of Intent. 3 -2 72 Is the wetland resource area to be altered by the proposed work located on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map (if any) of rare, "state - listed" vertebrate and invertebrate animal species occurrences provided to me conservation commission by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program? YES [ j NO [x) Date printed on me Estimated Habitat Map issued NO MAP AVAIASLE [ ) (if any) 1988 Atlas of Estimated Habitat If yea, have you completed an Appendix A and a Notice of Intent and filed them, along with supporting documentation with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program by certified mail or hand delivery, ao that the Program Shell have received Appendix A prior to the filing of this Notice of IntgW YES [ 1 NO [ 1 NOT APPLICABLE 3 -3 Part II: Site Descripti Indicate which of the following information has been provided (on a plan, in nanaflve description or calcula- bons) to clearly, completely and accurately describe existing site conditions. Identifying Number /1-efter (of plan, narrative or calculations) Natural Features: z Soils 4 Vegetatio V for wetland vegetation boundaries. 4 Topography NA 4 Open water bodies (including ponds and lakes) NA Fklwalg water bodies (Including streams and rivers) NA Public and Private surface water and ground water supplies on or within 100 feet of site 4 Maximum annual ground water elevations with dates and location of test Boundaries of resource areas checked under Part I Other , item 11 above NA Man -mad_ e� Features: Structures (such as buildings, Piers, towers and headwalls) NA Drayage end tI0Od control facilities at the site and immediately off the site, including culverts and open channels (with inverts), dams and dikes NA A Subsurface sewage disposal systems NA Underground ubkbes 4 Roadways and parking areas 4 Property boundaries, easements and rights -of -way Other Pert III: Work Description Indicate which of the following iMOnnation has been Provided (on a plan, in narrative description or calcula- tions) to clearly, completely and apcuratey describe work proposed within each of the resource areas checked in Part 1, item 11 above. Identifying Number /letter (of plan, narrative or calculations) 5 Planview and Grow Section of: Structures (such es buildings, piers, towers and headwalls) _ 4. 5 Drainage and flood control facilities, incuding culverts and open channels (with inverts), dams and dikes NA Subsurface se 4 , 5 , 6 �9e disposal systems 8 underground utilities 4, n"Q• dredging and excavating, indicating volume and composition of material Compensatory storage areas, where required in accordance with Part III, Section 10:57 NA ( of the regulations Wildlife habitat restoration or replication areas Other Point Source Discharge NA Oescnptlon of charactenstics of discharge from point source (both closed and open channel), when point of discharge falls within resource area checked under Part 1, item 1 1 above, as supported by standard engineering calculations, data and plans, including but not limited to the following: 3 -4 I I. Delineation of the drainage area contributing to the point of discharge; /"— 2. Pre- and post- development peak runoff from the drainage arse, at the point of discharge, for at least the 10 -year and 100 -year frequency stone; 3. Pre - and post - development rata of infiltration contributing to the resource area checked under Part I. item 11 above; 4. Estimated water quality characteristics of pre - and Post - development runoff at the point of discharge. Pat IV: Mklgating Meeeum 1. Clearly, Completely and accurately describe, with reference to supporting Plana and calculations where necessary: rte. (a) All measures and designs proposed to meet the performance standards set forth under each re- source area specified in Part II or Part 111 of the regulations; or (b) why the presumptions set forth under each resource area specified in Part it or Part III of the regula- hons do not apply. Cl coastal Resaurp Mae Type: Cl WMnd BANK - 310CMRID.54(4) for performance requirements. Wntelying numeer or lever of support accurnenn 1. Physical stability of the bank will be maintained by the pre -cast EX h. 4 & 5 concrete box culvert and rip -rap protection at inlet and outlet. 2. Water carrying capacity is provided by 3' high by 10' wide box EXh. 2 culvert with capacity greater than the existing channel and banks. with capacity greater than the existing channel. 3. Water quality will be protected by erosion control measures during EX h. 2 & 3 construction and by non - erosive design velocities during operation. 4. Fisheries impacts during construction will be minimized by Exh, 3 expeditious installation and erosion control measures. The culvert will construction and by non - erosive design velocities during operation. provide shading and will not impede movement. 3. Fisheries impacts during construction will be minimized by expeditious 5. Approximately BO linear feet of streambank (40 feet on two sides) Exh. 4 will be altered (36 feet for culvert and 44 feet for regrading and rip - Exh. 3 rap). We request that the requirements for wildlife habitat evaluation installation and erosion control measures. The culvert will not impede and replacement be waived under 310CMR10.53(3). movement. Cl d cosstm Resource Mee Type: „min LAND UNDER WATER - 310CMR1056(4) for peformance standards. le"b ing ra maer or letter afsu pn COCUmenls 1. Water carrying capacity is provided by 3' high by 10' wide box culvert, Exh. 2 with capacity greater than the existing channel. 2. Water quality will be protected by erosion control measures during Exh. 2 & 3 construction and by non - erosive design velocities during operation. 3. Fisheries impacts during construction will be minimized by expeditious Exh. 3 installation and erosion control measures. The culvert will not impede movement. 4. Approximately 135 square feet of land under water (5 width x 271) Exh. 4 will be converted to concrete and stone rip -rap. This is less than 5000 square feet or less than 10% of the land under water within the project area and is therefore deemed not to impair the capacity of the resource area to provide Important wildlife habitat functions. 3.5 .- caaaa, Resource Area Type. Inland BORDERING LAND SUBJECT T FLOODING - 310CMR10. 57(4a) klnaMnq numder orlerter at Camf documents The area is not mapped as flood plain on the FEMA Flood Insurance Maps, pl auppatdacumnR however the 100 year flood has been calculated and shown on the plans. EXh. 3 1. The proposed crossing is designed so as not to cause an increase in the encroachment of work into resource areas beyond that shown on plans. horizontal extent and level of flood waters. Although compensatory EXh. 2 $ 4 driveway runoff into the upland and prevent accumulation of erosive runoff storage could be created, we do not feel It is needed or justifies the down the driveway. disturbance of additional upland area. We therefore request that the wetland. Thus, any runoff from the driveway that does not flow off into requirement for compensatory storage be waived under 310 CMR 10.53(3). the woodland before reaching the low, will be filtered through upland 2. The culvert and roadway are designed not to restrict flows so as to 4. Grading for construction of the proposed house at the top of the slope cause an Increase In flood stage or velocity, EXh. 2 3. The project will alter approximately 1250 square feet of area within the 10 year flood plain. This is below the threshold of 5000 ft. 0r EXh. 4 ". 10% Of the 10 year flood plain area and therefore is not deemed to impair the area -s capacity to provide Important wildlife habitat functions. 2. Clearly, completely and accurately describe, with reference to supporting plans and calculations where necessary: (a) all measures and designs to regulate work within the Butter Zone so as to ensure that said work does not alter an area specified in Part I, Section 10.02(1) (a) of these regulations; or (b) if work in the Butler Zone will alter such an area, alt meesurm and designs proposed to meet the Performance standards established for the ed)aclsm resource arm specified in Part 11 or Pert Ill W them regulations L Casale, Resaep Area TY" fiadend ey 100 -Pool 01.a.kdney Zan: kind W bliam rwuader or BORDERING VEGETATED WETLAND AND BANK pl auppatdacumnR 1. Construction methods for erosion and sediment control will minimize EXh. 3 Impacts on water quality during construction, and will prevent encroachment of work into resource areas beyond that shown on plans. 2. Crowning and related grading of the proposed driveway will disperse EXh. 4 driveway runoff into the upland and prevent accumulation of erosive runoff down the driveway. 3. The low point in the driveway will be approximately 30 feet outside the wetland. Thus, any runoff from the driveway that does not flow off into EXh. 4 $ 0 the woodland before reaching the low, will be filtered through upland ground cover and /or soils before reaching the wetland or stream. 4. Grading for construction of the proposed house at the top of the slope above the wetland will be cut only, with erosion and sediment controls. EXh. 4 & 5 There will be no fill on the slope. ADDITIONAL WORK IN RESOURCE AREA, FROM PART IV:1 (ABOVE) RESOURCE AREA TYPE: INLAND BORDER114G VEGETATED WETLAND - 310CMR10.55(4) Approximately 200 square feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland outside the EXh. 4 streambank will be altered by the roadway and culvert. To avoid disturbance Of additional upland area adjacent to the wetland or stream, we request that the requirement for replacement of this area be waived under 310 CMR 10.53(3) (limited project - access roadway). 3 -6 /-. Part V: Additional Information for a Department at the Army Parmit 1. COtApplication No. 2. Day Brook (to be provided by COE) (Name of waterway) 3. Names and addresses of property owners adjoining your property: See attached list. a. Document other project aitentatives (i.e., othar ldoob ng andlor construction methods. Partioulariy those that would eliminate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters or wellandsf. 5. 8Y." x 11 " drawings in plamiew and cross - section. showing the resource area and the proposed acty. ity within the resource area Drawings must be to scale and should be dear enough for pnotoccpying. Note: This project is believed to qualify for nationwide permits #14 and /or #26 as a minor road crossing and work above the headwaters (drainage area 400 acres). CarEfication is required from the Division of Water Pollution Control before the Federal permit can be issued. Certification may be obtained by contacting the Division Of Water Pollution Control, t Winter Street. Boston, Massachusetts 0210& Where the activity will take piece within the area under the Massachusetts approved. Coastal Zone Management Program, the applicantcertifiea that his proposed activity comPiies with and will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved program. Information provided will be used in evaluating the application for a permit and is made a matter of public record through issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of this information is voluntary, however, if necessary information is not provided, the application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued. I hereby certify under the pans and penalties of perjury that the foregoing Notice of Intent and accomoanying Plans , documents and supporting data are true and complete, to the best of my knowledge. C ' ��-F' - 10/28/88 Si nature of Applicant µ Joseph C. Dickinson Date C� p 10/28/88 Signa�e of IGPl�t"s Aepresen e Charles H. Dauchy Date NFD F O R M 100 (TEST) - L.r.OU «.....t .. r. LNG e... as .n....a e, NvusACL. a .v., ueL- 1 MAY 82 • ^•'•• •'•'•' o ......... .r rh. s.....e va. .r Y..uaeu.m .ow.nuen n... —.r'. ohu.. .......... .. .••r.....u.�r,.. �. Ue��•e Sur........ or N........ I ..0 9uCpr AMNI h.. .pyre.N 1SO. umrmu .p.n.s by S. C9 Arn. ier . a Lquu... OMB N.. G.r M2-00341 ..G nOre.uo. ..r. er 30 S.st..G_ M3 son.•' Thu. 3 -7 T0: Joseph C. Dicl<inscn ' w " ubon Road Leeds, MA 01053 DATE: November 27, 1973 After an inspection of the project indicated above, it has been determined that the area upon which work is proceeding is potentially essential to U" bI ior o� va a water suooly ground water supply, flood control, storm damage prevent prevention o "ubo protection of land containing shell fish or the protection of fisheries. - -�"' Therefore, the Northampton Conservation Commission hereby makes the following request that: 1. The owner of the subject property, his agents and employees and parties entering the premises pursuant to a contract with that owner or his agents and employees immediately cease and desist from any and all removal dredging, fli lino or Iterin of any hank flat, marsh, meadow or swamp bordering on the ocean or on any ex fisting creek, river,SSLPam, pond, or lake or on any land under said waters or any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding. 2. No further work take place on the subject property until such time as the Northampton Conaarration Comdaaion acting under said chapter has issued an Order of Conditions regulating the said work. 3. The owner of the subject property file appropriate forms and plans as required by G.L. Ch. 131, Sec. 40. ISSUED BY: NGRTHAMPTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION Ncrthampton Conservation C('- mm1SSi0n Reim 102, Municipal Office Building 212 Main Street Northampton, MA 01050 CERTIFIED MAIL #232582 TEL. 584 -0344 f ok 4 : � ��•�{�r i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CITY OF NORTHAMPTON CITY OF NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE , ........ MASSACHUSETTS G.L. Ch. 131, Sec 40 PROJECT LOCATION: Lff Reservoir Road T0: Joseph C. Dicl<inscn ' w " ubon Road Leeds, MA 01053 DATE: November 27, 1973 After an inspection of the project indicated above, it has been determined that the area upon which work is proceeding is potentially essential to U" bI ior o� va a water suooly ground water supply, flood control, storm damage prevent prevention o "ubo protection of land containing shell fish or the protection of fisheries. - -�"' Therefore, the Northampton Conservation Commission hereby makes the following request that: 1. The owner of the subject property, his agents and employees and parties entering the premises pursuant to a contract with that owner or his agents and employees immediately cease and desist from any and all removal dredging, fli lino or Iterin of any hank flat, marsh, meadow or swamp bordering on the ocean or on any ex fisting creek, river,SSLPam, pond, or lake or on any land under said waters or any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding. 2. No further work take place on the subject property until such time as the Northampton Conaarration Comdaaion acting under said chapter has issued an Order of Conditions regulating the said work. 3. The owner of the subject property file appropriate forms and plans as required by G.L. Ch. 131, Sec. 40. ISSUED BY: NGRTHAMPTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION Ncrthampton Conservation C('- mm1SSi0n Reim 102, Municipal Office Building 212 Main Street Northampton, MA 01050 CERTIFIED MAIL #232582 TEL. 584 -0344 Forms orczF NO. 246 — ,r\ _ fro W Otm'i0en M utQ=; G HR a„ � Northampton Comrrronwealth of Massachusetts _. Aoct�^t Joseph C. Dickinson Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands. Protection Act G.L c.131, §40 FromNorthampton Conservation Commission To Jose C. Dickinson - same (Name of Applicant) (Name of property owned 311 Kennedy Road Address Leeds, MA O1053 Addr This Order is issued and delivered as follows: Q by stand delivery to applicant or representable on (date) by certified mail. return receipt requested on N 30 1988 (date) This Prof IS located at Audubon Road, Le d _ " ,t v,p 5 Lot 18 Hampshire County The property is recorded at the Registry of 1259 160 (as of date of application) Certificate (if registered N/A 1988 (date) - The Notice of Intent forthisproject was filed .on Apr. November 1, November 1 4, 1988 (date) The. Public hearing was closed on _ Findings The North ton Conservation Coa0aission hasrewewed the above -referenced Notice of Intent P� and has held apubhcheadrg.otr t eas theprolec Opimeinforttation available�ta the--" _ ,. - C mm+ssion - hasdetetminedthat -. C e t' o C , n¢�s' >n attttis M1me. tha . the areaon which the proposed wodr is ti be done ¢signiricantto the following mterestrinandordancewith .. th Presumptions of Significance set forthiff Mereguia0 foc ons. eaUrAreaSublecito.Protecliort Under the e Act(checkas appropriate): >t. ` _ ❑ Public water supply U Flood control ❑ land containing. shellfish _ ❑ Private water supply Z2 Storm damage prevention )E2 Fishenes I [I Ground water supply f] Prevention of pollution )S Protection of wildlife habitat Effective ll/l/87 DEDE'Pile No. 246- Special Conditions (continued) 8) The Applicant shall notify the Conservation Commission, is writing, . as: to the date that work will be- comsencing On the Project..' - Said written: notification eo be• received by the Commission an sooner than ten (10): days. and no later than seven (7) days prior to tha commencement of tba approved activity.. 9) (if. checked). Me Applicant shall complete and - execute the attached ATTACHMENT "A" /NOTICE OF POSSIBLE. WE TLANDS RESTRICTIONS - MER M.G.L. C. 1311 5.40 relative -to. the entire lot Said AMACEMENT "Ae shall be att ached to, become a part of, and shall be filed with this Order Of Conditions at the Registry of Deeds. The Applicant shall return a copy of the completed and notarized ATTACH! M "A" to the. Conservation Commission when the bottom portion of Page 5 -4A of this Order of Conditions Of Conditions is returned. U IEY ( ) RO . 10) Any fill used in this project shall be clean fill only, which can include earth, sand, gravel, rock, and loam. The applicant is prohibited Exam using demolition materials, asphalt, large chunks of concrete, tree' stumps and limbs, and general refuse_ 11) All wetlands lost because of the stream crossing SHALL HE REPLICATED upstream of the stream crossing and the applicant's consultant shall certify that the replacement of wetlands have been properly constructed. 12) All construction related to the stream crossing shall take place only when there is a forecast] for no rain for at least 48 hours after the commencement of that phase of construction. - 13) All silt /erosion controls shall be installed. prior to any construction. 14) All work in the wetlands, the stream, and the buffer area shall be supervised by a wetlands l consultant. 15) No grass lawn shall be maintained, cut, or fertilized between the proch of the new house and the wetland area. - - a - 5-3B - Commonwealth of,ilassaehusetts Divisi Fisheries & W Mass Wi/d/ife Wayne F. MacCallum, Director 27 February 2006 Steven R. Pritchard, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs'` ",y� Attention: MEPA Office William Gage, EOEA No. 13 05 7 100 Cambridge St. Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Project Name: Beaver Brook Estates Proponent: John Hanley Location: Evergreen & Haydenville Roads, Northampton Document Reviewed. Beaver Brook Estates Notice of Project Change NHESP File Number: 01 -9552 Dear Secretary Pritchard: 1- -, The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program ( NHESP) of the MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife has reviewed the Notice of Project Change for Beaver Brook Estates and would like to offer the following comments. The project site is located within the habitat of the Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) and Jefferson's Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum), two state - listed rare species. As noted in the Notice of Project Change, the applicant has made changes to the proposed project to address rare species concerns, including expansion of the proposed Conservation Restriction area. Although several details remain to be addressed, the NHESP expects to be able to issue a Conservation & Management Permit for this project upon completion of the MEPA review. These details include: 1. Final agreement on Conservation Restriction (CR) boundaries. The NHESP is in agreement with the CR boundaries proposed for Beaver Brook Estates single family home development (`Build - out & Open Space Plan, dated 12/7/05). However, we request that the CR boundaries for the proposed multifamily development be revised to more closely approximate the proposed limits of work, thereby providing additional protection to the forest habitat of the Jefferson's Salamander. 2. Final agreement on CR language, which we anticipate can be arrived at shortly. 3. The NHESP requires a letter from a qualified "Grantee" expressing willingness to monitor and enforce the proposed CR. We note that the proposed CR extends onto multiple individual house lots, potentially complicating long -term enforcement. Therefore, we recommend that the project proponent explore the feasibility of obtaining a lot size variance from the Town of Northampton, which would enable the CR to be placed over a single large open space lot. 4. Additional information on proposed stormwater management, in order to verify that Jefferson's Salamander breeding habitat will not be adversely impacted. This should include consideration of impacts to both hydrology and water quality. _ www. masswildlife. c Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01531 (503) 792 -7270 Fax (503) 792 -7275 An Agency of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental La iv Enforcement EOEA File No. 13057, Page ? It is the opinion of the NHESP that outstanding rare species permitting issues associated with this project can be adequately addressed without the filing of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Jon Regosin, Ph.D. at (508) 792 -7270 ext. 316. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, Thomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director cc: John Hanley Patrick J. Melnik Esq. Northampton Board of Selectmen Northampton Conservation Commission Northampton Planning Board Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals Bart Hollander, Assistant Attorney General DEP Western Regional Office, MEPA Coordinator Commonwealth of Massachusetts Mass Wi/d/ife Division of r Fisheries & WIN Ife Wayne F. MacCallum, Diictor Bob Jeffway, Jr. February 20, 2004 37 Front Street Leeds, MA 01053 Project Name: The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust property Location: Evergreen Road, Northampton NHESP File # 01 -9552 Dear Mr. Jeffway, The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife has reviewed the letters (received 10/21/03 & 12/4/03) and preliminary subdivision plan (dated 11/7/03) that were submitted to our office for review under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (M.G.L. c.131A) for this site. This project site is located within Estimated and Priority Habitats for the Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoana jeffersonianuna) and Wood Turtle (Clenarnys insculpta). These rare wildlife species are state - protected as species of "Special Concern" pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA). During our meeting with you on Sep. 4, 2003, we discussed the permitting requirements for this project under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00). The NHESP has determined that the proposed work and development of the uplands on this site constitutes a probable "take ", as defined in 321 CMR 10.02. Under MESA, both upland and wetland habitats are protected from "take" which includes "to ... disrupt the nesting, breeding, feeding, or migratory activity." The taking of a species on the state list may be permitted under MESA only if the applicant has avoided, minimized and mitigated impacts to state - protected species to the greatest extent practicable and provided there is a long -term net benefit to the conservation of the local populations of the impacted species. The NHESP is supportive of the recent plan (dated 11/07/03) submitted for review and has only a few minor concerns that need to be addressed. Dr. Alan Richmond conducted a survey of the vernal pools on this site for Beaver Brook Nominee Trust and during his survey another vernal pool was confirmed and certified. This latest vernal pool does not appear to be depicted on the plan that was submitted and it should be added. There are now 5 confirmed vernal pools in the vicinity of the project site, one of which is just outside of the property boundary and 2 of which are confirmed breeding sites for the Jefferson Salamander. The amount of area to be protected in the Conservation Restriction (CR) is acceptable for this site, although we have concerns about the proposed work within the 100 foot Buffer Zone east of the wetland near Haydenville Road. We recommend that the entire Buffer Zone be protected in the CR or alternatively that an equal amount of land (between the limit of work and Buffer Zone boundary) is added to the CR southeast of vernal pool 2017 or west of vernal pool 2019 as compensation. www. masswildl Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792 -7270 Fax (508) 792 -7275 An Agency of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement On the issue of new proposed trails, the NHESP will pen new trails on this site provided that new trails are no greater than 4 feet in width and that they are not located within any resource areas (including Riverfront Area) or within any 100 foot buffer zone of a wetland or certified vernal pool. The NHESP is unable to permit the use of ATV's within this Conservation Restriction, with the exception of snowmobiles. It is not the intent of NHESP to require or recommend the posting of lands within the CR. The CR shall be written to allow staff of the NHESP to inspect the protected land within the CR during reasonable hours. The NHESP requests that a draft Conservation Restriction be submitted for our review. Due to the need for a Conservation Permit under MESA for the proposed work on this site, filing under the MEPA regulations is still required. The NHESP apologizes for the delay in responding to your latest submissions. If you have any questions regarding this letter please call Nancy Putnam at ext. 306. Sincerely, 1 Thomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director CC: Northampton Planning Board and Conservation Commission MEPA Director, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs • MELNIK LAW OFFICES Attorneys At Law 110 King Street Northampton, Ma. 01060 Telephone (413) 584 -6750 Fax (413)5846789 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Patrick J. Melnik Jr., Esq. September 14, 2006 Carolyn Misch and Wayne Feiden Northampton Planning 210 Main Street Northampton, Ma 01060 Re: Beaver Brook Estates Dear Carolyn and Wayne, email: pmelnik (dverizon.net patmelnikir@verizon.net I am sending you copies, which I believe you already have, of the letter addressed to the Planning Board from Bruce Young and John Regosin of Natural Heritage. Wayne had also indicated that he would be writing a separate letter from Planning staff in support of the Beaver Brook proposed subdivision plan. I would appreciate it if Wayne would write the letter we discussed and include that letter, together with these two letters in the package to be presented to the Planning Board members for their consideration at the September 28" hearing. Thank you for your attention to this. As Bruce may have already told you, we have also given Bruce the Conservation Restriction and Conservation Restriction Application for execution by Northampton Conservation, the Mayor and City Council. I appreciate you circulating this for signature by the Mayor and City Council and approval by City Council. f , . Melnik PJM /jlp 09061eto)(93) Commonw,00f Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife MassWi /d /ife Wayne F. MacCallum, Director September 1, 2006 Patrick J. Melnik, Esq. Melnik Law Offices 110 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Beaver Brook Estates NHESP Tracking No. 01 -9552 Dear Mr. Melnik: Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Conservation & Management Permit for the above - listed project. The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program is satisfied that this project and associated endangered species mitigation, as currently proposed, meet the standards for issuance of a Conservation & Management Permit. However, as discussed by telephone, the NHESP will wait until a plan showing the final lot lines is provided to us before issuing the permit. In addition, it is my understanding that you will deed the proposed open space parcel to the City of Northampton subject to a deed restriction, and that you will provide us with the text of said deed restriction for inclusion as an attachment to our permit This is necessary as the City was proposed to be both the Conservation Restriction Grantee and the fee owner of this parcel. Provided that this land is deeded to the City for conservation purposes, subject to restrictions specified in the deed, the proposed CR need not cover this separate open space parcel. While we await the final plan showing both lot and CR boundaries, we will begin work on the draft Conservation & Management Permit. I look forward to working with you to complete the MESA permitting process for this project. Sincerely, 111 �-� Jon Regosin, Ph.D. Senior Project Analyst cc: Northampton Planning Department Northampton Conservation Commission www masswildlife. or Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792 -7270 Fax (508) 792 -7275 An A¢encv of the Department of Fisheries. Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement • Planning Board City of Northampton Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Members of the Planning Board, My name is Lora Sandhusen, and I live at 32 E. Center St., Leeds. The last time the Beaver Brook plans were submitted, Mr. Wilson stipulated that no plan should go forth without a traffic study. This proposal contains no traffic study. My particular concern is E. Center St. E. Center St has no sidewalks It is 19 feet wide, much narrower in the winter when snow builds up. It is the route of least resistance to and from Evergreen Rd, due to the sharp right turn off of Leonard that drivers avoid. In fact I see Pat Melnik Jr. coming up E. Center St. on his way home to Evergreen Rd. Mr. Melnik Sr. has invested much time and treasure in these plans — but not one dollar to assuage the legitimate concerns of the neighborhood. Who are these neighbors? They're the children who walk the half mile to Leeds School. They're the JFK or high school kids who walk to the bus stop across from Leeds School, for several months in the dark of winter. Mothers with babies in strollers. Then you just have dog walkers, and "walkers." Why are they out walking? Because this is a "traditional neighborhood" -- the kind so prized in Section 3.01 of the Northampton Subdivision Regulations and the ITE Publication on "Traditional Neighborhood Development." It was meant as a traditional neighborhood, and it ought to stay a traditional neighborhood. Maybe a traffic study would show that E. Center Street could handle 260 more cars per day. Maybe it would show that it wouldn't turn E. Center Street from a local road into a major road and destroy a traditional neighborhood — by the way, to gain a "suburban sprawl neighborhood." But how do we know until a study is done? We're talking about public safety — we're talking about quality of life, and life itself. Paying for a bike path, as Mr. Melnik proposes, does nothing to address these issues. A payoff to the Planning Board in lieu of a workable plan taking into account traffic issues is inappropriate. If the Planning Board accepts this plan as is, it is morally, if not legally, responsible, along with Mr. Melnik, for any tragedies that might result. Sincerely, G C Lora San n 32 E. Center St. Leeds 31 Northampton Conservation Commission Comments Regarding Cluster Subdivision Plans for Beaver Brook Estates August 29, 2006 Dear Members of the Planning Board, On Monday, August 7, 2006, the Northampton Conservation Commission met with Pat Melnik Jr. to revise the Beaver Brook Estates Cluster Subdivision Plan. During the meeting, the developer proposed amending the plans to provide additional in- fee open space to the City, create a single large -lot Conservation Restriction area, shift the proposed large -lot units closer to the main subdivision road, convert eight individual units to condominium units and, in order to protect the forest management interests of the City of Northampton, allow the Northampton Conservation Commission the right to initial review and approval /denial of the Forest Stewardship Plan. On August 28, 2006, the Northampton Conservation Commission received a copy of the plans including the revisions discussed on August 7, 2006, and is sending this letter in support of the Beaver Brook Estates Cluster Subdivision Plans, dated August 28, 2006. The Commission has determined that the environmental disturbance from the revised proposal would result in less adverse impacts to the ecosystem than the environmental disturbance from alternative propositions. Si 4eY l Bng Land Use and Conservation Planner S_ - 6 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions e- � Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. ` c. 131, 40 A. General Information Important: When filling From: out forms on the computer, Northam ton use only the o Conservatin Commission tab key to This issuance if for (check one): move your cursor - do ® Order of Conditions not use the return key. ❑ Amended Order of Conditions To: Applicant: Beaver Brook Nominee Trust (John J. Hanley) Name 150 West 56 Street, A t. 5905 Mailing New York NY Ci/Town 10019 ty State Zip Code 1. Project Location: Hayden�ille Road (Rte 9) Street Address Map 5 & Map 6 Assessors Map /Plat Number -- 2. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Hairpshire County Certificate (if registered land) 3. Dates: October 4, 2001 Date Notice of Intent Filed 4 DEP File Number: 246 -495 Provided by DEP Property Owner (if different from applicant): Name Mailing Address City/Town State Zip Code Northampton City/Town - - - -__ Parcels 6, 7 & 12 & Parc 18, 19 , 20, 21, & 58 Parcel /Lot Number 5493 Book April 11 2002 Date Public Hearing Closed 5917 A pril 17 2002 23, 6, 206 Page Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan references as neede • Beaver Brook Estates, Northam ton, MA, Prepared for John. le d) Title n. J Han _ y Trustee The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust, Sheets 1 -3, 10 -21, & 26 -36. September 14, Title 2001 5. Final Plans and Documents Signed and Stamped by: Richard P. Weisse, P.E. & Bruce A. Coombs, P.E. Name 6. Total Fee: $456.25 (from Appendix B. Wetland Fee Transmittal Form) Wpaform5.doc - rev. 4/17/02 Date Page t of 7 I♦ Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection , ;1� ILA Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 246 -495 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP B. Findings Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above - referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. Check all that apply: ❑ Public Water Supply ❑ Private Water Supply ❑ Groundwater Supply ❑ Land Containing Shellfish ❑ Fisheries ® Storm Damage Prevention ❑ Prevention of Pollution ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat ❑ Flood Control Furthermore, this Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: ❑ the following conditions which are necessary, in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations, to protect those interests checked above. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. Denied because: ® the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations to protect those interests checked above. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect these interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). WPaform5.doc • rev. 4/17/02 Page 2 of 7 M In L Wpaform5.doc • rev. 4/17/02 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Findings as to municipal bylaw or ordinance DEP File Number: 246 -495 Provided by DEP Furthermore, the Northampton Conservation Commission hereby finds (check one that applies): Conservation Commission ® that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw specifically: 24:1 -15 Citation Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. " See Below ❑ that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: Citation Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the said additional conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. Because this plan does not address impacts to species of concern and wetlandspecies affected b the road which crosses the large wetland that is parallel to Route 9 and because the applicant has altered the plans significantly since this filing the Commission orders that no work may commence Additional conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw: under the above described Notice of Intent. Page 3 of 7 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 246 -495 WPA Form 5 -Order of Conditions Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings (cont.) Additional conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw: This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special condition pursuant to General Conditions #4, from the date of issuance. April 17, 2002 Date WPA Form 5 Rev. 02/00 This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested) or hand delivered to the applicant. A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see Appendix A) and the property owner (if different from applicant). Signatures: On Eleventh Of April, 2002 Day Month and Year before me personally appeared the above -named r - to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instru j+..t� �'•, `. acknowledged that he /she execu the same as his /her f VCmmi and deed. to A • �. Notary Public sion Expires This Order is issued to the applicant as follows: •• • ❑ by hand delivery on ® by certified mail, return receipt requested, on Date April 17, 2002 Date Date sent to DEP: April 17, 2002 Page 5 of 7 I LI , Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 246 -495 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP C. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate DEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Appendix E: Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he /she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40) and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. v. mecoruing inrormation This Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on Page 7 of Form 5 shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. WPaform5.doc • rev, 4/17/02 Page 5 of 7 17L Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 246 -495 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP Ii. Kecording Information (cont.) Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Northampton Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: Haydenville Road 246 -495 Project Location DEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: 11UU 11Ly for: Property Book Page and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number WPaf0rm5.doc • rev. 4/17/02 Page 6 of 7 32 E. Center St. Leeds, MA 01053 February 20, 2006 Secretary Stephen R. Pritchard EOEA, Attn: MEPA Office William Gage, EOEA #13057 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, Ma. 02114 Dear Secretary Pritchard, This letter is in regard to the Notice of Project Change filed for the Beaver Brook Estates Project (EOEA #13057). Atty. Melnick requests "that the Secretary's Certificate issued on July 24, 2003 be rescinded with a new finding made that the project does not require the preparation of an EIR." His request is based on a prediction that because of the project changes, "the Secretary's findings that the area of the site proposed to be developed will have an adverse impact on rare species habitat will be superceded by the Conservation Permit to be issued by Natural Heritage." The proposed changes to the project in fact do not address many of the NHESP concerns, and Atty. Melnick has not complied with NHESP conditions. In fact, one of the NHESP conditions Atty. Melnick has not met is the very one he is trying to have rescinded by MEPA: the preparation of an EIR. Therefore, it is unlikely that NHESP will issue a Conservation Permit, and Atty. Melnick's request should have no claim on your attention. The July 11, 2005 NHESP letter to Attorney Melnick concerning his April 13, 2005 plans required that four conditions be met to complete their permitting process. Atty. Melnick has made the following progress on these conditions: 1. "Portions of the No Disturbance Zone depicted in Lots 20-26 that are not necessary for lawns around the houses need to be added to the Conservation Restriction." For Lots 20, 21, and 22, portions of the No Disturbance Zone have been added to the Conservation Restriction (which now totals 40.40 acres rather than 38.28 acres), as required. However, the houses themselves have been moved farther into the upland habitat, and are now directly in between vernal pools #2018 and 2020. For Lots 23 -26, the current plan is ambiguous, but it appears that less, not more, area around the houses is now under Conservation Restriction, than in the prior plan. 2. "We suggest that either the Conservation Commission or a local land trust be approached to hold the CIL" Atty. Melnick states that 16.504 acres (not the 40.40 acres of the Conservation Restriction) is proposed to be conveyed to the City of Northampton. 3. "Submit details of the proposed stormwater management system and provide supporting documentation to prove that the existing hydrology will be maintained after construction." The Dec. 29, 2005 letter from Mark P. Reed, Director of Engineering, Heritage Surveys, Inc. to NHESP merely states that "The proposed project grading and drainage design will maintain the current hydrology of the existing site. It is our option (sic) that the projects, as proposed will not affect the existing conditions (i.e. vegetation or hydrology) around or within the certified vernal pools located on the property." No supporting documentation is provided. Further, Mr. Reed is identified only as Director of Engineering and no credentials supporting his qualifications for making such a judgment are provided. 4. "Compliance with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) regulations ... (i.e) "the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( Atty. Melnick states that "Natural Heritage is not requiring a further wildlife study to be done beyond the work already done on the site by Molly Hale and Alan Richmond PhD. who have done independent site studies of the breeding patterns of the Jefferson Salamander." However, Atty. Melnick has not provided these studies because they don't exist. He has not completed an EIR. Further, Atty. Melnick has provided insufficient documentation that the proposed plan changes mitigate the disturbance to the wetland resource areas and the upland areas of the site. Please deny Atty. Melnick's request that the July 24, 2003 Secretary's Certificate requiring the preparation of an EIR be rescinded. Sincerely, Lora Sandhusen Cc: Nox1hampt9n Planning Board and Conservation Com miffion Natural Heritage and Endanger — e Species Program PROJECT CHANGE DESCRIPTION The original project, as presented in the original ENF filing in 2003, proposed to construct 24 new single family homes with a cul de sac off of Evergreen Road in the Leeds section of Northampton and a separate 6 unit condominium building to be built off of Route 9 with a curb cut onto Route 9. Access to three of the proposed single family homes was to be via a connecting driveway from Grove Avenue to be utilized as a common driveway. 36 acres of the site were proposed to dedicated to permanent conservation protection with a 6.92 acre parcel to be conveyed to the City of Northampton as permanent open space. Since the filing of the original ENF, and the issuance of the Secretary's certificate on July 24, 2006, there have been several changes to the project. A 4 acre site abutting Route 9 has been sold by John Hanley and is being proposed as a stand alone project of 2 building with 3 units each. An application for a cluster permit from Northampton Planning has been filed for this project and a negative determination of applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act has been issued by the Northampton Conservation Commission. A separate ENF is being filed in connection with this stand alone project. The remaining project has been redesigned to eliminate the proposed access driveway from Grove Avenue to three of the 25 proposed house sites. All access now is proposed to be via the cul de sac from Evergreen Road, if this redesign is approved by Northampton Planning. If the redesign is not approved the plans will be modified to go back to the original driveway from Grove Avenue. The proposed detention basin located on Evergreen Road, and the detention Basin located to the west of vernal pool number 2019, have been eliminated. All drainage will now be channeled into a single detention basin that will not impact the hydrology or water quality of the 4 vernal pools on the site. The City of Northampton took a right of way for a proposed expansion of the bike path now located in the City by the process of eminent domain. The project has been designed to link the proposed development to the new bike path. The area proposed for permanent conservation protection has been increased to 40.40 acres and the parcel of land proposed to be conveyed to the City of Northampton for public open space is increased to 16.504 acres. The Northampton Conservation Commission has reviewed the revised plan and has issued a negative determination of applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act for the entire proposed development. NHESP has reviewed the proposed changes to the project has indicated that it will act favorably to approve a Conservation Permit with some modifications to the proposed Conservation Restriction. The applicant has submitted the additional informational material requested by Natural Heritage and has changed the configuration of the proposed Conservation Restriction Area as requested by Natural Heritage. Any further requests for changes by Natural Heritage will be incorporated into the plans. Copies of the Negative Determination of Applicability, the letter from Natural Heritage and the drainage analysis from the applicant's engineer has been submitted with the revised plans. All roadways, building development and house sites have been pulled back to be at least 300 feet away from the Mill River and 600 feet from Beaver Brook to meet Natural Heritage guidelines for protection of the Wood Turtle. Although no Wood Turtle has ever been identified to be located on this site, the site has been determined to be Wood Turtle habitat by Natural Heritage. The changes to the plans eliminate any potential impact to Wood Turtle habitat. There is a dedicated continuous wildlife corridor to insure that migratory patterns for breeding Jefferson Salamander is unaffected by the development and there will be continuous opportunity for cross breeding between the two vernal pools where Jefferson Salamanders have been located. The applicant is requesting that the Secretary's Certificate issued on July 24, 2003 be rescinded with a new finding made that the project does not require the preparation of an EIR. The Secretary's previous finding that the project will require a "Superceding Order of Conditions" is no longer applicable to the project. There is no need for any filing under the Wetland Protection Act. Further, the Secretary's findings that the area of the site proposed to be developed will have an adverse impact on rare species habitat will be superceded by the Conservation Permit to be issued by Natural Heritage. Natural Heritage will not issue the Conservation Permit until they are satisfied that there is a net long term benefit to the species. Natural Heritage is not requiring a further wildlife habitat study to be done beyond the work already done on the site by Molly Hale and Alan Richmond Ph.D. who have done independent site studies of the breeding patterns of the Jefferson Salamander. Therefore, the applicant would request that the Secretary's Certificate be revised to eliminate the need for further wildlife study if the Certificate is not rescinded entirely. ATTACHMENTS & SIGNATURES Attachments: 1. Secretary's most recent Certificate on this project 2. Plan showing most recent previously - reviewed proposed build condition 3. Plan showing currently proposed build condition 4. Original U.S.G.S. map or good quality color copy (8 -1/2 x 11 inches or larger) indicating the project location and boundaries 5. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the NPC, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.10(7) "� Date Signature of Responsible Officer Date 'gnature of person preparing or Proponent NPC (if different from above) John J. Hanley Patrick J. Melnik Esq. Name (print or type) Name (print or type) Attorney Firm /Agency Firm /Agency 180 Riverside Blvd Apt 29E 110 King St. Street Street N Y NY 10069 Northampton, Ma. 01060 Municipality /State /Zip Municipality /State /Zip 212- 787 -5158 413- 584 -6750 Phone Phone 4 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs ■ MEPA Office NPC Notice of Project Change For Offlce Use Only Executive Offlce of Environmental Affairs MEPA Analyst: Phone: 617 -626- The information requested on this form must be completed to begin MEPA Review of a NPC in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations (see 301 CMR 11.10(1)). Project Name:Beaver Brook Estates rEOEA #:13057 Street: Evergreen Road and Haydenville Road Municipality: Northampton Watershed: Mill River Universal Tranverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 42- 22 -01 -1 N Lon itude: 72- 42 -00 -4 W Status of project construction: 0 %complete Proponent: John Hanle Street: 180 Riverside Blvd Apt 29E Municipality: New York City State: NY Zip Code: 10069 Name of Contact Person From Whom Copies of this NPC May Be Obtained: Patrick J. Melnik Es q. Firm/Agency: Patrick J. Melnik Attorney Street: 110 King St. Municipality: Northampton State: Ma Zip Code: 01060 Phone: 413-584-6750 Fax: 413-584-6789 E -mail: melnik verizon.net In 25 words or less, what is the project change? The project change involves ... Relocation of houses, relocation of detention basin and increase in size of open space parcel. One access roadway has been eliminated. Impact on Rare species is avoided. See full project change description beginning on page 3. Date of ENF filing or publication in the Environmental Monitor June 24, 2003 Was an EIR required? ®Yes ❑No; if yes, was a Draft EIR filed? ❑Yes (Date: ) ®No was a Final EIR filed? ❑Yes (Date: ) ®No was a Single EIR filed? ❑Yes (Date: ) NNo Have other NPCs been filed? ❑Yes (Date(s): ) X[No If this is a NPC solely for lapse of time (see 301 CMR 11.10(2)) proceed directly to "ATTACHMENTS & SIGNATURES" on page 4. May 2001 PERMITS / FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE / LAND TRANSFER List or describe all new or modified state permits, financial assistance, or land transfers not previously reviewed: Negative Wetlands Act determination August 29, 2005. 4 Acre 6 unit condominium site on Route 9 conveyed to Patrick J. Melnik. Are you requesting a finding that this project change is insignificant? (see 301 CMR 11.10(6)) ❑Yes ®No; if yes, attach justification. Are you requesting that a Scope in a previously issued Certificate be rescinded? WYes ❑No; if yes, attach the Certificate Are you requesting a change to a Scope in a previously issued Certificate? 9Yes ❑No; if yes, attach Certificate and describe the change you are requesting: Summary of Project Size & Environmental Impacts Previously reviewed Net Change Currently Proposed LAND Total site acreage 59.915 59.915 Acres of land altered 6.91 6.91 Acres of impervious area 2.0 -.3 1.7 Square feet of bordering vegetated wetlands alteration 0 0 Square feet of other wetland alteration 0 0 Acres of non -water dependent use of tidelands or waterways 0 0 STRUCTURES Gross square footage 62,000 62,000 Number of housing units 31 31 Maximum height (in feet) 35 35 TRANSPORTATION Vehicle trips per day 274 1274 Parking spaces WATER/WASTEWATER Gallons /day (GPD) of water use 15,000 15,000 GPD water withdrawal 15,000 15,000 GPD wastewater generation/ treatment 13,640 13,640 Length of water /sewer mains (in miles) 2 2 Does the project change involve any new or modified 1. conversion of public parkland or other Article 97 public natural resources to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97? ❑Yes ®No 2. release of any conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction, or watershed preservation restriction? ❑Yes ®No 3. impacts on Estimated Habitat of Rare Species, Vernal Pools, Priority Sites of Rare Species, or Exemplary Natural Communities? C&Yes ❑No 4. impact on any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? DYes XNo; if yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or archaeological resources? ❑Yes ❑No 5. impact upon an Area of Critical Environmental Concern? ❑Yes ®No If you answered 'Yes' to any of these 5 questions, explain below: PROJECT CHANGE DESCRIPTION (attach additional pages as necessary). The project change description should include: (a) a brief description of the project as most recently reviewed (b) a description of material changes to the project as previously reviewed, (c) the significance of the proposed changes, with specific reference to the factors listed 301 CMR 11.10(6), and (d) measures that the project is taking to avoid damage to the environment or to minimize and mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts. If the change will involve modification of any previously issued Section 61 Finding, include a proposed modification of the Section 61 Finding (or it will be required in a Supplemental EIR). Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands i, WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. tab rerom A. General Information From: Northampton Conservation Commission To: Applicant Property Owner (if different from applicant): John Hanlev and Patrick Melnik Name 110 King Street Mailing Address Northampton MA 01060 City/Town State Zip Code Name Mailing Address City/Town State Zip Code 1. Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable) of Final Plans and Other Documents: Build Out and Open Space Plan for Beaver Brook Estates Title Multi- family Development Plan for Parcel 24 Title Title 2. Date Request Filed: 04/15/2005 B. Determination 04/13/20055 Date 07/27/2005 Date Date Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable): Construction of: two multi -unit buildings off of Route 9 as a stand alone cluster, six houses with frontage on Route 9 with common driveways, a 19 unit cluster and utilities, two storm detention basins, two common driveways a bikepath connector, and removal of a building located at 28 Evergreen Road Project Location: Route 9 and Grove Avenue Street Address 005/006/011 A Assessors Map /Plat Number Northampton City/Town 6,7,12/ 19,20,21,58,61/ 003 Parcel /Lot Number wpaform2.doc • rev. 3/1/05 Page 1 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination (s) is /are applicable to the proposed site and /or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions (issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent) or Order of Resource Area Delineation (issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD) has been received from the issuing authority (i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s) is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing, filling, dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s) are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination is valid. ❑ 2b. The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The wok pr tect on d Act and wills emov fill, d edge, or l alter that a Therefore, subject aid work p requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review (if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5. The area and /or work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation wpaform2.doc • rev 311105 Page 2 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands PA Form 2 —Determination of Applicability ` Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 L71 0 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 6. The following area and /or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate region of the state. Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required b pp woak may not proceed Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed request is post- marked for at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ® 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. Page 3 of 5 wpaform2.doc • rev 311105 aw Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: Exempt Activity (site applicable statuatory/regulatory provisions) ❑ 6. The area and /or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. ame (df + 45 Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery on Date 0 by certified mail, return receipt requested on 49 A1JIWYr ao Date This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance (except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see Attachment) and the property owner (if different from the applicant). 06 V 405` Date wpaform2.doc • rev 311105 Page 4 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant, owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see Attachment) to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form) as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he /she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. wpaform2.doc • rev. 311105 Page 5 of 5 oP 111AI.�p�, ? H City of Northampton Department of Public Works STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT WAIVER APPLICATION DECISION Project / Site Name: Beaver Brook Condo / Multifamily Development for Parcel 24 Project Street or Location / Assessor ID: Haydenville Rd. Leeds MA / Map 06 Parcel 62 Applicant Name: Patrick J. Melnik Applicant Address /Phone: 311 Chesterfield Rd. Leeds MA / 584 -6750 Application Submission Date: 3/21/2006 Total Lot Size (ft) : 244,398 Estimated Area to be Disturbed (ft) : 25,600 THE FOLLOWING DECISION BY THE NORTHAMPTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS BEEN MADE ON THIS WAIVER APPLICATION BASED ON INFORMATION PRESENTED: X_ Disapproval of the Stormwater Management Permit Waiver Application based upon a determination that the proposed project shall require an approved Stormwater Management Permit as specified in the Northampton Stormwater Management Ordinance (Chapter 22 Article 5). Approval of the Stormwater Management Permit Waiver Application subject to any conditions required by the Northampton Department of Public Works (see conditions below). The Northampton DPW has determined that the project described above is exempt from meeting the stormwater performance standards as outlined in the Northampton Stormwater Management Ordinance (Chapter 22 Article 5) for the following reason: y // 0 Signature of City Engineer Date cc. Planning Board c/o Office of Planning and Development Building Department Conservation Commission c/o Office of Planning and Development EAStonnwater Perm its\Ston n water Pennits \Waiver Decisions \Haydenville Rd. Waiver Decision.doc Page 1 of 1 Professional (aE .S "NC. Professional Surveyors and Enynteers College Highway & Clark Street Post Office Box 1 Southampton, Massachusetts 01073 Bruce A. Coombs, President Telephone (413) 527 -3600 Professional Surveyor, MA, CT & VT Facsimile (413) 527 -8280 E -mail: bruce@heritagesurveys.com Website: heritagesurveys.com March 21, 2006 City of Northampton Planning Board 210 Main Street — City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Beaver Brook Estates Preliminary Cluster Subdivision Plan Cul -de- sac /Open Space Residential Development Evergreen Road & Hydenville Road Northampton, MA HSI Job #3923 - 980831 Dear Board Members: On behalf of our clients, The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik, we are pleased to submit sixteen full scale prints of a plan entitled, Cluster Subdivision Plan, sheet 1 of 1, Development Area Calculations Plan, sheet 1 of 1, all dated February 6, 2006, prepared for Beaver Brook Estates, Northampton, Massachusetts, for your review and comment. Also enclosed are seven reduced size (11 x 17) copies of the Cluster Subdivision Plan, sheet 1 of 1 showing wetlands and vernal pools. These plan show an Open Space Residential Development with nineteen (19) lots and a cul -de -sac roadway connecting to Evergreen Road. Lots 20 -26 shown on the plan have frontage on Hydenville Road and are not part of the proposed Preliminary Cluster Subdivision. The plan reflects an alternative concept that requires no alterations to any Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Riverfront Areas or Vernal Pools as well as buffer zones to these areas. The proposed plan provides a 40.4 -acre parcel of land that shall be protected with a conservation restriction, of which 17.7 -acres shall be Open Space, which is proposed to be conveyed to the City of Northampton. Two waivers are being requested with this Preliminary Subdivision Submission. According to the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, Section 7:00 Design Standards, 7:01, 5a, a proposed street shall be less than five hundred feet (500'). The proposed cul -de- sac is seven hundred eighty eight feet (788') from Evergreen Road to the center of the cul -de -sac and eight hundred and seventy feet (870') from Evergreen Road to the rear street line. The second waiver requested is to eliminate the hammerhead at the end of the extended pavement off the proposed cul -de -sac, which will serve lots 12, 13, 14 & 15 and connect to the proposed common driveways for parcels 23, 25 & 26. A hammerhead roadway is allowed under Section 7:01 5f of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land. We would appreciate your directing any correspondence regarding the above referenced project to The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik, 110 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060, (413) 5 84-675 0 with copies of the same to Heritage Surveys, Inc. Sincerely, 11__��? Mark P. Reed cc: The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Patrick J. Melnik William A. Canon Y: LETTERFILE /DEFSUB /3923CONPRE. DOC 0 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAN - -Form B File with the Office of Planning and Development, City of Northampton, Massachusetts File sixteen completed forms and plans and file seven additional copies, showing wetlands, which maybe 11" x17" reduced scale plans, with the City Clerk and the Planning Board, in accordance with the requirements of Section 4:02. All plans must be folded and a copy of this application attached to each plan. All submittals must be accompanied with a disk showing the entire filing in DjVu or TIFF format. To the Planning Board: The undersigned herewith submits the accompanying Preliminary Plan of Property located in the City of Northampton for approval as allowed under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the Planning Board in the City of Northampton. We further grant the Planning Board and its agents the right to enter our property for the purpose of evaluating this application. Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik 1. Applicant Signatu + d� Address Northampton, M A 01060 2. Owner 3) 584 -6750 Beaver Brook Nominee Trust & Patrick J. Melnik Address Northamp MAO 1 060 Phone 3)584 -6750 Heritage Surveys, Inc. - Richard P. Weisse , 3. Engineer Signature College Highway & Clark St. P.O. Box 1 (413) 527 -3600 Address Southampton, MA 01073 Phone Heritage Surveys, Inc. - Bruce A. Coombs 4. Surveyor Signat 5. Deed of property recorded in Hampshire County Registry or Land Court (circle one), Book Page SEE BELOW 6. Location and Description of Property: SEE BELOW # of Commercial Lots: 0 # of Residential Lots: 19 Map 5 Parcels 6, 7,12 7. Assessor's Map ID: Lot(s): Map 6 Parcels 18, 19, 20, 21, 58 Map 11 A Parcel 3 Date submitted to Tanning Board: H Date Decision Filed: City Clerk: CL ; City Clerk: (Signature) C (Signature) (form created 5/8/2003) Book 5493 Page 23, Book 5869 Page 6, Book 5917 Page 206, Book 8166 Page 88 The parcel of land is located on the northerly side of Evergreen Drive and the westerly side of Hydenville Road. The existing site consists of woods, and existing 4 multifamily unit building, vernal pools and bordering vegetated wetlands. Northampton Subdivision Regulations - - - - -- -PAGE 48 REVISED DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOR PARCEL 24 HAYDENVILLE ROAD NORTHAMPTON, MA Prepared for: John J. Hanley, Trustee The Beaver Brook Nominee Trust 150 West 56 Street, Apt. 5905 New York, New York 10019 - Prepared by: HSI No: 3923 - 980831 September 29, 2005 Revised: April 4, 2006 Summary okvised Pre & Post Development �nae Calculati The drainage report was prepared using the computer program HydroCAD version 7.0 by Applied Microcomputer Systems. The revisions made pertain to the ground cover and the pond size and outlet elevation. The report is broken into four sections. The first section of the drainage calculations (pages 1 -7) are for the 1 year storm event and the next three sections are numbered the same (pages 1 -7) for the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events for the Pre Construction (Existing Conditions) and Post Construction (Post Development). Each section gives a schematic diagram and description of structures used in the analysis. The drainage ar a d efte d as s fo h each storm detention basin is defined as a pond. A summary for each subcatchment, p ond red are given event. The combined peak discharge from the subcatchments and ponds are summed in an undescribed structure (total post construction discharge) called a reach. The drainage analysis is based on soil information obtained from the "Soil survey of Hampshire County, Massachusetts Central part from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station ", issued 198 Ion Sheet Number 9. The soil groups shown on parcel 24 belong to Hydrologic Soil Group C, Ridgeburg (ReA), Woodbridge (PaB, PbB), Paxton. No infiltration was accounted for within the drainage calculations for the proposed detention basin. Also see soil testing T.P. 8 & 9 performed on 9/26/01. There is a decrease in peak runoff from the existing conditions to the post construction condition for the 2, 10 & 100 year stormevents. Table 1: Pre &Post Drainage Calculations 2, 10, 100 Year Storms YEAR PRE - STORM CONSTRUCTION PEAK DI SCHARGE PEAK DISCHARGE 0.00 CFS 0.00 CFS 1YR SUBCATCHMENT I ES (TOTAL SITE DRAINAGE) 0.73 CFS 2YR SUBCATCHMENT I ES (TOT SITE DRAINAGE) 1.65 CFS _ 10YR SUBCATCHMENT I ES (TOTAL SITE DRAINAGE) 3.01 CFS 100YR SUBCATCHMENT I ES POST- DIFFERENCE CONSTRUCTION IN PEAK PEAK DI SCHARGE DISCHARGE 0.00 CFS REACH #1PR 0.00 CFS AL SITE DRAINAUt) 0.44 CFS _0.29 CFS REACH #I PR 'AL SITE DRAINAGE) 1.01 CFS _0.64 CFS REACH #1PR CAL SITE DRAINAGE) 1.85 CFS _1.16 CFS REACH #1PR AL SITE DRAINAG (TOTAL SITE i 1 E EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA 1P o- 1 P PROPO ED BASIN PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN 1PR 2PS TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN /WOODS TO WETLAND Sub Reach Z4n � Link 3923 melnik 6 units R Type 111 24 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" s Inc. Page 2 _ Prepared by Heritage y , 4/4/2006 Hydro CAD® 7.00 s/n 00086 ©1986 -2003 A lied Microcom uter S stems Time span =0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt =0.05 hrs, 401 points - Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS Reach routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method - Pond routing by Stor -Ind method - Subcatchment 1 ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA Runoff Area = 35,292 sf Runoff Depth = 0.02" Flow Length =170' Tc =10.5 min CN =75 Runoff =0.00 cfs 0.002 of Subcatchment 1PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRA Runoff Area= 13,613 sf Runoff Depth = 0.37" Tc =5.0 min CN =92 Runoff =0.15 cfs 0.010 of Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAW Runoff in r x=1 94 78 sf 0 00 Dep 0 0 001af Inflow =0.00 cfs 0.001 of Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE outflow - 0.00 cfs 0.001 of Pond 1PP: PROPOSED BASIN Peak Elev= 401.39' Storage =420 cf Inflow =0.15 cfs 0.010 of Outflow =0.00 cfs 0.000 of Total Runoff Area = 1.561 ac Runoff Volume = 0.012 of Average Runoff Depth = 0.09" 3923 melnik 6 units RE Type /// 24 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" Page 3 _ Prepared by Heritage S ys, Inc. 4/4/2006 H droCADO 7.00 s/n 00086 1986 -2003 Applied Microcomputer S istems Subcatchment 1 ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 13.84 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af, Depth= 0.02" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" Area (sf) CN Description 21,520 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 13 772 77 Brush, Poor, HSG C 35,292 75 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _ min feet ft/ft ft/sec cfs 3.7 15 0.0400 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.00" 4.8 35 0.0400 0.1 Sheet Flow, _ Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.00" 2.0 120 0.0417 1.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 10.5 170 Total Subcatchment 1 ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA - Hydrograph ---- I �.0 CfS ■Runoff 0.004 0.003 ,111 rn y.. 0.002 3 0.002 0.001 0.001 Type III 24 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" Runoff Area= 35,292 sf Runoff Volume =0.002 of Runoff Depth = 0.02" Flow Length =170' Tc =10.5 min CN =75 0 - ... ..... . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 1314 15 1617 1819 20 Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units R Type /// 24 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" s, Inc. Page 4 Prepared by Heritage S y 4/4/2006 HwiroCADO 7.00 s/n 00086 © 1986 -2003 A lied Microcomputer S stems Subcatchment 1 PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN Runoff = 0.15 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 0.37" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" Area (sf) CN Description 5,414 98 Building 5,017 98 Pavement 3,182 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 13,613 92 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min feet ft/ft ft/sec cfs Direct Entry, 5.0 Subcatchment 1 PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN Hydrograph 0.16 0.15 CfS Runoff Type 11124 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT 0.14 Rainfall= 1.00" Runoff Area= 13,613 sf 0.12 Runoff Volume =0.010 of Runoff Depth =0.37' Tc =5.0 min y 0.1 CN =92 V 3 0.08 O 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time (h0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3923 meinik 6 units R Type /// 24 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" Prepared by Heritage S 5 . ys, Inc. 4 Page Page 5 H droCADO 7.00 s/n 00086 © 1986 -2003 A lied Microcomputer S stems Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN/WOODS TO WETLAND Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 14.76 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Depth= 0.02" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" Area (sf) CN Description 16,354 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,724 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 19,078 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min feet ft/ft ft/sec cfs Direct Entry, 5.0 Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN/WOODS TO WETLAND Hvdrograph 0.00 CfS 0.001 _ 0.001 0.001 H 0.001 3 0.001 0.000 0.000 Type 11124 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" Runoff Area= 19,078 sf Runoff Volume =0.001 of Runoff Depth =0.02' Tc =5.0 min CN =74 ■ Runoff 0 .. I ............... .. _ , '' I , "'. r7."-rT-1 .... I ....... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718 Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. Type /// 24 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" Prepared by Heritage Sys, Inc. Page 6 H droCADO 7.00 s/n 0008MM 1986 -2003 Applied Microcom uter S sty, -,s 4/4/2006 Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Inflow Area = 0.750 ac, Inflow Depth = 0.01" for 1 YEAR STORM EVENT event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 14.76 hrs, Volume= 0.001 of Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 14.76 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af, Atten= 0 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor - Ind +Trans method, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Hydrograph ■ Inflow ■ Outflow 0.001 0.001 0.001 H y.. 0.001 3 LL 0.001 0.000 0.000 C 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 111314 "I0 1 i io iz7c.0 Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. Type 11124 -hr 1 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 1.00" _ Prepared by Heritage Says, Inc. Page 7 H droCADO 7.00 s/n 0008aPF@ 1986 -2003 Applied Microcomputer S st8rns 4/4/2006 Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Inflow Area = 0.313 ac, Inflow Depth = 0.37" for 1 YEAR STORM EVENT event Inflow = 0.15 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.010 of - Outflow - 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100 %, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 401.39' @ 20.00 hrs Surf.Area= 1,015 sf Storage= 420 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated) Center -of -Mass det. time= (not calculated) # Invert Avail.Stora a Storage Description 1 401.00' 4,983 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 401.00 821 0 0 402.00 1,315 1,068 1,068 403.00 1,957 1,636 2,704 404.00 2,601 2,279 4,983 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 404.00' 6.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad - Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 401.00' (Free Discharge) t--1 =Broad-C rested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Hydrograph 0.15 cfs 0.16 ' Inflow Area =0.313 ac 0.14 Peak Elev= 401.39' 0.12 Storage =420 cf n 0.1 3 0.08 0 LL 0.06 0.04 ■ Inflow ■ Primary 0.00 cfs 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819 Time (hours) • 1 E EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA A 1 P PROPO ED BASIN PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN 1PR 2PS TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN /WOODS TO WETLAND Subcat Reach on Link 3923 meinik 6 units REV. Type 111 24 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 3.00" Prepared by Heritage �eys, Inc. Page 2 H droCAD® 7.00 s/n 0008W@ 1986 -2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 4/4/2006 Time span =0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt =0.05 hrs, 401 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS Reach routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method - Pond routing by Stor -Ind method Subcatchment 1 ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA Runoff Area = 35,292 sf Runoff Depth = 0.87" Flow Length =170' Tc =10.5 min CN =75 Runoff =0.73 cfs 0.059 of Subcatchment 1PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRA Runoff Area= 13,613 sf Runoff Depth= 2.04" Tc =5.0 min CN =92 Runoff =0.78 cfs 0.053 of Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAW Runoff Area = 19,078 sf Runoff Depth = 0.83" Tc =5.0 min CN =74 Runoff =0.44 cfs 0.030 of Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Inflow =0.44 cfs 0.030 of Outflow =0.44 cfs 0.030 of Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Peak Elev= 402.76' Storage =2,310 cf Inflow =0.78 cfs 0.053 of Outflow =0.00 cfs 0.000 of Total Runoff Area = 1.561 ac Runoff Volume = 0.142 of Average Runoff Depth = 1.09" 3923 melnik 6 units REV. Prepared by Heritage eys, Inc. HvrirnCAD® 7.00 s/n 000 © 19 -2( Type 111 24 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 3.00" Page 3 Microcomputer SystUms 4/4/2006 Subcatchment 1 ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA Runoff = 0.73 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.059 af, Depth= 0.87" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 3.00" Area (sf) CN Description 21,520 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 13,772 77 Brush, Poor, HSG C 35,292 75 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.7 15 0.0400 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.00" 4.8 35 0.0400 0.1 Sheet Flow, v CN =75 Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.00" 2.0 120 0.0417 1.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 10.5 170 Total Subcatchment 1ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA 3 0.4 0 CL: 0.3 0.2 0.1 ■ Runoff 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) Hydrograph 0.73 cfs 0.8 Type 11124 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT 0.7 Rainfall= 3.00" Runoff Area= 35,292 sf 0.6 Runoff Volume =0.059 of Runoff Depth = 0.87" Flow Length =170' j 0.5 Tc =10.5 min v CN =75 3 0.4 0 CL: 0.3 0.2 0.1 ■ Runoff 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. Prepared by Heritage �eys, Inc. HwiroCADO 7.00 s/n 000 © 1986 -2( Type /// 24 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 3.00" Page 4 lied Mi I Subcatchment 1 PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN Runoff = 0.78 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.053 af, Depth= 2.04" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 3.00" _ Area (sf) CN Description 5,414 98 Building 5,017 98 Pavement _ 3,182 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 13,613 92 Weighted Average _ Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ( min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1 PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN Hydrograph ■ Runoff v 3 0 LL 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 C 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 1 14 10 io iyw Time (hours) 3923 meinik 6 units REV. Type 111 24 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 3.00" _ Prepared by Heritage eys, Inc. Page 5 Hyd roCAD® 7.00 s/n 000 *1@ 1986 -2003 Applied Microcomputer Sys tems 4/4/2006 Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN/WOODS TO WETLAND Runoff = 0.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.030 af, Depth= 0.83" - Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 3.00" - Area (sf) CN Description 16,354 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,724 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C - 19,078 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _ (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN/WOODS TO WETLAND Hydrograph 0.44 CfS ■ Runoff 0.451 1 Type III 24 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT 0.47 Rainfall= 3.00" Runoff Area = 19,078 sf Runoff Volume =0.030 of 0.35 Runoff Depth = 0.83" Tc =5.0 min v 0.3 cN =74 3 0.25 0 0.2- 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 ..., 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. Type /// 24 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 3.00" Prepared by Heritage Meys, Inc. Page 6 Hy droCAD®7 00 s/n 0008W@ 1986 -2003 Applied Microcomputer Syste 4/4/2006 Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Inflow Area = 0.750 ac, Inflow Depth = 0.48" for 2 YEAR STORM EVENT event Inflow = 0.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.030 of Outflow = 0.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.030 af, Atten= 0 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Hydrograph 1 1 3 0. o E 1 I 1 ■ Inflow ■ Outflow 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617161UZU Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. Type 111 24 -hr 2 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 3.00" Prepared by Heritage eys, Inc. Page 7 Hyd roCAD® 7.00 s/n 000 *,@ 1986 -2003 Applied Microcomputer Sys tems 4/4/2006 Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Inflow Area = 0.313 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.04" for 2 YEAR STORM EVENT event Inflow = 0.78 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.053 of Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100 %, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of - Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 402.76' @ 20.00 hrs Surf.Area= 1,803 sf Storage= 2,310 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated) Center -of -Mass det. time= (not calculated) # Invert Avail.Stora a Storage Description 1 401.00' 4,983 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) - 401.00 821 0 0 402.00 1,315 1,068 1,068 403.00 1,957 1,636 2,704 404.00 2,601 2,279 4,983 # Routinq Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 404.00' 6.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad - Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 401.00' (Free Discharge) 't--1 =Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Hydrograph 0.78 CfS ■ Inflow ■ Primary 0 Inflow Area =0.313 ac 0.7 Peak Elev= 402.76' 0.6 Storage =2,310 cf 0.5 v c 0.4 U. 0.3 0.2 0.00 cfs 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920 Time (hours) i 1 E EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA 1P 4 - 1 P PROPO ED BASIN PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN 1PR o- 2PS TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN /WOODS TO WETLAND Su4 Reach A Link 3923 meinik 6 units REV. Type /// 24 -hr 10 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 4.50" Prepared by Heritage eys, Inc. Page 2 Hyd roCAD® 7.00 s/n 000 © 1986 -2003 Applied Microcomputer Sys tems 4/4/2006 Time span =0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt =0.05 hrs, 401 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS Reach routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method - Pond routing by Stor -Ind method Subcatchment 1ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA Runoff Area = 35,292 sf Runoff Depth= 1.89" Flow Length =170' Tc =10.5 min CN =75 Runoff =1.65 cfs 0.128 of - Subcatchment 1PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRA Runoff Area= 13,613 sf Runoff Depth= 3.41" Tc =5.0 min CN =92 Runoff= 1.27 cfs 0.089 of Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAW Runoff Area = 19,078 sf Runoff Depth = 1.82" Tc =5.0 min CN =74 Runoff =1.01 cfs 0.067 of Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Inflow =1.01 cfs 0.067 of Outflow =1.01 cfs 0.067 of Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Peak Elev= 403.51' Storage =3,868 cf Inflow =1.27 cfs 0.089 of Outflow =0.00 cfs 0.000 of Total Runoff Area = 1.561 ac Runoff Volume = 0.283 of Average Runoff Depth = 2.18" 3923 melnik 6 units REV Type 111 24 -hr 10 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 4.50" Prepared by Heritage Sys, Inc. Page 3 H droCAD® 7.00 s/n 00080 1986 -2003 Applied Microcomputer S sty 4/4/2006 Subcatchment 1ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA Runoff = 1.65 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.128 af, Depth= 1.89" - Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 10 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 4.50" _ Area (sf) CN Description 21,520 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 13,772 77 Brush, Poor, HSG C 35,292 75 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ( min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.7 15 0.0400 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.00" 4.8 35 0.0400 0.1 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.00" 2.0 120 0.0417 1.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fp 10.5 170 Total Subcatchment 1 ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA Hydrograph � 1 v 3 0 FE ■ Runoff 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 11 16 14 - 10 -10 It io 1z au Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. _ Prepared by Heritage Sys, Inc. HvdroCAD® 7.00 s/n 000 1986 -2003 Type 111 24 -hr 10 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 4.50" Page 4 Microcomputer Subcatchment 1 PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN Runoff = 1.27 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af, Depth= 3.41" - Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 10 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 5,414 98 Building 5,017 98 Pavement _ 3,182 74 >75% Grass cover. Good, HSG C 13,613 92 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ( min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1 PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN Hydrograph ■ Runoff it H V v 3 0 M 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1U1 1L 13 "14 10 10 If io iz7 cu Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. _ Prepared by Heritage Sys, Inc. HvdroCAD® 7.00 s/n 00086W 1986 -2( Type /// 24 -hr 10 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 4.50" Page 5 ied Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN/WOODS TO WETLAND Runoff = 1.01 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.067 af, Depth= 1.82" - Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 10 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 4.50" _ Area (sf) CN Description 16,354 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,724 73 Woods Fair HSG C 19,078 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ( min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) Direct Entry, 5.0 Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN/WOODS TO WETLAND Hydrograph ■ Runoff 1 3 0 M 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 1:1 14 15 "it) - 1 1 10 It' Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. Type /// 24 -hr 10 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 4.50" _ Prepared by Heritage S Sys, Inc. Page 6 Hyd roCAD® 7.00 s/n 0008 1986 -2003 Applied Microcomputer S ystems 4/4/2006 Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Inflow Area = 0.750 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.06 ' for 10 YEAR STORM EVENT event Inflow = 1.01 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.067 of Outflow = 1.01 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.067 af, Atten= 0 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Hydrograph ■ Inflow ■ Outflow 3 0 LL 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 121314'1010 - 10 iyzu Time (hours) 3923 meinik 6 units REV. _ Prepared by Heritage Sys, Inc. HvdroCAD® 7.00 _ s /n 00086 1986 -2( Type /// 24 -hr 10 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 4.50" Page 7 ied m0 Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Inflow Area = 0.313 ac, Inflow Depth = 3.41 , for 10 YEAR STORM EVENT event Inflow = 1.27 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.089 of Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100 %, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of _ Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 403.51' @ 20.00 hrs Surf.Area= 2,286 sf Storage= 3,868 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated) Center -of -Mass det. time= (not calculated) # Invert Avail Storage Storage Description 1 401.00' 4,983 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet 401.00 821 0 0 402.00 1,315 1,068 1,068 403.00 1,957 1,636 2,704 404.00 2,601 2,279 4,983 # Routinq Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 404.00' 6.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad - Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW= 401.00' (Free Discharge) t-1= 13road - Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Hydrograph Inflow Area =0.313 ac Peak Elev= 403.51' 1 Storage =3,868 cf 3 0 LL 0.00 cfs 1.27 cfs ■ Inflow ■ Primary 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213 14 151617 18 1920 Time (hours) u 1 E EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA A N 1 P PROPO ED BASIN PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN 1PR 4--- 2PS TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN /WOODS TO WETLAND Subca Reach on Link 3923 melnik 6 units REV. Type /// 24 -hr 100 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 6.50" Prepared by Heritage Stays, Inc. Page 2 Hvdr oCADO 7.00 s/n 000861 1986 -2003 Applied M icrocomputer Systk _ 4/4/2006 Time span =0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt =0.05 hrs, 401 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS Reach routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method - Pond routing by Stor -Ind method Subcatchment 1 ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA Runoff Area = 35,292 sf Runoff Depth= 3.46" Flow Length =170' Tc =10.5 min CN =75 Runoff =3.01 cfs 0.234 of Subcatchment 1PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRA Runoff Area= 13,613 sf Runoff Depth =5.28" Tc =5.0 min CN =92 Runoff =1.91 cfs 0.138 of Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAW Runoff Area = 19,078 sf Runoff Depth= 3.37" Tc =5.0 min CN =74 Runoff =1.85 cfs 0.123 of Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Inflow =1.85 cfs 0.123 of Outflow =1.85 cfs 0.123 of Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Peak Elev= 404.00' Storage =4,983 cf Inflow =1.91 cfs 0.138 of Outflow =0.00 cfs 0.000 of Total Runoff Area =1.561 ac Runoff Volume = 0.494 of Average Runoff Depth = 3.80" 3923 melnik 6 units REV. _ Prepared by Heritage SMys, Inc. HvdroCADO 7.00 s/n 0008 1986 -2( Type 111 24 -hr 100 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 6.50" Page 3 ied Subcatchment 1 ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA Runoff = 3.01 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.234 af, Depth= 3.46" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 100 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 6.50" _ Area (sf) CN Description 21,520 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 13,772 77 Brush Poor HSG C 35,292 75 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.7 15 0.0400 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.00" 4.8 35 0.0400 0.1 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.00" 2.0 120 0.0417 1.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 10.5 170 Total Subcatchment 1 ES: EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA Hydrograph 3 2 3 0 LL 1 C ■ Runoff 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141510 "1 t "10 IyLV Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. _ Prepared by Heritage Sys, Inc. HvrirnCAD® 7.00 s/n 000861M 1986 -2( Type /// 24 -hr 100 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 6.50" Page 4 ed Microcomputer Systk _ 4/4/2006 Subcatchment 1 PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN Runoff = 1.91 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.138 af, Depth= 5.28" - Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 100 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 6.50" _ Area (sf) CN Description 5,414 98 Building 5,017 98 Pavement _ 3 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 13,613 92 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1 PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE TO BASIN Hydrograph 2 0 1 0 1 ■ Runoff 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141516171b191U Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. Prepared by Heritage St�ys, Inc. HvdroCADO 7.00 s/n 00086 1986 -2( Type 1// 24 - hr 100 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 6.50" Page 5 Microcomputer Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN/WOODS TO WETLAND Runoff = 1.85 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.123 af, Depth= 3.37' Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH =SCS, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24 -hr 100 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 6.50" _ Area (sf) CN Description 16,354 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2 73 Woods Fair, HSG C _ 19,078 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _ (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2PS: PROPOSED 6 UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAWN/WOODS TO WETLAND Hydrograph 2 3 0 LL 1 0 1 ■ Runoff 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141515171819ZU Time (hours) 3923 melnik 6 units REV. Type 111 24 -hr 100 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall = 6.50" Prepared by Heritage Sys, Inc. Page 6 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 00086 1986 -2003 Applied Microcomputer Sysk 4/4/2006 Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Inflow Area = 0.750 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.97" for 100 YEAR STORM EVENT event Inflow = 1.85 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.123 of _ Outflow = 1.85 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.123 af, Atten= 0 %, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor- Ind +Trans method, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1 PR: TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE Hydrograph 1 0 LL 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213 1415 1617 1819 20 Time (hours) ■ Inflow ■ Outflow 3923 melnik 6 units REV. _ Prepared by Heritage Si &ys, Inc. HvdroCADO 7.00 s/n 00086 1986 -2( Type /// 24 -hr 100 YEAR STORM EVENT Rainfall= 6.50" Page 7 ed Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Inflow Area = 0.313 ac, Inflow Depth = 5.28" for 100 YEAR STORM EVENT event Inflow = Outflow = 1.91 cfs @ 0.00 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 14.26 hrs, Volume= 0.138 of 0.000 af, Atten= 100 %, Lag= 131.5 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 14.26 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Stor -Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 -20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 404.00' @ 14.26 hrs Surf.Area= 2,601 sf Storage= 4,983 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 675.3 min calculated for 0.000 of (0% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 112.0 min ( 857.2 - 745.3 ) # Invert Avail.Stora a Storage Description 1 401.00' 4,983 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) - 401.00 821 0 0 402.00 1,315 1,068 1,068 403.00 1,957 1,636 2,704 404.00 2,601 2,279 4,983 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 404.00' 6.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad - Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max =0.00 cfs @ 14.26 hrs HW= 404.00' (Free Discharge) t-1= Broad - Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.00 cfs @ 0.1 fps) Pond 1 PP: PROPOSED BASIN Hydrograph K 0 E 1 W ■ Inflow ■ Primary 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213 14 15161 / I I U ZU Time (hours)