The URL can be used to link to this page

2002 Conservation Commission Minutes Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting January 10, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, John Body, Jim Kaplan and Joanne Montgomery. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:34 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Aquadro & Cerruti, Inc. to confirm whether the elimination of an existing septic system and the installation of a sewage chamber located within the 100’ Buffer Zone and Inner Riparian Zone of the Mill River Diversion channel is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property located at the Northerly end of Texas Road, also known as Map 38, Parcel 10. Jim Gracia and Bob Aquadro was present to explain the application. Gracia explained the proposal to remove the existing septic tank and install a 2-inch force main with a 1,000-gallon concrete tank in the opposite direction of the Mill River. Maronn asked if the existing septic tank is in poor shape. Gracia stated that although the existing tank works, it would be hard to connect a pump chamber to an existing tank and by installing a new tank the risk of structure problems to the existing tank would be alleviated. Montgomery asked what led to the opportunity to tie into the City sewer line. Gracia stated that because the system is old, it was agreed that the applicant should tie into the City septic system. Gracia responded to questions regarding how the area would be restored after the work was complete. Hearing no comments from the public, Reed moved to close the public hearing. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read the recommendations from staff. Reed moved to issue a Negative Determination, Box 2. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:41 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Robert Bolduc representing Pride Convenience, Inc. for the installation of a remediation system in the off-site wetland areas for property located at 54 Easthampton Road, also known as Map 38C, Parcel 75. Work will take place within a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Buffer Zone and Flood Plain. Dan Felton, William Simmons and Nick Burbee of Environmental Compliances was present to explain the application. Maronn asked if the tanks that caused the problems are going to be removed and also if there is a plan that shows where the wetland lines are on site. Felton stated that there is a 100’ buffer zone shown on the map. He stated that the storage tanks were replaced some time ago. He explained that there had been free flowing gas at various places and were being monitored. Likewise, he stated that the ground water in the wetlands showed traces of gasoline. He explained the levels that have been documented. He explained that the first phase would involve removing the source of the contamination and the second stage would be the clean up of soils in the vicinity of the tanks. He discussed the remediation system as described in the application. Maronn asked Felton to explain the process of how he would get the contamination out of the soil and the groundwater. Felton directed the Commission to the area of the application that addressed how the soil and groundwater would be cleaned. Maronn asked if the system would be removing natural chemicals in the ground or just the bad chemicals. Montgomery asked how much ground water would be removed. Felton stated that it would be less than 10-gallons a minute. He directed the Commission to the Pilot test report that was included in the Notice of Intent. Montgomery asked if the ground water would then be discharged into the wetlands. Felton confirmed that the water would be discharged into the wetlands. 2 There was discussion regarding the applicant submitting additional information after EPA approval. Felton stated that he would submit any reports from EPA to the Commission. Felton discussed additional proposed work on the service station property including trenching, piping and the installation of an infiltration gallery. He stated that this work would entail shallow excavation approximately 3 to 4 feet deep. Maronn asked if additional monitoring wells would be placed in the wetlands? Felton directed the Commission to Figure 4 of the Notice of Intent. He added that the wells would be monitored on a quarterly basis. Reed asked how wide the trench would be. Felton responded that it would be 1 to 2 feet. There was discussion regarding the trench. Montgomery asked for clarification regarding what type of fill would be brought into the wetland area. Felton stated that it would be stone. Members of the Commission discussed the soil and how badly it was contaminated. Reed suggested that a mat be used to cover the disturbed area. He discussed different types of mats that could be used. The Commission discussed the concerns from DEP and Mass Fish & Wildlife. Felton stated that the work should be started as soon as possible. He stated that soil samples would be completed after the work is done. Montgomery asked how long would the project take. Felton stated that it could take up to four years to complete the work. Hearing no additional comments or concerns from the Commission or from the public, Reed moved to close the hearing. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch suggested that the permit be conditioned with the wetlands restoration plan. It was agreed that the Order of Conditions would be written at the next scheduled meeting. At 6:30 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Generic Notice of Intent filed by the Northampton Department of Public Works for the 3 4 maintenance of culverts, pipes, headwalls, endwalls, catchbasins, drain and sewer structures, easements and to seasonally grade dirt/grave roads in the floodplains for various locations throughout Northampton, Florence and Leeds. Work will take place within a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Buffer Zone and Riverfront Area. Maronn stated that DPW has requested a continuance. Montgomery moved to continue the hearing to February 14, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:35 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion on a Request by the Hill & Dale Nominee Trust for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, for property located at 327 King Street, the site of the Hill & Dale Mall, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 24B, Parcel 38. Misch discussed the process when a subdivision is submitted. She explained that the Commission is required see a copy of all subdivision plans and submit any concerns and/or recommendations to the Planning Board regarding the plans. Paul Dethier of Huntley and Mark Tanner of Morse & Sacks was present to explain the subdivision plans. Misch stated that there are no wetland issues for this site. Montgomery moved to recommend to the Planning Board that there are no concerns from the Commission regarding this project. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Misch explained that the Northampton Lodge of Elks had overpaid the City for their application fee. She stated that the Elks should be reimbursed the amount that was overpaid. Kaplan moved to reimburse the Elks the money that was overpaid. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission no longer had a quorum. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 P.M. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting January 24, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, January 24, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, John Body, Susan Carbin, Frank Fournier, Jim Kaplan and Joanne Montgomery. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:33 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Tiger Press for the construction of a 7,875 square foot office building addition & 13,125 square foot manufacturing/warehouse with associated site development for property located at 155 Industrial Drive, Map 18D, Parcel 60. Work will take place within a Buffer Zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Mark Reed of Heritage Surveys introduced himself, Seth Procter and Wayne Gustafson to the Commission. Reed described the location of the site and directed the Commission to the set of plans that were submitted with the Notice of Intent. At 5:34 P.M., Frank Fournier arrived. Reed described the location of the wetland located along the side of Interstate 91 at the rear of the property and along the east of the property as indicated on the delineation/plans. He explained is the location of the drainage channel that runs along the rear of the property and through the entire Industrial Park. Reed explained the two phases of the project. Reed directed the Commission to a letter with comments regarding the phasing of the project and explained that during phase one, a swale and berm would be constructed to ensure that the sheet flow from the pavement at the front of the property would be diverted towards the back of the site. A detention pond would be installed during phase II of the project. Mike Reed asked how far back the runoff would go. Mark Reed showed the Commission the proposed flow. Montgomery questioned the topography of the site. Mark Reed explained that the pitch would be directed to the rear of the property. He stated that the applicant is willing to provide the City with a letter of credit to ensure that phase two would be completed. Montgomery asked why the applicant is not completing the project all at once. Reed stated that the costs associated with this project are high and would be hard for the applicant to pay for all at once. Mike Reed stated that he visited the site and he believes that most of the runoff would infiltrate. Misch discussed the letters and responses submitted from both Mark Reed and DEP. Maronn asked if the City would be comfortable with the amount of the line of credit. Misch explained that the City does accept these letters of credit quite often and that the applicant could come back for an amendment, if necessary. Reed discussed the comments from DEP and answered questions regarding the comments. There was discussion regarding the detention basin and the amount, if any, of further disturbance to this area. Reed directed the Commission to the Notice of Intent. He clarified to the members that any wetland disturbance would be temporary. The Commission asked additional questions regarding the catch basins and stormwater runoff. Mark Reed reminded the Commission that the site does not have a stormwater management system and this project would be an improvement to the site. Mike Reed moved to close the public hearing. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:59 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion of Definitive Subdivision Plans submitted by the Lepine Wzorek Associates under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, 2 Massachusetts, for property located off of Burts Pit Road and Westhampton Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 36, Parcels 71, 74 & 75. Maronn explained that this is a discussion and that the applicant would apply for a wetlands permit from the Conservation Commission. Alec McLeod, representing Wzorek, discussed the potential impacts to the Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Bank, Land Under a Water Body, Riverfront Area and Bordering Land Subject to Flooding. He showed the Commission on the plans displayed, the location of the proposed access road. He explained that approximately half of the isolated wetlands would be filled and where the stormwater basins would be located. McLeod discussed the proposed drainage and explained the history of the site and the isolated wetlands that are present. McLeod showed the Commission the proposed areas of replication. Maronn asked about the compensatory flood storage and what areas were calculated in the overall alteration of the wetlands. He also discussed the proposed detention basin that is shown to be located within the wetlands. He asked the applicant to explain why the basin was designed in the wetland. McLeod explained that if the location of the detention basin were changed, the basin would be quite deep. There was discussion regarding whether the intermittent stream should be piped into the detention basin. McLeod explained that the piping is designed to bypass the entire stormwater management structure. Paul Dethier of Huntley & Associates explained the location and the basin to the Commission. Maronn asked questions regarding the depth of the cuts for the sanitary manhole connects and the water lines. Dethier explained some options that are currently being discussed. He informed the Commission that DPW also has concerns regarding the depth of the sewer manholes. Montgomery discussed the isolated wetland and stated that although the wetlands were created, they are still valuable wetlands. McLeod discussed the possible presence of invasive plants and what active steps could be taken to address them. Body asked about the history of beaver dams in this area. 3 McLeod showed the Commission on the plans the areas where beavers have built dams in the past. Reed asked about the depth of the detention basin at the primary crossing and whether it would intercept ground water. Dethier said that as a rule basins are designed to be above the ground water. Reed discussed the lots encroaching into the wetland area and if the lots were large enough for the proposed structures. Misch asked if there was a plan available that showed the building envelopes for each of the lots. Misch discussed concerns regarding the proposal of 50 percent of open space and stated that the Commission would own the land if it is approved by the Planning Board. She discussed the calculations and explained that no more than 25 percent of open space can be wetlands or floodplain. She suggested that the Commission be certain that they are comfortable with the proposed connection to this open space. Montgomery stated that it would be helpful in commenting on the open space if the Commission could conduct a site visit. Misch suggested that the Commission conduct a site visit in the next few weeks. Body asked where the proposed trails are located. McLeod showed the Commission the location of the proposed trails. Misch discussed the water and sewer line wetland crossing. She suggested that the crossings should be protected with exterior sleeves in case future maintenance is needed. Beth Willard asked what the status was with the three issues that led to her appeal of the Order of Conditions issued for the beaver dam. Maronn asked if the beaver dam issue is still under DEP. Misch responded that DEP was waiting for the parties to come to an agreement so that the appeal can be dismissed. Willard asked if the applicant knew what direction the wetlands drain towards. Misch asked for clarification regarding the expansion of wetlands to the western side. Dethier stated that the 100-foot buffer zone would not change. 4 Diane Brawn, 53 Pencasal Drive expressed concerns regarding the beavers. Maronn stated that he would like to see a plan that indicates the location of the building envelopes. Body discussed the possibility of conducting a site visit and if the Commission could hire a wildlife consultant to look at the site. Misch responded that the Commission could hire a wildlife consultant. The Commission agreed to conduct a site visit on January 26th at 1:00 P.M. Montgomery moved to continue the discussion to February 14th at 7:00 P.M. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Certificate of Compliance- Giangregorio-Florence Road Misch explained the project to the Commission and stated that she conducted a site visit. She explained that the site is stable and that vegetation has grown in. Maronn stated that the site looks good. Reed moved to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read a letter regarding the Coolidge Bridge Partnering Program. He stated that there is a meeting planned and informed the Commission of the scheduled date. Montgomery expressed a desire to attend the meeting. Enforcement Order – Ralph Thompson Misch explained the issues that led to an Enforcement Order. She explained that a large addition was being constructed without a building permit. Misch stated that she has made attempts to contact the owner but has not heard back from him yet. Kaplan moved to ratify the Enforcement Order. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes Members discussed the minutes of July 19th and changes were made. Carbin moved to accept the minutes with the changes discussed. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 5 6 Reed moved to table the minutes of June 21st. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Members discussed the minutes of August 24th and changes were made. Kaplan moved to accept the minutes with the changes discussed. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to accept the minutes of November 8th. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Order of Conditions – Robert Bolduc/Pride Convenience Misch read the recommendations in the staff report. Kaplan moved to issue the conditions as discussed. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Order of Conditions – Tiger Press Misch read the recommendations in the staff report. Reed moved to issue the conditions as listed in the staff report. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. There was a brief discussion regarding fines issued by the Commission. Reed said that he believes it may be time to increase the fines. He suggested raising them separately or possibly council should take a vote on this issue. At 8:21 P.M., Carbin moved to adjourn. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting February 14, 2002 =============================================================== The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, February 14, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Frank Fournier, Susan Carbin, and John Body. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:36 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Generic Notice of Intent filed by the Northampton Department of Public Works for the maintenance of culverts, pipes, headwalls, endwalls, catchbasins, drain and sewer structures, easements and to seasonally grade dirt/grave roads in the floodplains for various locations throughout Northampton, Florence and Leeds. Work will take place within a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Buffer Zone and Riverfront Area. Misch explained that the DPW is still involved in discussions with DEP and are therefore requesting a continuance. Carbin moved to continue to March 14, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Beaver Brook Nominee Trust (John J. Hanley) for the construction of a roadway and a stormwater management system for a proposed 54 lot single-family housing subdivision for property located at Haydenville Road (Rte. 9), also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 5, Parcels 6, 7 and 12, Map 6, Parcels 18, 19, 20, 21 and 58. Work will take place within a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Buffer Zone and Riverfront Area. Misch explained that the applicant had redesigned the layout based on comments from Natural Heritage and is requesting a continuance. She explained that the applicant is also requesting that the notice be continued until the Planning Board approves the Preliminary Plan and then the applicant at that time, will withdraw the Notice of Intent. Misch suggested that the hearing be continued until sometime in April. Reed moved to continue the hearing to April 11th at 5:30 P.M. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn announced that if there is enough time later in the meeting, a brief discussion would be held. At 5:43 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Request by Northampton Lodge of Elks Number 997 on a Notice of Intent under the Wetlands Protection Act to construct a 7,000 square foot slab-on-grade steel frame building with associated parking, landscaping, lighting and site utilities in the WSP and Floodplain zones for property located at 221 Pine Street, also known as Assessor’s Map 22B, Parcel 40. Eric Bernardin of Associated Builders, Inc., presented the application. He discussed the location, conditions and the history of the proposed site. He explained that several revisions had been made to the original plans submitted. He discussed the Mill River area and indicated on the plans the resource areas including the 100-foot inner riparian, 200-foot outer riparian area and the area near the top of the bank. He informed the Commission that the area was flagged and that no wetland species or BVW was associated with the bank on the west side of the Mill River. He discussed the location of the structure and the drainage that is proposed. Bernardin explained that a number of parking spaces were eliminated and the building was shifted slightly in order to pull all hard surface development outside the 100-foot inner riparian zone. At 5:50 P.M., Frank Fournier arrived. Reed expressed concerns regarding the detention basin. Bernardin stated that DPW had discussed concerns regarding the location of the detention basin and those discussions led to the relocation of the detention basin towards the south of the site in order to not encourage water to backflow. He discussed the existing high points on the site and the base floor elevation after construction including the existing flood elevation standards. Bernardin discussed the compensatory storage and explained how the figures have improved. Reed asked if the building would allow water to flow under it. Bernardin explained that because they are so close to the ground elevation and the flood elevation and also because of the use of the building, they were unable to consider the option of water flowing under the building. Reed asked if the FEMA information is certified. Bernardin responded that it is. Misch explained that the City would require flood elevation certification as part of the building permit process. Maronn asked how many buildings were shown on the old FEMA maps that are no longer there. Bernardin stated that the FEMA maps don’t include buildings in their flood study but he did locate old USGS maps that showed old buildings. Bernardin discussed the proposed landscaping. He explained that the whole project meets the standard for the stormwater management guidelines. In addition, he showed the Commission on the plans areas where vegetation, mitigation in the resource area, and the removal of invasive plants would be completed. Reed asked if all the stormwater from the parking area goes to one catch basin. Bernardin explained that it goes to two curb outlets. He directed the Commission to the maintenance plan on sheet L-8 of the plans submitted Maronn asked if the comments from DEP had been addressed. Bernardin responded to the comments from DEP. He explained the changes that were made to accommodate their concerns. Maronn asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak. No one spoke. Hearing no additional comments, Carbin moved to close the public hearing. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn announced that there would be a brief discussion regarding the proposed Beaver Brook subdivision. Misch discussed the proposed new layout for the Beaver Brook subdivision that included 49 lots with one 6-unit townhouse off of Haydenville Road. Misch stated that she spoke with a representative from Natural Heritage and Natural Heritage will require the applicant to submit this plan to them for their review because of the issue of the endangered species habitat. She explained that depending on construction requirements for some of the units, the applicant may or may not have to file a Notice of Intent. Dan Keith, 68 Leonard Street discussed the trail system that already exists and stated that there is sensitive vegetation located in that area. George Kohout, 37 Evergreen Road showed the Commission where the trail is located. He suggested that a group be formed to help with signage and maintenance of that area. Deb Jacobs discussed some of the wildlife in that area. Sandy Glenn, Upland Road expressed concerns regarding the wildlife and suggested that the Commission familiarize themselves with the wildlife in that area. Misch discussed the Enforcement Order issued to Ralph Thompson. She explained that he is stopping the work and will be filing a Notice of Intent. Lastly, she stated that Mr. Thompson had until March 14th to begin the process. Misch reminded the Commission that the Wetland Festival is scheduled for June 1st. At 7:02 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion of Definitive Subdivision Plans submitted by the Lepine Wzorek Associates under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, for property located off of Burts Pit Road and Westhampton Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 36, Parcels 71, 74 & 75. Alec McLeod began by informing the Commission that a pre-permitting meeting was held with DEP. McLeod explained that during the meeting many of the outstanding issues were ironed out. He said that DEP agreed with the proposal to allow the treatment of stormwater and the discharge of it outside the wetland boundaries which would eliminate the need for a detention basin in the ponds, stated McLeod. He discussed the other areas that have been altered and explained that they are proposing to remove these areas from the calculations of BVW impact. Misch asked McLeod to explain the original calculations of impact. McLeod discussed the wetland areas and if they are under the Northampton jurisdiction. He explained the proposal to fill certain areas and the replication that is proposed. McLeod stated that DPW has expressed concerns regarding the depth of the manholes and the proposed drainage. Dave Lepine discussed the concerns raised by DPW and explained how they are trying to resolve the issues. He informed the Commission that the sewer line has been discontinued over the open space area and stated that they would be using a pressured system for the sewer. Maronn asked if any work would be performed near the concrete ford. McLeod directed the Commission to a drawing of the concrete ford and explained that the present condition of the ford is deteriorating. He explained the proposal to construct a 25-foot culvert over the stream with footings on each side and the work that it would entail. Maronn stated that some abutters are concerned about the level of the beaver pond and the ability to keep it at its current level. Maronn stated for the record that he did have a conversation with McLeod regarding the removal of old material off of the site. Reed asked about the status of the beaver management plan. McLeod said that the beavers are not currently maintaining the dam and if the beavers return, then the beaver control device could be constructed. Misch explained that there are changes that have been agreed upon in order for the appeal to be dropped and the Order of Conditions to be amended. There was discussion regarding whether or not the beavers were likely to come back and if the rocks and fence (discussed at a different meeting) should be put in place. McLeod said that he would rather not put the rocks and fence up until such time that it is needed. Body asked who would be responsible should the beavers decide to return. Misch stated that the responsibility would fall on DPW. She suggested that a beaver deceiver be placed in front of the culvert to prevent beaver from building up that area. Body expressed concerns regarding the right-of-way located near lots 12 & 13. He suggested that the applicant try to salvage as many trees as possible in that area. Lepine stated that the individuals interested in lots 12 & 13 have already asked him to keep as many trees there as possible. Misch suggested that the Commission recommend to the Planning Board that the lots are not to be clear-cut and that only enough trees should be cut to allow for a house with a yard. She explained that one of the conditions made during the preliminary approval process was that the landscaping plan indicating the path vs. the private property lines will be submitted prior to the construction of any houses. Body questioned what trees would be cut down for the construction of the road. Lepine stated that the only trees that would be cut down would be those trees within the 6 foot right-of-way for the City. Body asked if a sidewalk would be constructed all the way through the site. McLeod responded that the sidewalks would not be constructed all the way through the site. He also informed the Commission that DEP did not like the idea of the parking lot that was previously proposed and they have requested that the parking lot be eliminated. Misch discussed the crossing for the water and sewer and if it would be going in the culvert or are there separate crossings for both lines. Lepine stated that the sewer line would be above the culvert and he is not sure whether the water line would run above or below the culvert but that it depends on how the plans are revised. Deb Jacobs, Leeds expressed concerns regarding the use of motorbikes and ATV’s on this site. She asked the applicant how they would address this issue. Misch stated that once this area is considered City land, the presence of police would be more active. The Commission read the recommendations listed in the staff report that could be submitted to the Planning Board. Hearing no additional comments, Reed moved to send the recommendations discussed to the Planning Board. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch discussed the Certificate of Compliance for Roy Giangregorio- 949 Florence Road. She stated that she visited the site and everything was as designed. Reed moved to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch informed the Commission of a telephone call that she received from DEP regarding trees that were cut in the Beaver Brook Country Club area. She explained that she sent an Enforcement Order to the owner and informed them that they would need to submit a Notice of Intent by March 28th. Reed moved to ratify the Enforcement Order. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:07 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Richard Bond to confirm whether the construction of a single-family dwelling more than 100’ from an intermittent stream channel will have an impact on any wetland resources for property on Turkey Hill Road, Map ID 34-6. Peter LaBarbera of Environmental Planning Associates presented the application. He submitted revised plans to members of the Commission that show the intermittent stream that is behind the property. He explained the future plan for a single-family home that would be built outside of the buffer zone. He stated that there would be some clearing on the eastern side of the structure to accommodate a lawn area. LaBarbera stated that he is requesting a confirmation of the boundaries as well as permission to clear within the buffer zone. There was discussion regarding the cutting of trees and excavation associated with the construction process as well as the current conditions of the site. Hearing no further comments, Carbin moved to close the public hearing. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to issue a Negative Determination checking box 3. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:16 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Angelo J. Vachelli, Jr. for the Estate of Irene Vachelli to confirm whether the upgrade of an existing septic system and the installation of a new well within the 100’ Buffer Zone and Outer Riparian Zone of an unnamed tributary to Parsons Brook is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property at 422 Sylvester Road, Map ID 28-1. Jim Gracia presented the application. Gracia explained the location of the proposed project and the conditions of the site. He explained to the Commission that the owner has to install a new well because the current well is shared with the adjacent property and the owner would like to sell the house. Hearing no questions or comments, Reed moved to close the public hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to issue a Negative Determination checking box 3. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch discussed a letter from Mass Highway regarding the Coolidge Bridge. At 8:32 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Konover Development Corporation for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a 10,880 square foot retail/pharmacy, 7,000 square foot retail building and an ATM kiosk with associated site development for property at 366 King Street, Map ID 18D- 47. Work may affect Bank and Land Under Water. Patrick Doherty of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. introduced himself and Dusty McMahan to the Commission. Doherty explained the application and discussed the current conditions of the site. He indicated on the plans the location of the headwall that allows the flow to the Brook and explained that with this application, they are proposing a new stormwater management system. He discussed the proposed plan to demolish the Serv-U building and to construct a new building with a drive-thru kiosk. He explained that currently all of the untreated runoff drains directly into the King Street Brook. The designs call for upgrades that will meet DEP stormwater requirements.He showed the Commission on the plans how runoff would be directed and explained that the roof runoff would be collected separately. He discussed the drainage calculations that were submitted. The applicant read the comments from DEP and stated that this proposal addresses all the comments that were submitted. Maronn asked if CVS would be responsible for all of the maintenance. McMahan responded that because there is not a second tenant yet, it is still unsure if the maintenance would be solely the responsibility of CVS or if it would be shared between the two tenants. Misch asked the applicant to discuss the three different catch basins shown on the plans and why they vary. Doherty explained the different catch basins and which basin would be appropriate given different circumstances. Hearing no further comments, Body moved to close the public hearing. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Order of Conditions – 221 Pine Street Misch read the recommendations in the staff report. Reed moved to issue the conditions as discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Order of Conditions – 366 King Street Misch read the recommendations in the staff report. Reed moved to issue the conditions as discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to adjourn. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 9:25 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting February 28, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, February 28, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, John Body, Susan Carbin, Jim Kaplan. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:32 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Andrew & Shelley Zimbalist to confirm whether the construction of a 10’ by 30’ deck and a 20’ by 10’ addition is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property at 65 Ward Ave., Map ID 30B-118. Keith Morris of Leeds, representing Valley Home Improvement (the applicant), explained the project as described in the application. He stated that there are several large pine trees located on the site that would have to be removed for viewing improvement and safety reasons. He clarified that the stumps would remain in place. Kaplan asked if there was ongoing work at this site. Shelley Zimbalist stated that there are some renovations currently being done to the inside of the house. Maronn asked if the proposed project was out of the floodplain. Morris responded that it was. Maronn asked if anyone wished to speak in favor or opposition. There were no comments. Kaplan moved to close the public hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to issue a Negative Determination checking box # 2. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Nancy B. Whitley to confirm whether the reconstruction of an existing garage with a second story addition for residential use is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property at 144 Riverbank Road, Map ID 25-6. Don Miner of Harold Eaton & Associates, Inc. was present to explain the application. He stated that the existing garage would be removed and a two-story addition would be built on the existing footprint. He said that there would be a minimal amount of hand dug excavation around the foundation to the depth of 20 inches in order to lay out a 24” inch foam cross barrier. Reed asked if any of the roof drainage would be changed. Miner stated that there would be no changes to the drainage. He explained that a 4’ concrete pad would be removed and the area would be seeded. Maronn asked how long the proposed project would take. Jonathan Wright stated that the project should take approximately 10 to 12 weeks. Misch asked what the finish floor elevation is. Miner stated that the front entrance is at 125.38 feet, which is above the flood level. Kaplan moved to close the public hearing. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to issue a Negative Determination checking box # 2. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch updated the Commission regarding the Enforcement Order for the Beaver Brook Country Club. She stated that the owner would be submitting an application for a Notice of Intent in the next few days. At 5:52 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Michael Tomaszewski for the construction of a new septic tank and leach field for property at 37 Fair Street, Map ID 25C-252. Work will take place within the 100-year floodplain of the Connecticut River. Alan Weiss of Cold Spring Environmental Consultants, Inc. and the applicant were present to explain the application. He said that this specific area of Fair Street is not on the city sewer line. He explained that Mr. Tomaszewski has been doing substantial renovations to his property and as part of the renovations; he would like to upgrade the septic system. He stated that a perc test was performed and it was determined that because of the high ground water, a raised or mounted septic system located to the rear of the property would be necessary to properly complete this project. He discussed the issue of compensatory storage to accommodate the volume of the mound and it was determined that a swale would be constructed to provide for compensatory storage. He directed the Commission to a memo from Peter McErlain approving the upgrade of the septic system. There was discussion regarding the depth of the swale. Weiss stated that silt fence would be constructed to minimize runoff during the construction phase. He said that everything would be mulched and seeded after the project was completed. Hearing no comments, Reed moved to close the public hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read the recommendations from staff. Reed moved to issue the orders described in the staff report. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch updated the Commission regarding the upcoming application from Smith Vocational High School. Misch discussed the current times and designated meeting nights and stated that it seems to be working well for the applicants. She asked the Commission if they would be able to meet at 5:00 instead of 5:30 P.M. Members agreed that 5:00 P.M. would be too early to meet. Reed moved to approve the minutes of June 21, 2001. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:21 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Christopher Aquadro for the construction of a 1,000 square foot accessory building for property located at 355 Bridge Street, Map ID 25A-107. Work will take place within land subject to flooding. Brian Huntley was present to describe the proposed project. He explained that the entire rear of the parcel is located within the 100-year floodplain area and that the main concern regarding this project is the ability to provide for compensatory storage. He explained how the compensatory storage issue would be addressed. He directed the Commission to the calculations included in the application. Reed asked if a swale would be constructed. Huntley stated that a very shallow swale would be constructed but that most of the comp storage would be achieved through the removal of several debris piles located along the back of the site. He stated that recently the plans had been revised showing a new location for the proposed structure. Reed asked how the structure dislodges and falls apart. Huntley explained the structure of the building is a steel structure that would fill with water should a flood occur. He explained that the material of the building would displace the water but that the building itself could withstand a flood. Maronn asked what items would be stored in the building. Huntley stated that equipment and files related to the current business would be stored in the building. Misch clarified that the use must be related to the business. She stated additional permits would be necessary from the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. There was discussion regarding the materials that would be stored and the removal of the items should a flood occur. Misch suggested that certain restrictions be incorporated into the Order of Conditions regarding the storage and amount of materials in the proposed building. Hearing no public comment, Carbin moved to close the public hearing. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read the recommendations from staff. Reed moved to issue the orders described in the staff report with the changes discussed. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:50 P.M., Terry Eucker gave an informal discussion regarding the Circuit Rider program, Wetlands Protection Act and the Rivers Protection Act. At 8:15 P.M., Kaplan moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting March 28, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, March 28, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Members Present: Mike Reed, Joanne Montgomery, Susan Carbin, John Body and Matt Nowak. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. Reed introduced Matt Nowak to the Commission. At 5:35 P.M., Reed opened the Request for Determination filed by Donna and James Buchanan to confirm whether the construction of a 36’ 6” by 16’ attached accessory apartment is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property at 54 South Park Terrace, Map ID 38C-64. Donna Buchanan was present to explain the application. She stated that the proposed addition would be intended for her mother to reside in. She discussed the use of silt fencing during the construction phase to mitigate any possible erosion that might occur. She submitted new plans that have been revised since the original filing. Misch stated that according to the plans submitted, the proposed addition is 140’ from the actual bank. Buchanan stated that the elevation of her existing home is quite high. There was discussion regarding the size of the proposed addition. Hearing no comments, Carbin moved to close the public hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to issue a Negative Determination checking box # 2. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed explained that per the applicant’s request, the discussions regarding the proposed subdivisions on Rick Drive and Cloverdale and on Burts Pit Road scheduled for tonight’s meeting would be continued to a later date. Montgomery moved to continue the discussion for the proposed subdivision submitted by Sabra Partnership (between Rick Drive and Cloverdale Street) to April 11th at 6:30 P.M. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Montgomery moved to continue the discussion for the proposed subdivision submitted by Creative Developers, Inc (Burts Pit Road) to April 11th at 6:45 P.M. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:50 P.M., Reed opened the Notice of Intent filed by Lepine-Wzorek Associates for the construction of an access road and stormwater management system for a proposed 29 lot single-family housing subdivision for property located off of Burts Pit & Westhampton Road, Map ID 36-71, 74 & 75. Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, Bank, Land Under Water, Land subject to Flooding and Riverfront Area. Nowak stated for the record that he would not be participating in this discussion. Alec McLeod was present to explain the application. He began by asking the Commission if they had received the file number from DEP. Misch confirmed that a file number had been issued. McLeod explained the details of the proposed project that consist of the construction of 29 single-family homes including a major crossing of Parson’s Brook and impacts associated with an access road. He directed the Commission to the plans and pointed out the areas where the wetlands and resource areas are located throughout the site. He discussed the history of the area explaining that in the past, the site was used as sand and gravel operation that over time caused heavy amounts of disturbance. He explained that the lots have been reconfigured around the isolated wetlands to avoid impacts to them to the extent possible. McLeod discussed alternatives for crossing the riverfront area and explained that the crossing was designed in this manner to minimize impacts to the river. He explained the areas on the site where trees would be removed for the construction of the homes and the roadway and clarified that the stumps would be left in place to prevent further disturbance to the area. Montgomery questioned the status of the beaver dam during this phase of construction. McLeod explained that the beaver dam could be completed before or after the construction. He read various portions of the Notice of Intent and discussed issues surrounding the gabion walls, catch basins and drain lines. Reed expressed concerns regarding mitigation area “A” and asked McLeod to clarify what is planned for that area and if there was a mitigation plan for it. McLeod stated that there was not anything specific planned for that area. He discussed the materials for the Parsons Brook crossing and explained that the first step would be to re-direct the stream. He stated that a temporary dam would be established above the crossing. He explained that because the concrete ford is crumbling, a sub surface barrier would be installed within the concrete ford itself. He made several suggestions about how the streambed could be stabilized area should the concrete ford wash out. Reed asked about the cut phase on the north side of the pond. McLeod explained that it is proposed compensatory storage. He showed the Commission the other proposed areas for compensatory storage. There was discussion regarding areas of the property that are within the floodplain. McLeod discussed the installation of the sewer lines, roadway and utilities and stated that after all this work is complete, the construction of the homes could begin as permits are issued. Montgomery asked about the time line. Reed questioned the utility lines that would run downstream from the crossing and asked if they are going to be beneath the bed of the stream. Paul Dethier, Huntley & Associates stated that the lines would be beneath the bed and that all the work would be done at once in order to minimize the disturbance. McLeod discussed the replication plan and explained that a wetland seed mix would be scattered throughout the area with a diverse mix of shrubs planted as well. He directed the Commission to the planting plan included with the Notice of Intent. Montgomery asked McLeod to explain the separate wetland area versus the combined wetland areas. Discussion continued regarding the wetlands and the size of the replication areas. McLeod explained the wildlife habitat analysis. He read various sections of the report to the Commission. Reed asked McLeod to clarify the size of the wetlands. McLeod responded that the size of the wetland adjacent to lot 15 is approximately 70 feet long and 30 feet wide. Reed asked what is the overall size of all the wetlands combined. McLeod responded that the overall size of the four isolated wetlands combined would be approximately 11,000 square feet. Montgomery stated that she is unclear as to how McLeod determined that the wetlands are low functioning. McLeod discussed the different wetlands and stated that the isolated wetland area near lot 15 is in an area that had been disturbed in the past by use of large machinery. He explained the requirements that need to be present in order to determine whether a wetland is a high functioning wetland. Reed asked if the wetlands are jurisdictional by the act or by the local ordinance. McLeod responded by the local ordinance. Reed stated that the Commission has to decide whether or not to exert their jurisdiction under the ordinance. Misch stated that even though they are not planning to fill these areas, there would be some impact to these wetlands and the Commission has some jurisdiction to indicate what mitigation should be provided. She explained the Commission’s choices. McLeod reminded the Commission that the replication area is larger than it needs to be. Montgomery asked McLeod to clarify the comments on page 1 of the Notice of Intent. She stated that it is not the intent of the Commission to encourage these wetlands to be filled. McLeod stated that he would change the language of the Notice of Intent. Reed asked if the replication could be made larger. McLeod stated that it could be made larger. Misch suggested that a condition be added to the Order of Conditions stating that the replication area could be enlarged, if needed. There was discussion regarding enlarging the replication area. Montgomery asked if there were any invasive plants present and if there are some present, would they be removed. McLeod stated that he is not sure if anything could be done other than pulling any as they see them. Montgomery suggested alternatives to haybales because of possible further introduction of invasives. McLeod read the comments from DEP. Reed asked if there was anyone from the public that wished to speak in favor or opposition. Hearing no comments, Body moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:08 P.M., Reed opened the Notice of Intent filed by Florence Savings Bank to construct a single- family dwelling and septic system for property at 27 Spruce Lane, Map ID 36-246. Work will take place within the 100-foot buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. James Gracia was present to explain the application. He discussed the location of the site and stated that the property abuts an existing stormwater detention basin that was constructed as part of the Maple Ridge subdivision. He explained that the size of the lot is limited but the left corner of the lot can support a house and a septic system. He discussed the expired Order of Conditions that was issued a few years ago. He explained that the plans have changed and that they are proposing to fill a small portion of the wetland area to relocate the house. He indicated on the plans the proposed changes. Reed asked Gracia to explain the soil types, slopes and the detention basin. Reed asked if the lines shown on the plans are new. Gracia explained that the area has been re-flagged. There was discussion regarding the expired Order of Conditions and if there were any issues with that Order. The Commission discussed the presence of invasives on the site. Gracia explained that because the detention basin is so full of invasive plants, it would be difficult to keep them from spreading. Katherine Flemming, an abutter asked if the Order of Conditions is a public document. Jim Flemming, explained that the detention area is maintained through a homeowner’s association. He asked that the site be looked at again because of drainage problems that exist. He stated that he would like to be ensured that the ground water would not back up due to the changes in grade. Misch stated that the current requirement would be enforced but that the City does not enforce private covenants. Reed stated that he does not believe that the flow would change because of this project. Gracia stated that there would not be disturbance below grade. He explained the proposed elevation of the septic system. There was discussion regarding the ability to develop this lot. Misch explained that when the subdivision was approved, a common driveway was constructed to minimize the impact to the wetland. She explained that as long as they are protecting the lot as much as possible, the lot could be developed. Hearing no further comments, Carbin moved to close the public hearing. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch discussed the Certificate of Compliance for the Northampton Landfill. She explained that the applicant would like to continue it to the next meeting so that he can be present to hear the discussion. Misch discussed the status of the appeal from the Willard family of the Order of Conditions for Wzorek. She explained the proposed changes as listed in the memo submitted to the Commission. Montgomery moved to accept the changes. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body discussed the proposed future hikes of conservation areas with the Commission. Order of Conditions – 27 Spruce Lane Misch read the recommendations in the staff report. Montgomery moved to issue the conditions as discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch discussed a draft Order of Conditions for the Wzorek subdivision. The Commission scheduled a site visit for the proposed subdivision on Burts Pit Road (the Oaks) for Monday, April 8th at 5:30. At 9:00 P.M., Carbin moved to adjourn. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting April 11, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 5:30 P.M., in the Council on Aging Meeting Room, Memorial Hall, 240 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Members Present: Mike Reed, Matt Nowak, Sue Carbin, John Body and Frank Fournier. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:38 P.M., Reed opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Beaver Brook Nominee Trust (John J. Hanley) for the construction of a roadway and a stormwater management system for a proposed 54 lot single-family housing subdivision for property located at Haydenville Road (Rte. 9), also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 5, Parcels 6, 7 and 12, Map 6, Parcels 18, 19, 20, 21 and 58. Work will take place within a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Buffer Zone and Riverfront Area. Misch updated the Commission and explained that drastic changes have been made to the plans in response to the comments submitted by Natural Heritage. Because the new plans are very different than the current plans submitted with this Notice of Intent, Misch stated that it would be appropriate to close the hearing on the current NOI. Fournier arrived. The applicant was not present. John Helms, 54 Upland Road asked several questions regarding the new layout. Misch reminded Helms that this hearing was regarding the old plans and not the new ones that were recently submitted. Carbin moved to close the hearing. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to issue and Order of Conditions denying any work based on the comments submitted by Natural Heritage. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:42 P.M., Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Generic Notice of Intent filed by the Northampton Department of Public Works for the maintenance of culverts, pipes, headwalls, endwalls, catchbasins, drain and sewer structures, easements and to seasonally grade dirt/gravel roads in the floodplains for various locations throughout Northampton, Florence and Leeds. Work will take place within a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Buffer Zone and Riverfront Area. Paulette Kuzdeba-Hurley was present to update the Commission regarding the status of the application. She discussed the letter submitted to the Commission and DEP dated March 12, 2002. She stated that she has not received any correspondence regarding this letter from DEP. She explained that recently she called a representative from Natural Heritage who was directed to not discuss the application. Kuzdeba- Hurley stated that she has also not received any comments back from Natural Heritage regarding this request. Reed asked Kuzdeba-Hurley to address the comments from DEP and explain how they have been incorporated into the Generic Notice of Intent. Kuzdeba-Hurley discussed the comments from DPW as listed in her letter dated March 12, 2002 and explained the changes that have been made to accommodate their concerns. She explained the areas where mowing would take place. She said that in some cases herbicides would be applied to the areas where it is hard to mow. She stated that the herbicides would be applied while the vegetation is small and with chemicals that the Commission has approved in the past for Mass Highway. She reminded the Commission that this permit is to continue to do maintenance that DPW has already been doing under the Wetlands Protection Act. Lastly, Kuzedeba- Hurley stated that she believes that DPW has addressed all of DEP’s concerns and she is requesting that the hearing be closed and an Order of Conditions be issued. Body asked what type of work, if any, would fall under the purview of Natural Heritage. Kuzdeba-Hurley explained that there are some endangered species along one side of River Road in Leeds as well as some roads within the floodplain area. Body expressed concerns regarding the possible impact to the endangered species. Kuzdeba-Hurley addressed Body’s concerns and explained how certain areas would be handled. She stated that DPW has made great efforts regarding this Generic Notice of Intent. She explained that she has called and sent letters to DEP but, to date, has not had any communications from them. There was discussion regarding the possibility of DEP appealing an Order of Conditions. Misch suggested that a statement could be added under the finding section of the Order of Conditions explaining that the applicant had addressed the concerns of DEP to Commission’s satisfaction. 2 George Andrikidis, DPW discussed the issue regarding the lack of communication from DEP. He stated that DEP is not being clear and in the meantime, the work still needs to be completed. Reed stated that overall he has been happy with the work that DPW has completed in the last few years. Deb Jacobs, Leeds expressed concerns regarding the time frame that DPW does some of their tree work. Hearing no further comments, Fournier moved to close the public hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:28 P.M., Reed opened Request for Determination filed by Sovereign Builder’s/Land Solutions to confirm a wetland delineation for property at 165 Westhampton Road, Map ID 43-5 & 6 and 36-87. Christian Boysen of Land Solutions presented the application. He explained that the delineation was performed using both soils and vegetation and he discussed information in the application in support of the delineation. He stated that at this point no work is proposed and he is requesting that only the delineation be approved at this time. He indicated on the plans the areas of low spots located on the site. Members discussed the site visit that was recently conducted and the concerns that surfaced during the visit. Carbin showed the applicant(on the plans) two areas that appeared to be very wet during the site visit that she is concerned about. Boysen explained that when he initially went out to the site to flag the wetlands, there was debris in several areas throughout the site. He explained that after the wetlands were flagged, the owner decided to clean up the area and several of the flags were taken out. He stated that the owner then seeded those areas. Body expressed concerns regarding various areas that appeared to be quite wet. Boysen explained that when the owner cleaned up the site, the site was altered and now several low spots exists. Members agreed that they would like to conduct another site visit (date to be determined at a later time). Carbin moved to continue the hearing to May 9, 2002 at 6:30 P.M. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 3 At 6:39 P.M., Reed opened the Notice of Intent filed by the Northampton Department of Public Works for the removal of a sediment island from the Mill River channel for property located at West Street (Route 66). Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Bank, Land Under Water and Riverfront Area. Randy Christensen of Dufresne-Henry, representing DPW, discussed the project, as explained in the application. He explained that the Army Corps of Engineers is concerned about the shoal that has formed on the Mill River and the fact that the shoal takes up an enormous amount of flood capacity. Because of these concerns, DPW has submitted the Notice of Intent to remove this shoal, stated Christensen. He explained the work that would entail to remove the shoal and several options that DPW may have in removing the shoal. He stated that the most likely option would be the construction of a temporary ramp from the base of the flood control wall down to the shoal. Reed asked how the ramp would be constructed. Christensen explained that the ramp would be constructed of compacted gravel with construction fabric on the bottom to ensure that all the gravel would be removed after the work was completed. He explained that a portable dam would be used to border the shoal and tie into the flood control wall to isolate the area from flowing water. Reed questioned if the channel would be deepened. Christensen explained that there would be no activity with the channel. Reed stated that MA Audubon Society has strong concerns regarding downstream sediments. Christensen stated that silt barriers could be constructed downstream to address these concerns. Nowak questioned if heavy rains occur during the process, will there be a need to dewater. Christensen responded yes. Body expressed concerns regarding nesting birds and asked the applicant to explain what steps they would take should they find any nests or eggs. Christensen stated that he is concerned about putting the project off. The Commission discussed several concerns regarding the impacts of this project downstream and the impact to nesting birds. 4 Carbin moved to continue to May 9, 2002 at 6:30 P.M. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:25 P.M., Reed opened the Discussion on a Request by Creative Developers, Inc. for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, for property located on Burts Pit Road, Map ID 36-68, 286 & 288. The applicant requested that the Commission reorder discussions of the next two projects so that the Sabra Partnership could present that project to the Planning Board by the 9:00 P.M. hearing. At 7:25 P.M., Reed opened the Discussion on a Request by Sabra Partnership for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, for property located between Rick Drive & Cloverdale Street, Map ID 12C-15. Peter Wells of Berkshire Design explained the proposed project to the Commission. Mary Lou Robinson, 96 Rick Drive expressed concerns regarding the presence of spotted turtles on the proposed site. The Commission discussed possible recommendations to submit to the Planning Board. Hearing no further comments, Fournier moved to send the recommendations, with additions discussed, to the Planning Board. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:05 P.M., Reed again opened the Discussion on a Request by Creative Developers, Inc. for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, for property located on Burts Pit Road, Map ID 36-68, 286 & 288. Peter Wells of Berkshire Design Group presented the application. He described the proposed project and explained that all grading would be outside of the 50’ buffer zone and that all buildings would be outside the 100’ buffer zone. Ron Hall, 30 Diamond Court questioned whether the wetland flagging was accurate because it was done during a dry period. 5 6 Janet Gurn, Diamond Court stated that she is concerned about the potential for swamp conditions because the drainage is difficult due to the high water table. Nancy Hall, 30 Diamond Court discussed the possible wildlife impacts. Councillor LaBarge expressed concerns regarding drainage. Loretta Dombrowski stated that she was concerned about drainage problems on the proposed site. Andrea James, Birch Lane expressed concerns regarding drainage. Louis Morris, 24 Birch Lane discussed the drainage. Patsy Miller, Burts Pit Road asked about an aquifer. Misch discussed possible recommendations that the Conservation Commission could send to the Planning Board regarding this project. Carbin moved to send the recommendations with the changes discussed to the Planning Board. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission temporarily recessed in order to move the meeting to Hearing Room 18. At 9:30 P.M., Fournier left. The Commission discussed the Enforcement Order for Beth Willard. Carbin moved to amend the Enforcement Order as discussed. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch discussed the Certificate of Compliance for the Northampton landfill. Body moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. There was a discussion regarding the Commission sponsoring several scheduled hikes through various conservation areas. Carbin moved to approve the sponsorship of the hikes. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Nowak moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting April 25, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, April 25, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Susan Carbin, John Body, Matthew Nowak, Joanne Montgomery and Frank Fournier. Staff: Director Wayne Feiden, Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:30 P.M., Maronn opened the meeting. He introduced Wayne Feiden and stated that Feiden would be discussing open space and wildlife habitat. Montgomery arrived. Fournier arrived. Feiden discussed the access for the Saw Mill Hills Conservation area. He explained the history of the subdivision located near the conservation area and explained that a right-of- way was granted to the City to pass and repass through this area. He stated that he has been receiving calls from people on Ryan Road and on Avis Circle regarding the access issues. Feiden discussed both sides and suggested that the Commission conduct a site visit. He stated that he would like to send out the message that the area is public land. Lastly, he said that the City has been trying to purchase additional property so that there is more than one access point for this conservation area. City Councillor, Marianne LaBarge said that there is a problem with people walking through the site. She stated that she received phone calls from residents complaining about a hike that occurred. She explained that the neighbors were upset about a flyer that was sent out regarding the hike. In the flyer it was suggested that the hikers meet at the Avis Circle access point, stated LaBarge. Lastly, she stated that this should be addressed. Body stated that he was the originator of the hike. He read the flyer which explained that hikers were encouraged to meet on Avis Circle and park there because of safety issues on Ryan Road. He added that Avis Circle is a public road with a public access. Councillor LaBarge suggested that a neighborhood meeting be held to address the concerns of the neighborhood. Diane Brawn, 53 Pencasal Drive stated that she would like to use the trails but she is concerned that if she parks her car at the Avis Circle access, the car would be vandalized. Feiden stated that he would try to set up a neighborhood meeting in the near future. Feiden discussed other concerns with the Commission regarding the financial state and how certain cuts in the budget may affect the Commission. He discussed the duties of the Commission regarding subdivisions and cluster development. There was discussion regarding the benefits in voting on the Community Preservation Act. At 6:10 P.M., Mike Reed arrived. Feiden discussed areas of planning that the Commission could be involved with. He discussed current acquisitions that the City is now considering and pointed out specific areas on a map. At 6:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Edward & Christina Krutsky to determine whether the removal of an old barn is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property at 86 Island Road, Map ID 46- 52. Christina Krutsky was present to explain the application. She stated that approximately 10 years ago, an old tobacco barn fell on her property. She explained that the old barn is located right on the edge of the bank to the Oxbow. Krutsky stated that she is prepared to seed and mulch the area after the barn is removed. Maronn suggested that haybales be placed on the bank of the Oxbow. Montgomery asked if something else could be placed there instead of haybales because of the problem of invasives that are transported in haybales. Misch suggested a silt fence. Hearing no comments from the public, Reed moved to close the hearing. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read the recommendations from staff. 2 Reed moved to issue a negative determination with the condition that the area be seeded and mulched after the barn is removed and that a silt fence be placed between the area of work and the adjacent Oxbow bank. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:50 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Chartpak, Inc. to determine whether the installation of a 5,000-gallon aboveground tank and associated piping is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property at 1 River Road, Map ID 10B- 21. Michael Brown, Environmental Strategies Corporation and Robert Rodak of Chartpak, Inc. was present to explain the application. Brown explained that the reasons why Chartpak would like to install the tank. He stated that it would be used to hold mineral oil. Brown stated that the tank would be double walled with a spill control device. He explained that the plan is to install a concrete pad approximately 125 feet from the Mill River. He discussed the reasons why this area was selected. He submitted a picture to the Commission that indicated a huge rock ledge between the tank and the river. Fournier asked if the tank would be held down in case of a flood. Brown stated that he is not sure how the tank would be secured to the concrete pad. Montgomery asked if a leak should occur, would the contents of the tank go into the ground and eventually to the Mill River. Brown stated that it is highly unlikely because the tank is double lined. Hearing no comments from the public, Reed moved to close the public hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read the recommendations from staff. Reed moved to issue a negative determination with the condition that the tank be bolted down to the concrete pad in case of a flood. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Misch reminded the Commission of the discussion scheduled for May 23rd with Cynthia Boettner of Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge regarding Invasive Plants. 3 4 The Commission agreed to July 27th for the date to assist with the pulling of water chestnuts. The Commission agreed to hold meetings only once during the months of July and August on the fourth Thursday. At 7:10 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion regarding a request by Valley Aggregates to amend the Order of Conditions for Turkey Hill Road, Map ID 34-2 & 4. Montgomery moved to continue the discussion to May 9th at 5:45 P.M. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch reminded the Commission about the Wetlands festival scheduled for June 1st. Misch updated the Commission regarding the Dunphy Drive project. She stated that if the Commission is not happy with the wetland delineation, then the Commission may request that a third party delineate the site. Order of Conditions – DPW Misch read the recommendations in the staff report. The Commission made suggestions regarding the recommendations and changes were made. Fournier moved to issue the conditions with the recommendations and changes discussed. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch discussed an Enforcement Order that was issued to Frederic and Susan Mackler of 395 North Farms Road for cutting in a wetland area. Reed moved to ratify the Enforcement Order. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:10 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting May 9, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, May 9, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, John Body, Susan Carbin, Matt Nowak and Joanne Montgomery. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:30 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Andrea Looney to determine whether removing an existing garage and rebuilding it with additional storage area is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property at 21 Clement Street, Map ID 30A-58. Andrea Looney was present to explain the application. She said that the existing garage is falling down and she would like to remove the garage and rebuild it with additional storage space. Montgomery arrived. Reed asked if any staff had been out to the site. Misch stated that she had been out to the site. She explained that the wetlands were on the slide slope to the bank. Maronn asked if the existing foundation would be taken out. Misch discussed the regulations under zoning for a detached accessory structure. Hearing no comments, Reed moved to close the Public Hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read the comments as listed in the staff report. Reed moved to issue a negative determination checking box 2. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Misch discussed the complaint regarding tree cutting near Look Park. She stated that she called Look Park and was told that the tree cutting was clearing from storm damage. Misch suggested that a member call Look Park and explain the area where the trees have been cut. Misch updated the Commission regarding the wetlands violation for 395 North Farms Road. She stated that the property owner would be in later to discuss this violation. Misch updated the Commission regarding the beaver dam breach at Westhampton Road. At 5:46 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Discussion regarding a request by Valley Aggregates to amend the Order of Conditions for Turkey Hill Road, Map ID 34-2 & 4. Mickey Marcus of New England Environmental, Inc. was present to discuss the proposed changes. He stated that this discussion is not regarding an amendment but instead it is a requirement per number 47 (restoration plan surrounding the vernal pool) of the Order of Conditions. He suggested that the Commission go on a site visit in order to make the best determination. He directed the Commission to the copy of the restoration plan that was submitted. He discussed the vernal pool and stated that the pool was created through the quarry operations. Marcus stated that they are proposing to leave the vernal pool alone and adhere to the 100-foot buffer around the pool. Marcus discussed the planting plan. He stated that the plan that was submitted was an early succession plan for a quarry and was a reasonable plan for a quarry. He explained the conditions of the site and the soils and stated that it might be problematic to bring significant amounts of fill and large trees to the buffer of the vernal pool. He proposed several other trees for this area so that the vernal pool would not be shaded because the species living in the vernal pool like the warm water. Marcus stated that he is willing to work with the Commission but he wanted to bring his concerns to their attention. Montgomery stated that she would like to go back out to the site. She questioned the planting plan and stated that she believed that the Commission had reasons for creating the conditions for larger trees. Misch stated that she did not recall the entire discussion regarding the proposed planting plan. She stated that what Marcus was suggesting made sense. Reed stated that if the vernal pool is functioning well than why fix it. Maronn asked about the depth of the soils and its composition 2 Marcus stated that there are patches of soil that are reasonably good for planting but in the road area the soil is quite hard and very disturbed. He stated that regardless of what plan is completed additional soils would be necessary. Marcus discussed the type of plants that proposed and stated that they are good for these site conditions. Montgomery asked if any of the plants would provide some edge of shade and she questioned the presence of invasive plants at the site. Marcus stated that there are some invasive species on the site. Body stated that he is concerned that additional damage may occur should large trees be planted. Marcus explained that because large trees also have large root balls, fill would have to be brought in which would change the characteristics of the environment. Montgomery stated that digging up the ground to plant the trees might also be an issue. The Commission agreed to conduct a site visit Wednesday, May 15 at 6:00 P.M. Paul Davis, of Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc., discussed the letter that he submitted to the Commission and highlighted his concerns. Joanne Bessette, 228 Sylvester Road asked if the access road would ever be used and she questioned the 100’ buffer around the vernal pool. Reed moved to continue the discussion to June 13th at 5:30 P.M. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch discussed the Enforcement Order for the beaver dam on Westhampton Road. Montgomery moved to ratify the order. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch discussed two Enforcement Orders for encroachment on Mary Brown’s Dingle. She explained to the Commission that there was landscape and yard debris dumped on City property. There was discussion regarding additional signage in this area so that people would be aware of the property lines. Reed moved to ratify the Enforcement Order. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 3 Misch updated the Commission regarding the appeal of the Order of Conditions for Beaver Brook Nominee Trust. She explained the nature of the appeal and that traditionally DEP attempts to reach an agreement between the parties rather than fully adjudicating an appeal. Misch discussed a conservation restriction and easement of the Old Mill River area. At 6:32 P.M., Maronn opened Continuation on a Request for Determination filed by Sovereign Builder’s/Land Solutions to confirm a wetland delineation for property at 165 Westhampton Road, Map ID 43-5 & 6 and 36-87. Christian Boysen and Todd Cellura were present to discuss the application. Boysen explained the history of the site that led to his appearance with the Commission. He explained that the site had been flagged for wetlands when a machine operator pushed the soils back removing some of those flags. He updated the Commission regarding the new wetland delineation that was recently performed by Chuck Dauchy, as required by the Commission. Boysen asked that the Commission approve this new wetland line, including a newly discovered bordering vegetated wetland. He indicated on the plans the new delineation. Misch suggested that prior to a Notice of Intent, revised plans should be submitted to OPD and the DEP. Reed stated that he was comfortable confirming the entire delineation. Commission members agreed to vote for a positive determination for the isolated wetland and bordering vegetative wetland as shown on the revised surveyed plans submitted on May 9th at the meeting with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the submittal of a Notice of Intent, the applicant must amend the RDA to specify the species within the newly identified BVW and include any other field notes. 2. Prior to the submittal of the Notice of Intent, the applicant must submit a revised survey plan showing that Chuck Dauchy and Land Solutions performed the delineation. Reed moved to issue the determination, checking box 2A, with the above conditions. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:55 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Notice of Intent filed by the Northampton Department of Public Works for the removal of a sediment island from the Mill River channel for property located at West Street (Route 66). Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Bank, Land Under Water and Riverfront Area. 4 5 Randy Christiansen briefly went through the letter from Natural Heritage. He expressed his surprise at their response and requested a continuance so that he would have time to conduct a meeting with them. He stated that he would file a response to all of DEP’s concerns, particularly the question regarding additional resource areas. Carbin moved to continue the hearing to June 27th at 7:00 P.M. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:10 P.M., Maronn opened a discussion with Fred Mackler of 395 North Farms Road regarding the Enforcement Order issued to him for cutting trees in a wetland resource area. He told the Commission that he had Warner Tree Service look at the dead trees on and around his pond and propose a cutting plan and replanting plan. Mr. Mackler apologized for cutting the dead trees without permission and stated that he was unaware that the removal of dead trees would impact the wetlands. He said he was interested in enhancing the quality of the wetland and the beaver habitat by planting new trees. He described other wetland wildlife that uses the ponds and showed the pictures of the tree stumps that were cut. He suggested that the Commission conduct a site visit to look at the other trees he would like to remove and see the location where he wishes to replant. Mackler passed out the planting list proposed by Warner Tree Service and asked if it would be appropriate to place wood duck boxes on site. The Commission members agreed to conduct a site visit on May 30th at 6:00 P.M. Members discussed the Wetland Festival and the times that Commissioners could participate. At 7:26 P.M., Reed moved to adjourn. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting May 23, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, May 23, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, John Body, Susan Carbin, Matt Nowak and Joanne Montgomery. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:35 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion with Cynthia Boettner of Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge regarding Invasive Plants. Boettner began with a slideshow presentation of various invasive plants and discussed the definitions and the different threats that these plants can have on the environment. At 6:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by the Three County Fair to determine whether the removal of 3” to 4” of topsoil and replacing it with trap rock dust for the construction of a riding ring is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property on Fair Street, Map ID 25C-251 & 264. Bruce Shollcross of the Three County Fair presented the application. He discussed the proposed project and the necessary changes during the construction of a horse-riding ring within the main field. He stated that no change in grades would be made and that the project is purely a replacement of materials. Montgomery asked the applicant to clarify the trees shown on the survey. Shollcross stated that the survey was not accurate and that the trees shown on the plans are no longer present. Hearing no comments, Reed moved to close the public hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to issue a Negative Determination Box 2 with the conditions listed in the staff report. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:45 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by The Brook Club/Beaver Brook Golf Course to remove trees located within the riverfront area and floodplain area of Beaver Brook for property located on Haydenville Road, Map ID 6-48 & 49. Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Land subject to Flooding and Riverfront Area. Mr. Akimoto of the Beaver Brook Golf Course was present to explain the application. He explained that 14 to 15 trees were cut for firewood and also so that he could plant the area with flowers to make it more aesthetically pleasing for the golf course and to distinguish the property boundary. He stated that he wanted to continue mowing the area in the future. Misch read the comments from DEP. Body asked if there were beavers present. Akimoto responded that there were beavers present. Misch explained that this area is also in the floodplain. Body suggested that any replanting required should take into account the presence of beaver and any possible impacts on the new trees. Deb Jacobs of Leeds said that aesthetics are subjective and she disagreed that the tree cutting improved the character of this area. Reed stated that aesthetics are not a protected interest of the Wetlands Protection Act. Patrice Cogswell, 600 Haydenville Road stated that Mr. Akimoto has progressively cut more and more trees over the years in this vicinity. She believes that this cutting of trees is affecting the wildlife and habitat in the area, with fewer birds and animals. Montgomery stated that the benefits of the cutting should not be the focus of this Notice of Intent. This Notice of Intent is in response to an Enforcement Order for cutting, stated Montgomery. Reed asked for clarification regarding the preexisting conditions and whether the Commission could determine this by looking at the abutting property. Akimoto confirmed. Mr. Cogswell, 600 Haydenville Road stated that the cutting took place within the marsh while it was frozen. Montgomery moved to continue the hearing to June 27, 2002 at 5:30 so that the members would have a chance to conduct a site visit. 2 It was agreed that the site visit would be conducted on June 5th at 6:00 P.M. At 7:00 P.M., Maronn recognized Beth Willard who had come to talk about the problems she has encountered with installing a new cage around the end pipes of the water level device at the Willard gravel pit. She referenced the two letters given to staff by Don LaFountain and one other beaver management expert who both said that the pipe must be reset in order to function properly. Willard described the problem related to the property boundary, an issue that has been longstanding with this owner. There would be no way to reset the pipe without the cooperation of the abutting owner since the pipe and equipment would need to be located partially on the neighbor’s property. She stated that the neighbor would like to maintain a pond for recreation purposes and does not want the water levels to drop. She explained that this has been an objection since the beginning. Body suggested that perhaps it is not clear to the neighbor that the water level device would provide assurance that the pond elevation would not drop below a certain level. He asked if there was any way the Commission could help allay his concerns. Willard asked if she could have more time to conform to the Enforcement Order given this situation. She asked for an extension to August to try and work with her neighbor. The Commission agreed that a new Notice of Intent would be necessary to reinstall a Clemson leveler since the old Notice of Intent had expired. The Commission agreed to allow Willard additional time to file and agreed to extend the response to August 1st for filing an NOI that would be placed on the August 22nd agenda. Maronn recognized Raymond Gugeon of 305 Westhampton Road to discuss the beaver dam removal that occurred at that property. Gugeon stated that he did remove the dam on several occasions, but that he did not know that removing a beaver dam was illegal. He said that he was concerned that his septic field would be flooded. He explained that he is a renter, who is seeking to own the property and that it was his understanding that the owner of the property had received a permit to trap the beaver. Misch clarified that the Board of Health did not approve the trapping request and that the Board issued an order for the property owner to install a permanent device to control the water levels through the Wetlands Protection Act permit process. Commission asked staff to send a letter to Mr. Hawthorne (the property owner) to describe the permit process for installing a water control device along with a copy of the second Enforcement Order and fine. 3 Reed moved to approve the minutes of September 13, 2001. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to approve the minutes of November with the changes discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to approve the minutes of April 25, 2002 with the changes discussed. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Staff updated commission on violations at Mary Brown’s Dingle. Maronn offered to walk property boundary with staff and property owner to clarify the location of the pins and to look at the violation that is believed to include the bituminous driveway on Glendale. Members discussed the possibility of obtaining permanent and visible boundary markers. Members discussed the site visit at Valley Aggregates. Reed stated his support for the planting approach discussed by Mickey Marcus. Discussion followed regarding the proposed removal of phragmites given the earlier discussion of herbicide use on other plants. Staff raised the issue of altering the structure of the waterways committee such that the separate committee would be abolished and be absorbed by the Commission. Reed stated he thought this would be appropriate given the overlap of issues and the infrequency with which the Waterways Committee met. Reed moved to approve the change. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to issue the Certificate of Compliance for the new Park & Ride facility at Sheldon Field. Montgomery seconded. Nowak abstained. Body asked the Commission to review a newsletter and asked if the Commission would like to continue this practice. The Commission agreed. Members requested to put off the discussion of chair and vice chair until the June 27th meeting and also a discussion regarding membership on the new City Tree committee to June 27th. Reed moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:30 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. 4 5 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting June 13, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 5:30 P.M., Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Members Present: Chair Mason Maronn, Matt Nowak, Sue Carbin and Frank Fournier. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch. At 5:53 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Discussion regarding a request by Valley Aggregates to amend the Order of Conditions for Turkey Hill Road, Map ID 34-2 & 4. Commission members discussed the site visit to review the planting plan. Members felt comfortable with the submission by Mickey Marcus and the desire to reduce the size of the tree caliper given the site conditions. Marcus displayed and described a revised planting plan that showed the addition of low brush blueberry sod. The revised plans also indicate that the phragmites within the vernal pool would be targeted for removal using round-up. Mickey Marcus described other elements of the original Order and the status of completing these requirements. He showed the Commission the location of the monitoring wells that had been placed in accordance with the conditions. He explained that an initial reading was taken and monthly readings would follow and be submitted to the Conservation Commission as required. Marcus stated that he has reordered buffer boundary tags that would be located at the 100’ buffer. Members of the Commission asked Misch to request the name of the person they intend to use to conduct the monthly readings of ground water levels. [post mtg note: this person will be Brian Huntley of Almer Huntley Associates, PC] Joanne Bessette wanted to state for the record that the road referenced by Mickey Marcus has not been there since the 40’s but was created in the 70’s after Mr. Wzorek purchased the property. Bessette provided an update on the court ruling and asked whether vertical excavation of rock would be allowed under the current Order of Conditions or would an amendment be required. The Commission confirmed that the Order of Conditions covers vertical excavation. Carbin moved to close the Public Hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to amend condition number 47 and accept the planting plan as revised for the June 13, 2002 hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:10 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by the Solomon Schechter Day School to construct a 16,830 square foot elementary school building with associated site improvements for property located at 253 Prospect Street, Map ID 24D-1. Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland. Aharon Sharff of Berkshire Design Group, Inc. described the project, drainage and associated site work. He explained that the roof and lawn would be infiltrated into A- soils. Rick Klein of Berkshire Design Group, Inc. asked if a 4’ sump would be allowable in place of the described stormceptor, noting that any structure would be located outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Commission agreed that this would be an adequate substitution. Misch asked about side slope planting. Klein stated that they planned to seed but that they would not mow the side slopes within the buffer of the isolated wetland. Hearing no further comments, Carbin moved to close the Public Hearing. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to issue the orders described in the staff report with the changes discussed. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:25 P.M., David Short of Amherst Woodworking was recognized. Short described the letter submitted by Huntley. Short asked the Commission for a sense of the issues that he would have to address should he move forward on an expansion of the business as shown on the draft plan he displayed. The Commission stated that in general they were happy with the concepts shown and described that included planned replication for wetlands to the southwest of the parking lot. At 6:40 P.M., Marc Karmene, President of the Baystate Village Association was recognized to speak about Baystate’s interest in formalizing a trail from Maine’s field to Riverside Drive and eventually to connect to the Cutlery. He explained that Phase 1 would just be a connection to Riverside Drive and that 1,000 feet of trail already exists. The plan would be to build and maintain a 3’ by 8’ trail twice a year. The Commission enthusiastically approved Baystate to conduct the work. Minutes The Commission unanimously approved the minutes of January 10, 2002. Carbin moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 2002. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to approve the minutes of May 23, 2002. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission agreed to meet on June 26, 2002 to conduct a site visit on the proposed Rocky Hill Cohousing site. At 7:10 P.M., Carbin moved to adjourn. Fournier seconded. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting June 27, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, June 27, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Susan Carbin, John Body, Matthew Nowak, Joanne Montgomery and Frank Fournier. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Notice of Intent filed by The Brook Club/Beaver Brook Golf Course to remove trees located within the riverfront area and floodplain area of Beaver Brook for property located on Haydenville Road, Map ID 6-48 & 49. Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Land subject to Flooding and Riverfront Area. Commission members discussed the recent site visit at the Country Club. Mr. Akimoto clarified that he would like to continue mowing the hatched area shown on the plans, which is in the same vicinity that the tree cutting and clearing took place. Commission members discussed the various resource areas that were affected by the cutting including wetland, wetland buffer, riverfront and floodplain. Montgomery moved to close the public hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:54 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion on a Request by Tofino Associates, Inc. for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, MA, for property located off of Florence Road, Map ID 37- 19, 65, 66 & 67. Maronn stated that the Commission had conducted a site visit. There was a brief conversation regarding the concept of a cohousing project. Peter Wells, Berkshire Design explained the project to the Commission and discussed the main highlights of the plans. He stated that there are 27 acres and that 19 acres would be used as open space. He discussed the slopes, 100-foot buffer lines and the access points to the site. Wells stated that the soils indicate relatively high groundwater throughout the site. Wells explained that the main roadway crossing the wetlands was located in an area where the least disturbance would occur. Wells explained the design and highlighted the various benefits including a common area, parking area, pond and two possible future sledding hills. He stated that great efforts were made to save the existing vegetation and trees. He showed the Commission (on the plans), the areas where the trees would be saved. There was discussion regarding whether or not the road would be public and if it could be considered as frontage. Misch explained the subdivision and zoning issues relating to public access. The Commission discussed possible recommendations to send the Planning Board regarding this project. The Conservation Commission unanimously approved to send the recommendations as discussed by staff to the Planning Board. At 6:33 P.M., Maronn opened 1) the Discussion on a Request by Pearson Enterprises, Inc. for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, MA, for property located at 327 & 347 King Street, Map ID 18D-51 & 24B-38 & 39 2) the Discussion on a Request by Pearson Enterprises, Inc. for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, MA for property located at 347 King Street, Map ID 18D-51, and 3) the Discussion on a Request by Hill & Dale Nominee Trust for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, MA for property located at 327 King Street, Map ID 24B-38. Staff presented all three subdivisions. The Commission discussed some recommendations to send to the Planning Board. The Conservation Commission unanimously approved to send the recommendations as discussed by staff to the Planning Board. 2 3 At 6:55 P.M. Body left. Members discussed possible conditions for the Beaver Brook Country Club. Montgomery moved to issue an Order of Conditions with the conditions discussed. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:05 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Notice of Intent filed by the Northampton Department of Public Works for the removal of a sediment island from the Mill River channel for property located at West Street (Route 66). Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Bank, Land Under Water and Riverfront Area. Nowak moved to continue the public hearing to July 25th at 5:30 P.M. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:06 P.M., Montgomery left. The Commission approved the issuance of an Enforcement Order to Mr. Lampron for tree cutting and replacement based on a plan submitted by Valley Environmental, Inc. The Commission discussed issues surrounding Clear Falls Recreation area and determined, based on staff description, that Mr. Crescione was operating the dam structure within the conformance of the Order of Conditions. Commission directed staff to write a letter to the neighbor and to Mr. Crescione emphasizing requirements of the Order of Conditions. At 7:15 P.M., Carbin motioned to adjourn. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting July 25, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, July 25, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Susan Carbin, John Body, Matthew Nowak, Joanne Montgomery and Frank Fournier. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. Body moved to accept the minutes of February 28th. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Nowak moved to accept the minutes of March 28th with a minor change. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch updated the Commission regarding the status of a letter from New England Environmental dated July 10, 2002 in connection with the Fitzgerald property. The Commission discussed whether they would allow cattle to graze certain fenced areas of the property. Montgomery stated that she is abstaining from any comments regarding this request. After the discussion, the members agreed to allow grazing in the upper portion of the field as outlined in the letter referenced above. At 5:50 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Notice of Intent filled by the Northampton Department of Public Works for the removal of a sediment island from the Mill River channel for property located at West Street (Route 66). Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Bank, Land Under Water and Riverfront Area. The applicant was not present. Montgomery moved to continue the public hearing to August 22, 2002 at 6:00 P.M. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:52 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Elizabeth Bristow-Steiniger to determine whether the repair of an existing septic system will have an impact on any wetland resources for property located at 31 Ladd Avenue, Map ID 30B-82. Elizabeth Bristow-Steiniger explained the project to the Commission. She informed the Commission that the Board of Health had approved the system today. She explained that the contractors told her that everything was in place and that the work could be begin. Montgomery asked if the work is completed. Steiniger stated that the pump needs to be hooked up and the area filled and seeded. There was discussion regarding the work completed and the appropriate permit process. Hearing no further comments, Carbin moved to close the hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read the comments listed in the staff report. . The Commission discussed the option of an Enforcement Order because the work was done prior to the Commission issuing a permit. Montgomery stated for the record that the Commission is approving this request without having the opportunity to conduct a site visit or comment on the plans prior to the onset of work. Carbin moved to issue a negative determination checking box 3 with the condition that the haybales are removed but the fabric fence shall remain in place. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:18 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Leonard Yarrows to determine whether the repair of a septic system will have an impact on any wetland resources for property located at 531 Westhampton Road, Map ID 35-209. Alan Weiss presented the application. He discussed the area of work and explained what would be used to stabilize the area. Montgomery asked if any haybales would be used. Weiss stated that haybales would not be used. 2 Hearing no further comments, Mongomery moved to close the public hearing. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read the comments listed in the staff report. Montgomery moved to issue a negative determination checking box 3. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:24 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by MassDevelopment to determine whether an area is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property on Route 10, Grove Street & Earle Street, Map ID 38A-50 & 38C-11 & 16. Mike Howard of Epsilon Associates, Inc. presented the application. He discussed the three jurisdictional wetland areas and indicated on the plans displayed the location of these wetlands. He explained that no work is proposed at this time and that the request is to confirm that the delineation is accurate. Maronn asked about the wetland flags and why there was some flagging done beyond the property line. Howard stated that he wanted to be sure that the wetlands were identified on the subject property but also the wetlands that may or may not be within 100’ of any future work that may take place. Montgomery asked if there were future improvements, would the area have to be delineated again. Howard stated that a determination issued by the Commission would be for the line shown on the plans submitted with the application. He explained that this line, if approved, would be valid for 3 years regardless of who the owner is. Jonathan Yourga, Earle Street expressed concerns regarding the amount of water that runs across Earle Street. Montgomery asked the applicant to discuss the soils on the site. Howard explained that the water is not percolating and recharging through the wetland areas. He referred the Commission to the area in the application that addresses the conditions of the soils. William Diamond, 141 Grove Street stated that he enjoyed walking through the site during the visit with the Commission. He expressed concerns regarding the area of Laurel and Grove and the possibility that the area may be a wetland area. 3 Howard explained that just because the area is wet does not mean that it is a jurisdictional area. Maronn discussed the standards to determine whether an area is a wetland. Hearing no further comments, Body moved to close the public hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Montgomery moved to issue a positive determination. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:47 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Massachusetts Highway Department to determine whether the installation of a remediation system will have an impact on any wetland resources for property located on Mount Tom Road, Map ID 39A-45. Jon Zigler, Fuss & O’Neill explained the project to the Commission. Body moved to close the public hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Montgomery moved to issue a negative determination checking box 2. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. There was a brief discussion regarding fee increases more particularly regarding a line item that was taken away from City funding and was now being drawn from the Conservation Administration fund. It was agreed that the Commission would discuss this issue during a later meeting. Carbin moved to continue the discussion to a meeting in August. Fournier seconded. Montgomery opposed. Misch discussed a request for the Commission to authorize funds for Angela Dion because of the increase in the number of recent permits. Nowak moved to authorize the funds. Fournier seconded. Montgomery opposed. At 7:14 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Smith College Physical Plant to install a new irrigation system for property located on College Lane, Map ID 31A-32A, 31B-289-293 & 31D-8-11, 20 & 240. Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Bank, Riverfront Area, Bordering Land Subject to Flooding and Land Under Water. 4 Tom Jenkins of Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. explained the project to the Commission. He stated that watering would take place between the hours of 10 P.M. and 5 A.M. and that central computerized precipitation data would be used to determine how much water would be needed given the current conditions. Maronn asked what would happen when pond dredging occurs or during a drought. Jenkins explained that he looked at the design criteria to simulate drought conditions and he used the USGS flow data from the Mill River. Maronn asked if he had received a response from Natural Heritage. Jenkins responded that he had not. Montgomery expressed concerns regarding how a drought would affect conservation issues. Carbin asked about alternative systems such as a gray water system. Jenkins stated that the campus cannot separate gray water from black water and the campus does not have their own treatment system. Maronn asked how long the proposed irrigation schedule would run. Bob Smith responded that the proposed schedule is from May 1st to late September. Montgomery asked if there were other alternatives. Body stated that he is concerned about setting a precedent. There was discussion regarding the cumulative impacts of drought draw down. Rick Klein, Berkshire Design asked if the applicant has shown net positive change on draw down from reservoir vs. Mill River in terms of gallons per day. He mentioned that Deerfield Academy did the same type of project and DEP had commented on the project. Bob Smith stated that Paradise Pond is important to Smith College and the college would not want to affect pond. Maronn stated that the Commission would need additional information for the next meeting and that he would like to get the comments from Natural Heritage. Montgomery stated that she would not need additional information but instead would like to see a different system altogether. She would like to have additional information regarding downstream impacts and possible alternatives. 5 6 Montgomery moved to continue the hearing to August 22nd at 6:20 P.M. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:10 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion on a Request by The Community Builders, Inc. for Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, MA for property located on Rocky Hill Road, Map ID 37-29. Jay Vinskey, Berkshire Design Group explained the project to the Commission. He discussed the revised plans including the conservation restriction for lots 11 & 14. The Commission discussed possible recommendation to send to the Planning Board. The Conservation Commission unanimously approved to send the recommendations as discussed by staff to the Planning Board. There was a discussion regarding the nominations for Chair and Vice Chair. Body nominated Maronn as Chair. Fournier seconded. Maronn accepted the nomination. Body nominated Montgomery as Vice Chair. Carbin seconded. Montgomery accepted the nomination. At 8:45 P.M., Carbin moved to adjourn. Montgomery seconded. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting August 22, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, August 22, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Susan Carbin, John Body, Matthew Nowak and Joanne Montgomery. Members absent: Frank Fournier. Staff: Director Wayne Feiden, Senior Planner Carolyn Misch (late arrival), Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:35 P.M., Maronn opened the public meeting. Feiden began by introducing the new Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson to the Commission. He explained the duties of her job. Montgomery, for the record, expressed concerns regarding the schedule for meetings and stated that there is a lot of opinion on this subject. Feiden explained the reasons why all the Board meetings are held on the same night and explained that he is in favor of keeping the existing meeting schedule. At 5:45 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by the Office of Planning & Development to construct an extension of the Norwottuck Rail Trail for property located between Damon Road and Woodmont Road, Map ID 25A-166 & 167. Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland. Feiden presented the application. He explained that in 1993, the Commission had approved a similar plan but that the work was never started. He discussed the location of the proposed bike path and the reasons why the project falls under a limited project status. He explained that the Office of Planning and Development had received a DEP file number and that DEP also agreed that the project falls under the limited project status. Montgomery questioned the width of the proposed bike path. Feiden responded that the path is 9 ½ feet. He discussed the layout of the proposed bike path and showed the Commission the areas of impact including Bordering Vegetative Wetland and Buffer Zone. He explained the proposed drainage to the Commission. Terry Blunt, Department of Environmental Management expressed concerns regarding who the applicant is and stated that he has not been consulted with regarding this proposed project. He said that he is concerned about who would be responsible for the maintenance of the property. Feiden explained that it is not the City’s intent to take over title to the property. Blunt requested that in the future, he would like better communications. There was discussion regarding why this project had been stalled in the past. Montgomery asked whom the Order of Conditions would be issued to. Jeff McCollough, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission spoke in favor of the project. Montgomery expressed concerns regarding the application because of the issues raised regarding the owner of the property and the maintenance of the property. Nowak stated that in term of the Wetlands Protection Act, this project could be approved. Body discussed concerns regarding the elimination of large trees shown on sheet 14 on the plans. He asked if the large trees could be salvaged. Feiden stated that in order to minimize the impacts to the wetlands, the large trees would have to be removed. Montgomery agreed with Body. She requested that the plans be revised indicating that the large trees would remain. Carbin agreed. Feiden suggested that the Commission incorporate this request into the Order of Conditions. James Lowenthall spoke in favor of the project and stated that this project is high priority with members of the bike community. Montgomery asked Feiden to explain how the runoff would be dealt with. Feiden responded that the project would follow the existing drainage system. Montgomery moved to close the public hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:27 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Notice of Intent filed by the Northampton Department of Public Works for the removal of a sediment island from the Mill River channel for property located at West Street (Route 66). Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Bank, Land Under Water and Riverfront Area. Randy Christensen, Dufresne-Henry updated the Commission. He stated that he has made attempts to set up a site visit with Natural Heritage but has been unable to meet and schedule a visit. He submitted a report to the Commission dated August 20, 2002 detailing his inspection of the site that he performed on August 16, 2002. He requested that the Commission close the hearing and wait to hear from Natural Heritage regarding his findings listed in the report. Maronn suggested that the Commission continue the hearing to the next schedule meeting to see if Natural Heritage replies to the report. Montgomery moved to continue the hearing to September 12, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carolyn Misch arrived. At 6:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Notice of Intent filed by Smith College Physical Plant to install a new irrigation system for property located on College Lane, Map ID 31A-324, 31B-289-293 & 31D-8-11, 20 & 240. Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Bank, Riverfront Area, Bordering Land Subject to Flooding and Land Under Water. Maronn read a request by the applicant to withdraw the application without prejudice. Montgomery expressed concerns regarding allowing the withdrawal. She discussed the possibility of denying the application in order to be clear with Smith College. Maronn stated that he believes the Commission should allow the withdrawal of the application. Montgomery moved to deny the project as presented and discussed at the prior meeting (July 25, 2002). Body seconded. Nowak and Maronn opposed. The motion passed with Montgomery, Body and Carbin in favor of denying the project. ===================================================== At 6:45 P.M., Maronn opened the discussion regarding Clear Falls. Jane Carey, an abutter, presented her concerns as documented in the Order of Conditions. Sam Crescione, the owner, responded to Carey’s concerns and explained the reasons why the gates are opened. He explained that the gates are opened in order to clear out pollution. He showed the Commission a schedule of when he opens and closes the gates and explained that he has been doing this for 35 years. Pat Melnik, representing the owner, reiterated the concerns that Mr. Crescione discussed. Maronn suggested that the Commission conduct a site visit prior to the next scheduled hearing. At 7:30 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion on a Request by Creative Developers for Approval of Revised Preliminary Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, MA, for property located on Burts Pit Road, Map ID 68, 286 & 288. Peter Wells, The Berkshire Design Group explained the revised plans to the Commission. Maronn stated that he has concerns regarding lots 32 & 44 and suggested that the lots be moved to a different location. Wells explained that signage would be present to provide a notice to the public of the location of the wetlands. Montgomery stated that the revised plans appear to be less desirable from a wetlands and open space aspect. Wells agreed with Montgomery but explained that he applicant is attempting to address the concerns of the neighborhood. Body stated that it seems like the revised plans area a step backward. Residents expressed concerns regarding the status of the vernal pool. Commission members discussed possible recommendations to send to the Planning Board. Montgomery moved to send the recommendations discussed to the Planning Board. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:15 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion on a Request by Northampton Associates, LLC for Approval of Definitive Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, MA, for property located on Dunphy Drive & Maple Ridge Rd., Map ID 43-5 & 6 and 36-87. Paul Hatch described the Definitive Plan filing. The Commission did not have the full plans with contours and could not make a recommendation. Carbin moved to continue the discussion to September 12, 2002 at 6:00 P.M. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:30 P.M., the Commission discussed the Enforcement Order issued to the owner of 132 Crosspath Road. Staff explained the reasons why an Enforcement Order was issued. City Councillor, Maria Tymoczko was present to answer any questions. It was suggested that a letter should be written to DPW expressing concerns about DPW’s involvement in the violation and subsequent Enforcement Order issued to Mr. Messier. Body moved to ratify the Enforcement Order. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body moved to approve McPherson as agent. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. There was discussion regarding the minutes of June 13, 2002. Body suggested that the minutes be tabled to the next scheduled meeting. Staff discussed an Enforcement Order that was issued for North Farms Road. Order of Conditions – Bike Path Carbin moved to issue the conditions with the recommendations and changes discussed. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. There was discussion regarding a potential wildlife subcommittee and the focus of the committee to help educate, manage and protect bear, coyotes and other animals. It was suggested that the formation of this committee might require an ordinance and whether this type of committee would fall within the Commission’s purview. The members agreed that additional information is necessary and that they would discuss the committee again on September 26th at 5:30 P.M. Carbin moved to adjourn. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting September 26, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, September 26, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Susan Carbin, John Body, Matthew Nowak and Joanne Montgomery. Members absent: Frank Fournier. Staff: Director Wayne Feiden, Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:35 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion on a Request by Sabra Partnership for Approval of Definitive Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, MA, for property located on Cloverdale Street, Map ID 12C-15. Aharon Sharff, Berkshire Design Group began by discussing the wildlife habitat evaluation that was conducted, per the Commission’s request. Montgomery expressed concerns regarding the lot line and asked the applicant to clarify the line. Sharff explained that it is not the lot line itself but instead the work that falls within the buffer that matters. Feiden explained the difference between the requirements for cluster development and subdivision regulations. There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed lot lines and what areas fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Commission generally agreed that there should be a recommendation stating that no clearing or work should be done within 100’ of the wetlands. Sharff explained the proposed conservation restriction that would include approximately 3 acres of land. Body discussed the proposed walkway. Sharff showed the Commission on the plans displayed the location of the proposed walkway. Body asked the applicant to indicate the areas where the conservation easement would be. Sharff showed the Commission the locations where the conservation restriction would be. He discussed the wetland area and explained that it is a small isolated wetland that was created from a gravel pit. Montgomery expressed concerns regarding lot one and the proximity of it to the wetland area. Feiden discussed concerns regarding the conservation restriction and public access. Maronn explained that a conservation restriction could be placed on the land that would not allow people or buildings on it. He suggested that a conservation restriction be placed that would encompass the entire buffer. Montgomery agreed. The Commission discussed recommendations regarding clearing around the wetland or 100’ buffer. Feiden explained that there is a sewer line that falls within approximately 10 feet of the buffer. Lisa Jones, an abutter, expressed concerns regarding the spotted turtle. She asked if a turtle is found at a later time, could the development be stopped. She also discussed concerns regarding the conservation restriction because there are currently nature trails that have been available to the public. Sharff explained that the neighborhood does use this area and that he has tried to come to some agreement with the neighborhood. He explained that Molly Hale was hired to conduct a wildlife habitat study and her report confirmed the spotted turtle is not present at this location. Montgomery asked the applicant if he would consider replacing some of the asphalt with pervious materials. Sharff explained that the driveways are proposed to have gravel but that the ultimate decision would be up to the homeowner. Hearing no further comments, the Commission discussed possible recommendations to send to the Planning Board. The Commission agreed that permanent markers should be placed indicating the 100’ buffer, a conservation restriction consisting of a 100’ buffer around the two isolated wetlands (excluding the 10’ area for an existing sewer easement) 2 and that wherever possible, pervious surfacing be implemented to the greatest extent possible should be recommended to the Planning Board. Montgomery moved the recommendations discussed together with the recommendations listed in the staff report. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:16 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Discussion on a Request by Northampton Associates, LLC for Approval of Definitive Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, MA, for property located on Dunphy Drive & Maple Ridge Rd., Map ID 43-5 & 6 and 36-87. Christian Boysen, Land Solutions, presented the application. He handed out revised plans to the Commission. He discussed issues regarding drainage and explained that the catch basins have been revised to indicate one-foot swales. He discussed other revisions that have been made in response to concerns raised by the Department of Public Works and the Office of Planning and Development. He explained the proposed drainage and the path that the stormwater would be directed to. Maronn expressed concerns that the wetland area south of the cul-de-sac could potentially dry up. He suggested that the proposed pipe be directed towards the wetlands. Body asked the applicant to indicate where the 50’ buffer and 100’ buffer is on the plans. Montgomery suggested that the hearing be continued so that the Commission may review the new plans that were handed out tonight. Feiden discussed the curtain drain and asked what the proposed depth is. He explained that the Commission would need drainage analysis and revised plans. Body expressed concerns regarding the location of the cul de sac. Boysen explained that the location of the cul de sac was planned so that few lots could be created. Hearing no further comments, Montgomery moved to continue the hearing to October 10, 2002 at 6:30 P.M. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:35 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Notice of Intent filed by the Northampton Department of Public Works for the removal of a sediment island from the Mill River channel for property located at West Street (Route 66). Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetative Wetland, Bank, Land Under Water and Riverfront Area. 3 Randy Christensen stated that he has not heard anything additional from Natural Heritage and therefore had nothing further to inform the Commission about. He suggested that the Commission close the public hearing and issue an Order of Conditions with the conditions listed in his letter to Natural Heritage. Montgomery discussed the comments submitted by Natural Heritage. Christensen read the conditions suggested by Natural Heritage and how he has responded to their concerns. Montgomery suggested that a member of the Commission contact Natural Heritage in case they have concerns or might want to offer suggestions. Hearing no further comments, Carbin moved to close the public hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:55 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by The Community Builders, Inc. to determine whether an area and/or work is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property on Rocky Hill Road, Map ID 37 -29. Jay Vinskey, Berkshire Design Group, presented the application. He showed the Commission the revisions to the plans regarding lots 11, 12 & 13 in response to the comments sent by Commission to the Planning Board. He explained that all of the work is out of the buffer zone except for the proposed bike path. Members of the Commission discussed possible recommendations to send to the Planning Board regarding the revised plans. The Commission agreed to recommend that disturbed buffer areas, throughout the project, should be revegetated with native, no- invasive species comparable to those within the buffer and permanent markers should be used to mark the 100’ wetland buffer in any building lot within or immediately adjacent to the buffer, including but not limited to, lots 9, 11, 13, 14 & 16. Carbin moved to send the recommendations discussed to the Planning Board. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Hearing no further comments, Carbin moved to close the public hearing. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Members read the recommendations listed in the staff report. Montgomery moved to issue a negative determination checking box 3. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:11 P.M., Maronn opened Request for Determination filed by Wright Architectural Millwork to determine whether an area and/or work is subject to the 4 jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property on 115 Industrial Drive, Map ID 25A-181. Mickey Marcus, New England Environmental, Inc., presented the application. He discussed the conditions of the site and stated that he found a small wetland area to the rear of the property, which is shown on the site plan. Lastly, he stated that this application is for a determination of the wetland boundaries and that there is future expansion planned at this site. Body moved to close the public hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body moved to issue a positive determination checking box 2A. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:25 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by the Massachusetts Highway Department to determine whether cold planing and resurfacing a portion of Route 5 and 10 will have an impact on any resource area on Route 5 & 10 from approximately 270 feet north of the intersection of Elm Street and Route 5 & 10 northerly to the Northampton/Hatfield town line, for a total distance of 1,740 feet. Tim Myer, Mass Highway Department explained the application to the Commission. He explained that in 1997, the Commission issues a negative determination for this project but the determination was now invalid because it has been more than 3 years. Hearing no comments or concerns from members of the Commission, Carbin moved to close the public hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Members discussed the recommendations listed in the staff report. The Commission generally agreed that they did not want materials stockpiled within the 100’ buffer. Body moved to issue a negative determination checking box 3 with the condition that no materials to be stockpiled within the 100’ buffer and no vehicles or construction equipment to be stored within the 100’ buffer. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:33 P.M., Maronn opened Request for Determination filed by Kerry O’Brien c/o Land Solutions to confirm a wetland delineation for property located on Easthampton Road, Map ID 44-40. Christen Boysen, Land Solutions, presented the application. He discussed the delineation and the vegetation that was found and listed in the application. 5 McPherson stated that she and Sue Carbin had attended a site visit with Christian and has some questions about soil borings taken in a mapped upland area between wetland flags 28 and 33 that seemed to indicate that the area was wetland. Carbin agreed. There was discussion regarding the wetland delineation that the Commission had previously approved for a portion of the current site which McPherson and Carbin questioned. McPherson pointed out that the wetland flags on the new plans are different than the plan that the Commission had already approved. Members of the Commission agreed that the hearing should be continued until another wetland scientist reviewed the flagging and revised plans are submitted indicating the correct location of the wetland flags. Body moved to continue the hearing to October 24, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. McPherson updated the Commission regarding the status of Clear Falls. She discussed the site visit that she had recently conducted and explained that the level of the pond was most likely lowered in accordance with the Order of Conditions. There were questions regarding the frequency that the gates were opened. Body agreed and explained that his concern was in closing the gates to refill would not allow enough water to go downstream. Sam Crescione explained that there was always water going downstream because the gates leak. Maronn read from the DEP Enforcement Order describing how the impounded water may be released. Maronn suggested that Mr. Crescione have his consultants give the Commission the base flow figures because the Commission can’t tell him what base flow would meet the requirements of DEP. Additionally, the consultant needs to tell Mr. Crescione how open the gate should be in order to maintain the base flow downstream. Mr. Crescione stated that he might want to just leave the river in its natural state because of how complicated this issue seems to be. Body moved to accept the minutes of April 11, 2002 as written. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to accept the minutes of June 13, 2002 with minor changes. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 6 7 There was discussion regarding the minutes of June 27, 2002. Montgomery requested that the minutes be tabled so that revisions may be made. Members of the Commission expressed concerns regarding minutes and suggested that in the future, recommendations sent to the Planning Board in connection with subdivisions, should be included within the minutes. Maronn suggested that the minutes of July 25, 2002 be tabled so that revisions may be made. There was discussion regarding Dunphy Drive and why there is a proposed cul de sac located within the buffer when the Commission makes great efforts to keep lot lines out of the 100’ buffer. The Commission discussed the difference between cluster development and traditional. Body expressed concerns regarding the process of determining when you allow development within the buffer and when you don’t. McPherson updated the Commission regarding the Enforcement Order for 395 North Farms Road. Carbin and Nowak said that they conducted a site visit in May and noted the fragile nature of the site. Members of the Commission agreed that they would like no further disturbance of the site, including no replanting of trees previously cut down. Maronn noted that Terry Euker, DEP Circuit Rider, has resigned. Order of Conditions – Mill River Shoal The Commission discussed the conditions as listed in the staff report and changes were made. Montgomery moved to issue the orders described in the staff report and with the changes discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body moved to adjourn. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 9:26 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting October 10, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, October 10, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Susan Carbin, John Body, Matthew Nowak (late arrival) and Joanne Montgomery. Members absent: Frank Fournier. Staff: Director Wayne Feiden, Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:38 P.M., Maronn opened the meeting. Feiden began with a discussion regarding the minutes. Members of the Commission discussed their concerns regarding the minutes and the current meeting format whereby Conservation Commission, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals all meet on the same night. The members generally agreed that when the Commission is reviewing subdivision plans, they would like to see the recommendations sent to the Planning Board, reflected within the minutes. In addition, the Commission asked that they be notified should the Planning Board hold a special meeting to discuss planning issues in case they would like to attend. The Commission also requested reinstatement of the use of a tape recorder for meetings. At 6:18 P.M., Nowak arrived. EXECUTIVE SESSION (FOR MINUTES REFER TO NON-PUBLIC FILE) At 6:27 P.M., Maronn announced that the Commission would be entering into Executive Session. Maronn, Montgomery, Body, Nowak and Carbin all agreeing affirmatively to enter an Executive Session by roll-call vote. Maronn announced that they would be entering Executive Session for the purpose of discussing land acquisition. When members emerged from Executive Session, Maronn again announced the reason. Montgomery left. At 7:08 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Discussion on a Request by Northampton Associates, LLC for Approval of Definitive Subdivision Plans under the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the City of Northampton, MA, for property located on Dunphy Drive & Maple Ridge Rd., Map ID 43-5 & 6 and 36-87. Peter Battisti, Land Solutions was present to discuss the revisions to the plans since the last Conservations Commission meeting. He explained that the revised plans include changes to the pipe that would collect the ground water from the cul de sac and that the pipe would be extended to the property line as requested by staff. He showed the Commission on the plans the proposed drainage path and explained that there would be a three-foot swale across the bottom of the cul de sac. Battisti stated that he believes these recent changes to the plans will address concerns relating to the ground water. Body asked if the 100’ buffer for the wetlands is indicated on the plans. Battisti stated that it is not shown on the plans. He showed the Commission where the 100’ buffer zone would be located. Ralph Balu, 211 R Westhampton Road (direct abutter) expressed concerns regarding the location of the proposed drainage pipe and the property line that the pipe would be near. Battisti showed Mr. Balu the location of the proposed pipe and stated that it is near a property line in proximity to Westhampton Road. He explained that the proposed pipe would be an underground pipe and would infiltrate into the ground. Balu spoke again and expressed further concerns regarding drainage. He explained that this area is very saturated. He discussed a past violation that entailed dumping of debris on the site. Lastly, he stated that he is a direct abutter to this project and would like some assurance that the water and drainage issues will be dealt with and if not, who can he turn to for some assistance. Battisti showed Mr. Balu the path that the water would take that leads to a detention basin and to a swale. Maronn explained that the applicant still must go through a wetland permitting process in which there will be conditions that must be adhered to. He explained that there would be a need for a wetland specialist to be on the site monitoring the work and making sure that all the conditions were being carried out. 2 Todd Cellura, explained the subdivision process and the various permits that must be granted in order for this project to be completed. City Councilor, Marianne LaBarge expressed concerns that the plans did not indicate the 100’ wetland buffer. Battisti explained that tonight’s meeting is simply a discussion regarding the project so that the Commission can send their recommendations to the Planning Board. Maronn explained that the applicant would still have to apply for a Notice of Intent. Councilor LaBarge suggested that the developer meet and work with the area abutters. She stated that an abutter discussed specific concerns with her regarding the location of a proposed septic system because it would be constructed near his property. Cellura stated that he would be happy to meet with any of the abutters to discuss their concerns. There was discussion regarding the land and the need for a good and proficient drainage system. Battisti explained that the proposed drainage system would be constructed in a manner that would complement the existing land. Body stated that he would like to see the 50’ and 100’ wetland buffer on the plans. He questioned why the applicant has proposed the construction of a cul de sac and if the other means of roadway have been considered that might not be such a detriment to the wetland buffer. Mr. Crafts, 195 Westhampton Road expressed concerns regarding drainage. He discussed an existing pipe located at the end of Dunphy Drive that is not currently in working condition. There was discussion regarding the location of this pipe and if it is a functioning pipe. Sarah Campbell, consulting civil engineer for the project, showed the Commission old plans that indicate the location of this existing pipe. She stated that she had discussed this pipe with someone at DPW and they also were not sure of the status of the pipe. Cellura stated that the City would make sure that all the concerns would be dealt with during the definitive plan stage. He explained that he is hopeful that the City would accept Dunphy Drive Extension as a City road. City Councilor LaBarge stated that the City is not currently accepting any more streets. Nowak asked what type of maintenance plan would be in place for the underground pipe. 3 McPherson discussed a fax that she received today regarding the curtain drain. She asked the applicant to explain the preference to use an open swale rather than an infiltration pipe to the Commission. Battisti explained that since the fax, additional changes have been made. He explained the change that there would be a perforated pipe around the cul de sac instead of the swale that had been proposed. McPherson asked why these revisions were made. Battisti explained that the changes would be more feasible. McPherson asked how far underground would the perforated pipe be. Lyons Witten, New England Environmental explained the drainage around the cul de sac. He stated that the pipe should be approximately 5 feet underground, which would be below frost level. Nowak asked if the pipe would be maintained. Lyons explained that during the wet months, the pipe would collect ground water but otherwise there would be filter fabric on the pipe to help maintain any silt from entering the pipe. Body questioned the elevations around the cul de sac and added it is very important during the discussion phase that the 50’ and 100’ buffer lines be included in the map. Body stated that he has requested that the applicant place these lines every time they have presented the plans. It is quite obvious that their planning has not taken into account the wetlands or the buffers. Otherwise, the plans would have shown them. Since it is our responsibility to protect wetlands, the lack of 50’ or 100’ buffer lines makes our job somewhat limited. If we are asking lot lines for cluster developments outside of the 100’ buffer, then why aren’t we asking for plans representing a road outside the 100’ buffer. Body believes that the 50’ and 100’ buffer lines are important for any developer to represent. He stated that he would like to see the road outside the 100’ buffer. There was discussion regarding whether it would be feasible to have another means of entering the site instead of the cul de sac. Members of the Commission suggested a different type of cul de sac that would not impact the wetland buffer as much as the proposed cul de sac. McPherson explained that because of the grades on the site, another type of cul de sac would require more cut into the hillside . Hearing no further comments, the Commission discussed possible recommendations to send to the Planning Board. 4 The Commission recommended that the cul de sac be moved out of the 50’ wetland buffer and as far away from the wetlands as possible. Maronn stated that he is happy with the revised drainage plans. Carbin moved to recommend that the cul de sac be moved out of the 50’ wetland buffer and as far way from the wetland as possible. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. There was discussion regarding the minutes of June 27th, July 25th and August 22nd and changes were suggested. Nowak moved to accept the minutes of June 27, 2002. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to accept the minutes of July 25, 2002 with minor changes. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Nowak moved to accept the minutes of August 22, 2002 with minor changes. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. McPherson updated the Commission on the status of Clear Falls. She discussed the special conditions that were drafted by Ward W. Smith of Valley Environmental Services. She explained that DEP would like the Commission to decide whether they would like the gates opened regularly so that the sediment could be removed or would the Commission prefer that the gates be only opened once a year. She suggested that the Commission read the existing order of conditions and decide how the final conditions should be clarified. She stated that the Commission could discuss this at the next meeting. Certificate of Compliance – 370 Spring Street McPherson explained the project to the Commission and stated that she had conducted several site visits to confirm that the permanent markers were in fact in place. Body moved to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. McPherson discussed the Enforcement Order that was issued to 18 Winter Street. She explained the conditions of the site and the area where the wood chip piles were located. 5 6 John Ryan, 21 Winter Street explained that this area had been a garden in the past until the beavers took up residence there. He explained that there was a culvert located by the bike path and the Barrett Street marsh area. There was discussion regarding the conditions of the site and suggestions were made. The Commission agreed to conduct a site visit on October 16th at 5:30 P.M. The discussion regarding fee increases and a formation of a wildlife subcommittee were tabled to the next meeting. Carbin moved to adjourn. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:55 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Executive Session October 10, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, October 10, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, Matt Nowak, Susan Carbin and John Body. Staff: Director, Wayne Feiden, Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Board Secretary, Angela Dion. At 6:27 P.M., Maronn announced that they would be entering Executive Session for the purpose of discussing land acquisition. Maronn, Nowak, Montgomery, Body and Carbin all agreeing affirmatively to enter an Executive Session by roll-call vote. Feiden explained that there had been a reduction in the amount of recent land acquisition because the Mayor had asked that the amount be decreased in light of all of the recent budget cuts that were necessary. Feiden updated the Commission as to the status of several possible areas of land acquisition. He showed the Commission the perimeter of the Fitzgerald Lake conservation area that encompasses approximately 580 acres of land and noted nearby properties that have been approved in the past for acquisition in order to expand the conservation area. Feiden explained potential areas for the Commission to consider. Feiden showed the Commission an area of land known as the Stoddard property that is approximately 7 ½ acres of land. He explained that this property has a bad title but that he has been able to have the five known heirs sign off on it. He requested that the Commission approve it as a friendly taking for the record. Montgomery moved to approve the taking of the land known as the Stoddard property as a friendly taking. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Feiden showed the Commission an area of land known as the Gleason property that is approximately 16 acres. Feiden explained the location of the property and that this property is divided. He stated that the City is offering approximately $800 an acre for this property and that Broad Brook is willing to fund $8,000 of the total amount towards payment on the land. Body moved to approve the friendly taking of the land known 2 as the Gleason property as a friendly taking. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Feiden showed the Commission an area of land known as the Dryzgula property. He explained the history of the property and stated that back taxes are owed. He is requesting that the Commission approve a friendly taking of land for this property. Carbin moved to approve the friendly taking of the land known as the Dryzbula property. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Feiden discussed a parcel of land that was donated to the Boy Scouts. He showed the Commission the location of the property. Feiden stated that he had spoken with someone from the Veterans of Foreign War and was told that there may be a way to donate the property with the condition that the Boy Scouts could continue to camp on-site. Feiden stated that he needs approval from the Commission so that he can talk to the owners with the hope of eventually acquiring the property with the owner’s consent for no money, but maybe some conditions. Body moved to accept the property if the owner is willing to donate the property. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Feiden discussed the Ryan Road house. He explained the future plans to carve off the property located on Garfield Avenue in Florence (north of Deep Woods). Feiden explained that he needs a motion from the Commission for acceptance of this open space. Feiden discussed other potential areas for the Commission to consider at a later time. He explained that there are some areas in the Saw Mill Hills area that he would also discuss with the Commission another time. Feiden discussed property on Coles Meadow Road that possibly planned as a one-lot cluster development. He explained that he needs a motion from the Commission to approve the limited development project. Body moved to approve the limited development project. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:55 P.M., Maronn , Montgomery, Body, Nowak and Carbin all agreed affirmatively by roll-call vote to end the Executive Session. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting October 24, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, October 24, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Susan Carbin, John Body, Matthew Nowak, Frank Fournier and Joanne Montgomery. Staff: Director Wayne Feiden, Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:35 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Request for Determination filed by Kerry O’Brien c/o Land Solutions to confirm a wetland delineation for property located on Easthampton Road, Map ID 44-40. Maronn explained that the applicant has requested a continuance so that they may respond to comments submitted by Natural Heritage. Montgomery moved to continue to December 12, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Ned Huntley from the Department of Public Works was recognized. He discussed the recent problems associated with the Winter Street area that have led to the issuance of an Enforcement Order for 18 Winter Street. Huntley discussed correspondence dated October 22, 2002 that was sent to the Commission. He explained that the problems have been exacerbated because the beavers have built a dam and it is creating a hazard. He directed the Commission to the letter of October 22nd and stated that this problem must be dealt with. Montgomery questioned if the cause of the problem could be something else other than the beaver dam. She asked if the cause could be that there has been a large amount of fill that has been put in. She suggested that the fill be removed and the area be revisited. Tom Smith, field engineer for DPW was present to respond to any questions that the Commission might have. He explained that during the last storm event, he walked the area and was able to determine where the water is flowing (toward Winter Street) and 1 how it is making its own course toward the wetland. He does not believe that any fill in that area is displacing the water but simply running along side of it. Huntley explained that the only time that there is a problem is when it rains. Maronn questioned the condition of the pipe under the bikeway. Huntley explained that the pipe was clogged and has been cleaned out. He said that the DPW would be cleaning the pipe again before winter and that they will continue to clean and monitor the pipe on a regular maintenance schedule until such time that the erosion levels have decreased. Smith explained that the box culvert has been cleaned out as well. Huntley explained that the culvert is normally full of water all the time and he believes that it is going to take several years of flushing it before any positive results are seen. Montgomery asked if the box culvert is somehow related to the recent water issues. Huntley responded that the box culvert is not related to the water issues because the water is free flowing further down the brook. Instead, Huntley explained, that the problem is right at the dam where the diversion is taking place. He stated that DPW is required to repair problems where the sanitary system is involved. He explained that this is a problem every time there is a storm event. McPherson asked if the DPW knows how much flow the box culvert was designed to handle and what the actual functioning capacity is now. Huntley explained that the culvert has a large capacity. Members of the Commission asked several questions regarding possible solutions to this on-going problem. Montgomery questioned how does the DPW determine what is a storm event. Huntley explained that when he sees water running down a manhole, during a rainstorm, then that is a problem. The Commission generally agreed that they would like to have a third party conduct a site visit and report back to the Commission. The Commission asked McPherson to contact Mr. & Mrs. Callahan and Mickey Marcus. EXECUTIVE SESSION (FOR MINUTES REFER TO NON-PUBLIC FILE) 2 At 6:05 P.M., Maronn announced that the Commission would be entering into Executive Session. Maronn, Montgomery, Body, Nowak, Fournier and Carbin all agreeing affirmatively to enter an Executive Session by roll-call vote. Maronn announced that they would be entering Executive Session for the purpose of discussing land acquisition. When members emerged from Executive Session, Maronn again announced the reason. Members discussed the minutes of October 10, 2002 and changes were made. Montgomery moved to approve the minutes of October 10, 2002 as amended. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:45 P.M., Angela left. Members discussed the two Enforcement Orders that have been issued for Winter Street. Body moved to ratify the first Enforcement Order issued for Winter Street. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Montgomery moved to ratify the second Enforcement Order issued for Winter Street. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Members discussed the emergency certification issued to Look Park for the reconstruction of a collapsed headwall. Montgomery moved to ratify the Emergency Certification. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Members discussed the Roberts Hill Conservation Area trail maintenance by a local Eagle Scout scheduled for this coming Saturday. At 7:03 P.M., the Commission discussed the status of Clear Falls. Members discussed the base flow, annual cleanings and how often should the gates be opened. Nowak believes that special condition A is open to interpretation. Montgomery suggested that the Commission amend it or clarify it but revise it to whatever the original intentions were. Montgomery stated that she did not fee comfortable making decisions beyond her expertise. There was discussion regarding having a hydrologist or other professional to scientifically assess this situation. 3 4 The Commission generally agreed to contact Mickey Marcus and because Clear Falls is closed for the season, the Commission has time to gather additional information and advice. At 7:30 P.M., the Commission discussed fee increases. Body asked what the fees are for a Notice of Intent. McPherson believes that the fees for a Notice of Intent are approximately seventy dollars. Fournier asked what the surrounding towns charge and suggested that the Commission use those figures to determine what Northampton’s should be. There was discussion regarding the recording fee. Montgomery asked staff to determine what the Registry of Deeds charges to record an Order of Conditions. Also, the time that it takes Angela to go to the Registry. The Commission discussed a possible sliding scale for fees for commercial, industrial and residential. Members agreed that they would discuss fee increases again during the meeting scheduled in December. At 7:50 P.M., Body moved to formulate an ad-hoc Wildlife Subcommittee. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. There was a brief discussion regarding the report from Natural Heritage in connection with the property on Easthampton Road. Body discussed a Conservation Commission website that can be access through the Office of Planning and Development’s website. The Commission endorsed and complimented Body’s efforts. Montgomery offered to attend the November 7th Planning Board meeting and report back to the Commission. There was discussion regarding joint meetings with the Planning Board and what the Commission would like to discuss. At 8:05 P.M., Body moved to adjourn. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Executive Session October 24, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, October 24, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, Matt Nowak, Susan Carbin, Frank Fournier and John Body. Staff: Director, Wayne Feiden, Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Board Secretary, Angela Dion. At 6:05 P.M., Maronn announced that they would be entering Executive Session for the purpose of discussing land acquisition. Maronn, Nowak, Montgomery, Body, Fournier and Carbin all agreeing affirmatively to enter an Executive Session by roll-call vote. Feiden began by showing the Commission, on the plans displayed, two areas of land that are related to the Lathrup project and explained the Conservation Restriction that is associated with them and the interest that the City holds. The first area of land, he explained, currently has a shed located on it that crosses the property boundary and creates an encroachment on the City owned property. He explained that the shed has been there for 60 plus years and because the shed has been there for an extended amount of time and the past surveys of the property show different boundary lines, problems such as this could lead to a dispute as to who actually owns the land. Feiden stated that Lathrup would like to refinance the property but has this ongoing issue that needs to be resolved. He explained that the City would not want to get into a legal battle regarding who owns what. Feiden described a “boundary line agreement” that would involve the City giving up approximately an acre of land as a trade in order to settle this issue. This boundary line agreement would eliminate the need to go through legislation (because of the Conservation Restriction) and would allow the issue to be resolved, Feiden explained. He requested that the Commission authorize the boundary line agreement and give up claim to land that the City is uncertain as to the correct owner. Feiden explained the second part of the agreement that would involve a trade off of approximately 11 acres of land located on Florence Road near Bassett Brook that the City would gain title to. Montgomery asked if the land would be donated to the City or would it be put into a Conservation Restriction. Feiden stated that he has not discussed that aspect yet. Body moved to accept the simultaneous transfer of land. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission discussed the minutes of the Executive Session held on October 10, 2002 and a minor change was suggested. Carbin moved to accept the minutes as amended. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:33 P.M., Maronn, Montgomery, Body, Nowak, Fournier and Carbin all agreed affirmatively by roll-call vote to end the Executive Session. City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall, 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 587-1266 (413) 587-1264 fax M E M O R A N D U M TO: Conservation Commission FROM: Gloria McPherson REGARDS: Planning Board DATE: 17 October 2002 I spoke with Wayne about the Planning Board schedule, joint public hearings, and the Cons Com having more of an opportunity to hear and participate in Planning Board meetings. A new system is evolving where the Planning Board meetings on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays are going to be focused on permits, and the PB will schedule separate working sessions to focus on planning issues. While these are not joint hearings, they should be interesting as there will certainly be some overlap of planning issues and conservation issues in the discussions. I believe it will be important for some Commission members to attend, and they could then report back to other members at subsequent Cons Com meetings. The next scheduled PB working session is Thursday, Nov. 7. The most important issue on this agenda will be a discussion on possible zoning changes to regulate the pace and location of development. At this time, it has not been decided how often these additional Thursday sessions will be scheduled, and of course on light permit nights, the PB will still talk about planning issues as well. As far as joint public hearings are concerned, it would be helpful if the Cons Com could put together a draft of the issues you would like to see addressed so we can start to better define how this could work for everyone’s benefit. See you on Thursday. :) Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting November 14, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, November 14, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Susan Carbin, John Body and Matthew Nowak. Members absent: Frank Fournier and Joanne Montgomery. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:35 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Sweet Meadow Properties, LLC to construct a single-family house with associated site development for property located on North Farms Road, Map ID 2-1. Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland and Riverfront Area. Mark Reed of Heritage Surveys and Bill Canon presented the application. Reed explained that the Commission had previously reviewed and approved this site for three houses and that this new application is for a fourth house that would be located towards the rear of the property. Reed explained that since the filing of the Notice of Intent, the plans have been revised in order to move all work outside of the riverfront area. He pointed out on the plans displayed the area of the bordering vegetated wetland and explained that there is also a brook that they have determined to be perennial stream. Reed stated that because of the perennial stream, the location of the house has been moved towards the north and out of the riverfront area, which puts it further into the wetland buffer zone. He said that there is only 15 feet of yard area in the back of the house and explained that during the designing of the project, he considered relocating the house, but he discovered that it would not be feasible to get around to the rear of the house had it be moved. He discussed the proposed drainage for the house and explained that any roof drainage would be recharged back into the ground. Carbin questioned the size of the house. Canon responded that it was approximately 67 feet in length. Carbin questioned whether the house size could be reduced. Reed responded that it was the applicant’s wish to build that size of a house. Canon explained that the size of the house includes a garage and that in designing the house, he looked at several ways to build the house and this design was the most feasible. Body expressed concerns regarding the location of the proposed house. Reed explained DEP’s policy regarding the 50’ wetland buffer and 200’ riverfront area. McPherson discussed a follow-up letter in regards to the house and the location within the riverfront area. She explained that according to the letter, the footprint of the house was reduced, when in fact; the footprint of the house has not changed since the beginning. Body asked what the size of the lawn would be behind the house. Reed responded that it would be approximately 15 feet and explained that in order for construction equipment to get to the back of the house, the lawn had to be at least 15 feet. McPherson stated that she had spoken with Joanne Montgomery, who was absent and requested that some of her comments be addressed during the hearing, and Montgomery stated that she would like to see some consistency with this lot in comparison to the first three lots that the Commission had already reviewed, where no encroachment was allowed in the 50’ buffer. Canon stated that the lawn area was not as critical as having some room for the construction work. Maronn stated that he would rather have the construction move away from the 50’ buffer area. Reed explained that DEP did not want any disturbance within the 200’ buffer zone. He stated that he would be happy to redesign the house in order to stay out of the buffer zone. Maronn suggested that the applicant submit revised plans that indicate that the house has been moved outside of the 200’ riverfront area and 50’ buffer. Body questioned the proposed infiltrator structure for the roof drains and asked the applicant to explain how they operate. Reed explained that the infiltrator structure allows the water to enter and percolate into the ground. He showed the proposed drainage path that is directed towards the wetland. 2 Body questioned how much water could be held in the infiltrator. Reed explained that because the soils are sandy, most likely the water would not stay in the infiltrator. Body expressed concerns that the area near the leach field would be disturbed. Cannon stated that once the septic system is installed, tall grass would grow in this area. There was discussion regarding the location and the area of the septic system. Maronn recommended that the area for the proposed septic system be replanted with a type of wildflower mix as instead of trees. Hearing no further comments, Carbin moved to close the public hearing. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:06 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Tristram Metcalf and Thomas Fortier for the construction of two single-family homes with accessory apartments, including sanitary sewer systems and associated site developments for property located on Turkey Hill Road, Map ID 34-26 & 31. Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Tristram Metcalf presented the application. He discussed the setback issue and stated that he is unable to comply with the required setbacks. Alec MacLeod showed the Commission on the plans displayed, the location of the 50’ buffer. He explained that he conducted the wetland delineation and stated that a lot of effort was made to stay out of the 50’ buffer. He discussed the hydrology of the site and explained the changes that have occurred due to the presence of a beaver dam. He stated that all the grading, in connection with the construction of the septic system, would take place within the area of the field and that only a minor amount of work would take place within the 50’ buffer zone. Maronn expressed concerns regarding the drainage for the proposed new area of the road. Brian Huntley explained that they are not proposing anything other than a pitch in both directions and that given the amount of additional pavement; the situation would not be in poorer condition. Metcalf discussed an existing wall that is made of stone located just within the woods and explained that the presence of this wall helps discourage people from walking in the wetland area. 3 Huntley explained that grading would occur within the 50-foot buffer and stated that several changes have been made to the plans in order to stay out of the buffer as much as possible. Body expressed concerns regarding the fact that the proposed house is located near an existing quarry. Body stated that he is aware that this area is out of the jurisdiction of the Commission. Huntley stated that most people are aware that there is a quarry located in the area. Maronn asked if there was anyone who wished to comment on the proposed project. No one spoke. Hearing no further comments, Nowak moved to close the public hearing. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Nowak moved to approve the minutes of September 26, 2002. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body moved to accept the Executive Minutes of October 24, 2002. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to accept the minutes of October 24, 2002. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. McPherson discussed a potential issue regarding the fairgrounds. She explained that the fairgrounds had been given a negative determination in connection with the construction of the riding ring this past summer. She explained that according to a condition in the permit, the fairgrounds are required to submit a survey indicating the elevations after the construction of the riding ring and to date have not complied with this condition. Maronn suggested that McPherson contact the fairgrounds and inform them that they need to submit a new survey within 14 days or an Enforcement Order and fines would be issued. At 6:31 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Northampton Associates, LLC to eliminate the existing hammerhead turn-around and construct a cul-de-sac with stormwater management system for property at Dunphy Drive, Map ID 36-87 & 43-5, 6 & 75. Work will take place within the buffer zone of an Isolated Wetland. Christian Boysen of Land Solutions presented the application. He explained that Chuck Dauchy could not attend the meeting but that he has submitted a letter for the 4 Commission to review. Boysen explained the proposal to covert an existing hammerhead into a cul de sac with a sidewalk in order to accommodate a future planned subdivision. Boysen discussed the proposed basins, drainage and the location of the 50’ and 100’ buffer zones. He directed the Commission to the letter from Chuck Dauchy and read the letter to the Commission. Body asked how close the disturbance would be to the wetlands. Boysen responded that it would be between 12’ and 16’ depending on whether any revisions are made. He explained that the grade is such that moving the cul de sac is not feasible. Carbin asked why the Planning Board would not consider eliminating the sidewalk on the lower side of the cul de sac. Todd Cellura said that because there are plans for a walking trail in this area sometime in the future, the Planning Board wanted to be certain that a sidewalk would be constructed. Ralph Billieux, 211 R Westhampton Road (direct abutter) expressed concerns regarding the drainage of water during the construction phase of the project. He questioned the validity of the claim that the area is not naturally wet because of the elaborate drainage system that the applicant is proposing for the site. Boysen explained the drainage during the different phases of construction. Billieux stated that he is concerned about drainage after the project is complete. City Councilor Marianne LaBarge expressed concerns regarding the location of the sidewalks and the proximity of them to the wetlands. Len Rifkin, Dunphy Drive expressed concerns regarding the amount of standing water that is usually present at this site and the number of mosquitoes that would be encouraged by this standing water. City Councilor Marianne LaBarge suggested that Mr. Rifkin contact the Board of Health regarding the mosquitoes. She discussed the loss of privacy for the area residents as well as the existing drainage problems that have plagued this property. Boysen addressed the concerns of Councilor LaBarge. There was discussion regarding the location of the proposed homes. Hearing no further comments, Carbin moved to close the public hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 5 At 7:14 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Northampton Associates, LLC to demolish a garage and construct a new single-family house and parking area with associated site development for property at 179 Westhampton Road, Map ID 36-87 & 43-5, 6 & 75. Work will take place within the buffer zone of an Isolated Wetland and Bordering Vegetated Wetland and the Notice of Intent filed by Northampton Associates, LLC to demolish an existing house and mobile home and construct two single-family houses with associated site development for property located at 165-169 Westhampton Road, Map ID 36- 87 & 43-5, 6 & 75. Work will take place within the buffer of an Isolated Wetland. Paul Hatch, Consulting Engineer for the project, showed the Commission the area of the isolated wetland and BVW. He discussed the Title V regulations that determined the location of the three proposed houses and the required setbacks for the septic systems. Maronn asked if a Variance would be required from the Board of Health. Hatch stated that a Variance would be required. He discussed the proposed plantings and the markers that would indicate the wetland line. He stated that the area has been disturbed in the past and that it would be replanted. Body asked if it would be possible to have the first two lots share a driveway so that there would not be a driveway within the 50’ buffer. Hatch explained that they would be closer to the wetland if he were to relocate the driveway. Ralph Billieux expressed concerns regarding the location of the proposed houses. Mr. Crafts, 195 Westhampton Road expressed concerns with the site and stated that the site does not drain correctly. City Councilor, Marianne LaBarge clarified that because of the many issues raised regarding drainage, enhancements are planned to resolve the problem. Body asked if the proposed third house could be moved closer to the road. Hatch reminded the Commission that the location of the houses was determined because of the Title V standards. Nowak moved to close the public hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business 6 There was a brief discussion regarding possible changes to the local ordinance. Maronn suggested that the Commission look at the regulations for the riverfront areas. The Commission generally agreed to hold a special meeting to discuss the possible changes. The Commission scheduled the meeting for December 5, 2002 at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18. Order of Conditions - Sweet Meadow Properties, LLC McPherson read the recommendations in the staff report. The Commission made suggestions regarding the recommendations and changes were made. Body moved to issue the conditions with the recommendations and changes discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Order of Conditions - Tristram Metcalf and Thomas Fortier McPherson read the recommendations in the staff report. The Commission made suggestions regarding the recommendations and changes were made. Nowak moved to issue the conditions with the recommendations and changes discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Order of Conditions - Northampton Associates, LLC – 179 Westhampton Road McPherson read the recommendations in the staff report. The Commission made suggestions regarding the recommendations and changes were made. Nowak moved to issue the conditions with the recommendations and changes discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Order of Conditions – Northampton Associates, LLC - 165-169 Westhampton Road McPherson read the recommendations in the staff report. The Commission made suggestions regarding the recommendations and changes were made. Carbin moved to issue the conditions with the recommendations and changes discussed. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Order of Conditions – Northampton Associates, LLC – Dunphy Drive McPherson read the recommendations in the staff report. The Commission made suggestions regarding the recommendations and changes were made. Nowak moved to issue the conditions with the recommendations and changes discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed with Body opposed. 7 8 The Commission agreed to table the discussion regarding Winter Street to the next meeting. There was a brief discussion regarding Clear Falls. Body moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:36 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Ken Jodrie opened the PB meeting at 6:40 PM, with the first hour of the meeting being a joint meeting with the Conservation Commission. Planning Board members present: Ken Jodrie, Julie Hookes-Davis, Paul Diemand, Paul Voss, Frandy Johnson, George Kohout, Keith Wilson present. OPD Staff present: Wayne Feiden, Carolyn Misch, and (until 7:30 PM) Gloria McPherson. The boards viewed a video on flooding in the Northampton meadows and downtown, which was produced using a grant the Office of Planning and Development received to produce a floodplain mitigation plan. The boards had a discussion on the current rules for development in the floodplain and what changes are necessary to limit development in environmentally sensitive areas of the floodplain. The boards then moved onto a joint discussion on how the current Farms Forests and Rivers (FFR) overlay zoning could be expanded to preserve highly sensitive environmental resources, as originally recommended in the Vision 2020—Vision and Consistency Analysis. The boards talked about allowing some development rights to be transferred away from FFR properties, in return for preserving those properties, and what were the options as to where those rights could be transferred. The Conservation Commission and the Planning Board agreed to have future discussions on 1) Farms Forests and Rivers zoning overlay, 2) floodplain management, 3) holding joint public hearings on permit applications that are before both boards, 4) zoning landscaping requirements. The Conservation Commission adjourned their meeting at 7:30 PM. The Planning Board then discussed proposed new zoning lighting standards and made some specific suggestions for changes. The Planning Board briefly discussed the OPD Self-Study and expressed and interest in being involved, including being involved with examining board functions. The Planning Board briefly discussed the Mill River restoration project and how it can help create a high quality water-based recreation feature and economic development opportunities. Staff explained that we are now focusing on hazardous releases, if any, and the entire project may take twenty years. The Planning Board authorized a reduction in the letter of credit for the Plantations at West Farms project, based on a motion by Frandy and second by Paul and a unanimous vote of the PB. The board adjourned at 9:05 PM. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting December 12, 2002 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, December 12, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Classroom 122, Northampton High School, 380 Elm Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Susan Carbin, John Body and Wendy Sweetser. Members absent: Frank Fournier, Matt Nowak and Joanne Montgomery. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation on a Request for Determination filed by Kerry O’Brien c/o Land Solutions to confirm a wetland delineation for property located on Easthampton Road, Map ID 44-40. McPherson explained that the applicant has requested a continuance because they are discussing possible options with Natural Heritage. Carbin moved to continue the hearing to January 23, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:45 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by David McCutcheon c/o Charles Dauchy to determine whether the area and proposed work is subject to the Wetland Protection Act for property located on Sylvester Road, Map ID 28-14. David McCutcheon, 41 Loudville Road presented the application. He explained the plans that indicate the 200’ buffer and requested that the Commission approve the delineation. Maronn asked if the work proposed would be 200’ away from the edge of the stream. McCutcheon responded that Charles Dauchy recommended that they measure 200’ from the edge of the swamp, which is actually more conservative than measuring from the mean annual high water line. 1 No one from the public was present to discuss this application. Hearing no further comments, Body moved to close the public hearing. Carbin seconded. Maronn read the recommendations listed in the staff report. Carbin moved to issue a negative determination, checking box 1. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. AT 5:50 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Joseph Curran c/o New England Environmental to confirm a wetland delineation and determine whether work proposed is subject to the Wetland Protection Act for property located on Lawn Avenue, Map ID 24D-21. Carol Frost of New England Environmental presented the application. She explained the delineation to the Commission and indicated on the plans, the location of the house. Also, she informed the Commission of the presence of beavers in the area. Frost described the proposed work (to remove a porch and greenhouse) and stated that all work would be outside of the 50’ buffer. She explained that a silt fence would be placed next to the driveway. Joe Curran explained the proposed work and responded to questions from the Commission. Hearing no further comments or questions, Sweetser moved to close the public hearing. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read the recommendations listed in the staff report. Body moved to issue a negative determination, checking box 3. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Winter Street Update Karen Bellavance-Grace discussed a letter submitted to the Commission highlighting her concerns about flooding in her neighborhood and the beaver dam on Winter Street potentially making the situation worse. Maronn asked Bellavance-Grace if she is in support of diverting the water from the beaver dam back into the drainage channel. 2 Bellavance-Grace stated that she is unsure of what her options are. Maronn explained that one option could be the removal of the beavers from the area. He discussed the rights of the property owners in the area. Bellavance-Grace discussed her concern that the water that has been diverted into the sanitary sewers will eventually be diverted into her neighborhood after the sewer manholes are sealed. Maronn explained that DPW couldn’t go on private property to work on these problems. He discussed several other options that the neighborhood can do to avoid the removal of the beavers. It was suggested that the neighborhood get together and place sandbags to encourage the diversion of the water away from private property and toward the culvert under the bike path. Jim Crisinski discussed his frustrations with the situation. Body volunteered to speak with some of the landowners in the area in hopes of resolving the issues. Wayne Feiden was recognized. He explained some possible zoning changes to the Commission and submitted a packet to the members for their review. At 6:45 P.M., there was a discussion regarding the survey for the fairgrounds that was received indicating a net gain of 3 cubic yards of fill. Maronn suggested that staff write a letter to Huntley explaining that the fairgrounds must remove 3 cubic yards of gravel as well as provide an explanation as to why sand was brought in without proper notice. At 6:55 P.M., there was a discussion of forest cutting plans and sites and whether there are any wetlands or vernal pools. Body would like to look into having a forester come in to explain what the forest cutting plans are about. Maronn suggested the regional forester (Carmen) would most likely be happy to come in and speak with the Commission. At 7:10 P.M., there was a discussion regarding the USGS monitoring station on the Mill River at the State Hospital. McPherson explained that the USGS would like to demolish the building with the help of the Department of Public Works. It was recommended that if the structure were left in place, it would avoid disturbing the steep slope by the river. Members of the Commission agreed and added that USGS or DPW should remove the cables that are lying on the ground near the structure. At 7:15 P.M., there was a discussion regarding a wetland violation on Park Hill Road where fill, potentially from a Mass Highway job, was dumped within the buffer to a BVW and the riverfront area. McPherson noted that the land was within an APR, and as 3 4 such, Ravenwold Farm is not allowed to accept fill for payment. This issue had been discussed with the farmer this summer. Body moved to issue an Enforcement Order with a $100 fine. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:20 P.M., McPherson updated the Commission regarding Clear Falls and Mr. Crescione’s decision to not have swimming anymore. The Commission agreed that Mr. Crescione should leave the gates open at all times in order to leave the river in its natural state thereby requiring an amendment to the existing Order of Conditions. At 7:27 P.M., Body asked if the Commission would like to co-sponsor two winter hikes with the Recreation Department. Carbin asked if the Commission would also like to co- sponsor the upcoming vernal pool community talk in Leeds. Body suggested inviting Brandon Abbott to the Conservation Commission hearing on February 13th to discuss the vernal pool study he conducted for the City. Sweetser moved to co-sponsor the events discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:31 P.M., Carbin moved to adjourn. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously.