2001_Conservation_Commission
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meetings January 4, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, January 4, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in Hearing Room
18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Michael Reed, Joanne Montgomery, Jim Kaplan (note 7:16 arrival), William Rosen
and Allan Doe (note 7:06 p.m. arrival). Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 7:03 p.m., Maronn opened the meeting. Minutes. Members talked about approving
minutes discussed at the last meeting. There were some changes to be noted. Page three, second paragraph, next to last sentence should read 2 1/2” higher. Also page 12, last paragraph
should be corrected. Mike Reed moved to accept the minutes. Joanne Montgomery seconded it. The motion passed unanimously 5:0 At 7:07 p.m., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public
Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Valley Community Development Corporation for construction of a stormwater detention basin and outlet and portions of a parking area associated
with the construction of a multi-family affordable housing structure for property located on Michelman Avenue, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 32C, Parcel 141. Work will take
place within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Charles Dauchy, an Environmental Consultant, spoke about the progress of the project. A file number from DEP had been received
with no comment. Upon no further questions, Bill Rosen motioned to close the Public Hearing. Mike Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously 5:0. At 7:10 p.m., Carolyn Misch spoke
about the Certificate of Compliance submitted for Robert Borowski on a residential lot on Audubon Road, Map 10, Parcel 18.
Carolyn explained that the Commission had previously granted a partial Certificate of Compliance for the house that was constructed on site, but the pool was not constructed until recently.
The owners are now requesting a full Certificate of Compliance in order to close-out this project. Berkshire Design submitted as-builts indicating that construction was in substantial
compliance. Michael Reed moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Bill Rosen seconded. Joanne Montgomery abstained. At 7:15 p.m., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Request for
Determination filed by the Northampton Recreation Department to confirm the delineation of wetland boundaries and determine whether the construction of athletic fields, a concession/restroom
building, play area, gravel parking and driveway, etc., will have an impact on any wetland resource for property located at Burts Pit Road, also known as Assessor’s Map 38A, Parcel 30.
Peter Wells, from Berkshire Design Group began the discussion by informing the Commission Commission he was present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Six months ago, he
was hired to design one soccer field and two softball fields. Wells explained the map and in addition, he showed the buffer lines, parking, picnic area and restroom/storage concession
building. Wells said the site has sewer and water access and good drainage characteristics. Also, the site has relatively flat grades. Wells furthered discussed several different benefits
to this project. Wells informed the Commission that wetland flagging had been done earlier by another consultant. The Plan calls for a gravel parking lot, in which runoff will be treated
through a series of catch basins and an infiltration system. Peter Wells then showed the Commission a series of photographs indicating where the proposed project would take place. Michael
Reed asked about the slope as it approached the buffer zone, and he also asked about tree removal. Wells replied that no tree removal within twenty five feet of the one hundred foot
foot buffer zone would occur, and that the project would, in fact, keep away from existing tree stands. Wells informed the Commission that this project would take 2 ½ to 3 months to
build and that the Department of Public Works would be assisting in order to cut down on the cost. Bill Rosen asked about plowing the parking lot in the winter. Wells replied that the
lot would not be plowed in the winter. 2
Reed asked if the Commission had already approved the line. Misch said she was not sure if the line had been approved. Jim Kaplan asked if the fields would be used in the winter. Wells
replied that they would not be used; however, they would also not be closed. At that time, a few ideas were brought to the Commission’s attention for winter use of the proposed fields.
Ed Tessier, of 50 Rust Avenue, an abutter, had some concerns as a conservationist regarding catch basins that may need to be serviced. He was concerned about herbicides and pesticides
being present along with grass growing. Tessier wondered if there was funding in the budget to maintain these traps. Maronn clarified that the Conservation Commission had jurisdiction
only if it effects the 100 foot buffer zone. Bill Rosen informed the Commission that the city does not usually use many pesticides. It was discussed how fertilizer would be part of the
initial placement. Bill Rosen commented that the effects of pesticide used to grow corn (currently) currently) may be worse than that used on the grass in the future. Maronn commented
that all work is being done outside the buffer zone. Frank Emery, of 44 Rust Avenue, an abutter, questioned whether designs could be modified to place core activities away from adjacent
properties. He also had concerns surrounding the fact that this project was trying to cram an awful lot into a small space. Maronn clarified that the Commission’s jurisdiction was only
on wetland issues. At this time Maronn arranged a site visit which was set up for Saturday, January 6th at 9:00 a.m. with Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, and Allan Doe all agreeing
to be present. Bill Rosen moved that the Commission continue this until the 18th of January at 7:15 p.m. Allan Doe seconded. The motion was passed unanimously 6:0 Misch spoke about a
forest cutting plan for North Farms Road. At this time, she passed the proposal around to the Commission. There were no concerns. At 7:55 p.m., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public
Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Mark Bernstein and Susan Carbin to stabilize and repair a steep and eroded section of bank behind a single-family home to prevent potential collapse
for property located at 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 10B, Parcel 58. Resource areas affected include Land Under Water, Bank and Riverfront Area.
3
Carolyn Misch notified the Commission that Bernstein and Carbin requested more time through a letter submitted by Huntley Associates. Maronn read the letter and indicated that the applicants
were seeking financial resources to fund the project. Allan Doe moved to continue to February 15, at 6:00 p.m. Bill Rosen seconded. The motion passed unanimously 6:0 At 8:02 p.m., Maronn
opened the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Valley Aggregates to restore approximately 30,000 square feet of upland buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), restore
approximately 1,000 square feet of BVW, and propose sediment and erosion control plans for the ongoing upland site work related to the quarry operation for property located on Turkey
Hill Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 34, Parcel 2 and 4. Mickey Marcus, Wetland Scientist, Ron Dahle and Jonathan Souweine were present to discuss the issues. Marcus began
the discussion by stating that this was an “interactive process” and he also explained what other information that needs to be gathered. Marcus discussed that they were looking at this
project in two pieces. One piece is compliance and the other is mitigation and sediment control. These two pieces of the project require: 1) Looking at quarrying impact, and 2) Erosion/sediment
control plan which is proposed to be movable, not fixed. Upon review, Marcus has determined that there are 1,000 square feet of BVW where sediment has had an impact, and 30,000 square
feet of upland buffer which was cleared without a permit. Marcus wanted to address the restorations and to make certain that all future work will be in compliance. Marcus explained access
and where sedimentation has disturbed an area of at least 1,000 square feet . Marcus recommended leaving old sediment alone where shrubs have begun to grow through the sediment. Marcus
also explained how he felt replanting should take place in the spring. He recommended pulling out sediment by hand downstream from the access road. He also thought that this area in
the 100 foot buffer zone should be replanted. Marcus thought the work should be done sometime between April 15th and June 15th. Marcus wanted to clearly define all the wetlands in the
buffer zone. He also wanted to ensure that no work in the future will be done in this zone. 4
Some ideas were discussed as to suggestions on how to correctly mark this buffer zone. Marcus offered to bring in some photos of some proposed suggestions, however, he added that he
would like something more permanent than spray paint. Maronn questioned what type of marking did Marcus have in mind. Marcus suggested the North Andover tagging system, which consisted
of plastic tags. Maronn told him that he would have to bring some examples in for the Commission to review. Marcus suggested that he would provide more options at the next meeting. Allan
Doe stated that he felt a more permanent sediment control barrier would be necessary because hay bales and silt fence will deteriorate over time. Doe asked about alternatives, such as
a curb/berm. Marcus directed the Commission to erosion control measures for upland areas on page ten of the Notice of Intent. Marcus then discussed various strategies outlined in the
report. He explained how sand and gravel operations are a changing configuration. There are some drainage changes, and Marcus proposed that an engineer go out to the site once a month
(during the operation season) and decide when and where these features should be put in place. After the engineer has been out to the site, the engineer would then report any findings
back to the Commission. Maronn inquired about what would be done to protect the stream during restoration. Marcus thought that the hay bale barrier could stay. Reed suggested that a
generic management plan for operations could address the following: 1) Permanent erosion control, and 2) Overall plan of operation. Maronn asked if there was an overall management plan
for future work. In addition, Maronn also inquired if the phases were identified. Maronn asked if this was going to be done in pieces (area to area) and if there was a plan to do this
proposed work. It was discussed how some communities require areas to be fully seeded and settled before moving onto other areas. Marcus told him that he would look into it. 5
Marcus raised the issue of the cart road, which is another disturbed area. Marcus wondered if the Conservation Commission would want this area restored even though this was not caused
by quarry operations. It appears that all terrain vehicles have been running through this area. Marcus would like to take a site walk to show Commission members what has been going on.
Attorney Jonathan Souweine had some concerns about closing the road. Marcus thought that it would be appropriate to give the Commission a revised plan. Misch reminded Marcus that we
would need an accurate survey showing all abutters together with detailed sheets on everything that is being proposed. Maronn clarified that maps at 1”-50’ are required. Rosen questioned
about comments from DEP. Marcus said that there were no comments. Maronn asked about the wetland at the quarry. He inquired about a “small seep” to the adjoining property. Marcus wondered
how the Commission wanted this addressed. He stated that he did not think that this was jurisdictional under the Federal or State Wetland Protection Act. Marcus furthered explained that
he had not looked at this for vernal pool habitat. Joanne Montgomery asked if this was not part of his duty in connection with the submittal of the Notice of Intent. Marcus responded
positively. However, he said he had been there in the fall. In addition, he felt that it was not conducive to vernal pool habitat because of proximity to rock face. John Skibiski, of
Turkey Hill Road, an abutter, discussed that he could no longer drive his vehicle up in that area without scraping the bottom of his Jeep. Skibiski wondered if there would be any type
of reconstruction of the road here. He is having a hard time reaching his property because of the difficult time he is having getting over the hump on Turkey Hill Road. Maronn reminded
Skibiski about the wetland issues, and that the Commission could only hear those issues. Skibiski reworded the question in order for it to address the appropriate issues. Maronn informed
Skibiski that as far as he knew there were no plans to regrade this area and that it is a public way. Skibiski reminded members that prior to this issue, this road was useable. Again,
the Commission members tried to direct Mr. Skibiski to the correct Board. 6
Fred Mailloux, of 70 Turkey Hill Road had a question regarding the berm crossing at Turkey Hill Road. Paul Davis, of Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. submitted a letter to the
Commission. He felt that restoration was reasonable, and in fact, erosion control and sedimentation removal looked good. However, some concerns that he had were: The scope of the project.
He felt that if this were a new project, far more scrutiny would be paid to potential impacts. He furthered inquired if the impacts had been fully evaluated. He suggested that that the
Commission broaden the scope on past infractions, such as potential road widening. Also, he questioned if the jurisdictional areas had been fully identified. A 1997 a vintage photo was
looked at and there was much more vegetation then is now shown. He thought the activity had been increased in the last two years. In regards to the second crossing area, (vernal pool
area) Davis was not sure of this area’s past history. He thought that it may have had wetland value prior to the disturbance. He further commented on the fact that the proposal only
presumes that drainage is going into one discharge area. He wondered about historical disturbance (within last 3 years) and added that the wetlands may have, in fact, been disturbed.
He spoke about his concerns and the fact that the wetland impacts were not defined well enough. The first crossing had indicated recent vegetation disturbance (possibly road widening)
Lastly he thought that the Commission should look more carefully at the vernal pool. Joanne Bessette, of 228 Sylvester Road informed the Commission of some background information on
blasting. She said that from 1992-1993 there were no blasts. However in 1999 things began to change. She spoke to the Commission about the ground water at the base of the quarry. She
shared the following concerns with the Commission: 1) Well water impacts; 2) Environmental impact of truck traffic and hydraulic oil and chemicals from blast, and 3) Aquatic life should
be studied. Joanne further commented that Doug Kohl’s property, which contained wetlands, has been impacted. Kevin Robertson, 6 Turkey Hill Road commented to the Commission regarding
the layout of the mountains, and how this area was in fact, quite unique. 7
Paul Foster Moore, Turkey Hill Road asked the Commission if they were convinced of animal life, what impact would that knowledge have on any decisions that need to be made. Maronn told
him that there would need to be certain species of tadpoles present. Foster also questioned what jurisdiction would be in place if this was deemed a vernal pool. Foster wanted to know
who would check on this. Maronn informed him that Valley Aggregates would check on this. At this time, there was some discussion and concerns regarding the timeline and what date this
issue should be continued. Montgomery said for the record that she did not want to delay it again, and that in good faith she felt that the deadline had not been met. Doe moved to continue
to 6 p.m. on February 1, 2001. Jim Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously 6:0 Review of Vernal Pools on Beaver Brook At 10:00 p.m., Maronn recognized George Cohout of Leeds who
wanted to discuss vernal pools. Cohout wanted to ensure the Conservation Commission that vernal vernal pools do exist. Dan Keith, Leonard Street (an abutter) had some concerns regarding
proposed sewer line going through his property. He wants to protect the area but is not opposed to the construction. He simply wanted to make sure that the Commission had all the necessary
information. He submitted, for the record, the data collected as part of the Vernal Pool Certification process. Keith then told the Commission that they had his permission to go on the
property for delineation purposes. Maronn thanked him. Review of Preliminary Subdivision Plans-Beaverbrook Estates Mark Reed, Heritage Surveys told the Commission that he was here tonight
to informally meet with the Commission regarding the subdivision. He then reviewed the plans for the Commission. Reed showed how there would no longer be a need for the proposed sewer
line across wetlands because the plans had changed to incorporate the sewer line under the proposed road and connect with the sewer line on Grove Avenue. Maronn had concerns about crossing
wetlands to access some of the lots. Kaplan questioned if the wetlands would be left the way that they are. 8
9 Reed responded yes. On plan two, the lot sizes are smaller which he, in fact, did not recommend. The road layout was the same. There would be 48 homes on this plan; however, by the
City standards, you could fit 60 homes in this area. This plan is second in order of preference. Misch said that the Planning Board would select the best alternative. Reed explained
that plan three, showed a “cluster development” with a gravel driveway at the end of the main cul-de-sac to be used for emergency purposes as well as for access to three flag lots. This
plan shows 44 lots and the lots would be larger. In his opinion, this plan was most desirable. Maronn wanted to know if the utilities would have to be looped. Reed said in all 3 plans,
the utilities are identical. Misch had a comment regarding a public access agreement. Reed confirmed that they would be willing to do this. Reed also explained where this proposed access
road would be. Maronn requested that the Commission have 11 x 17 size plans in order to review the subdivision proposal more carefully. He felt the Commission members needed time to
individually evaluate the proposed subdivision before making an official recommendation to the Planning Board. Reed offered to accommodate this request. Michael Reed moved to continue
to January 18, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. Joanne Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously 6:0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:51 p.m.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting January 18, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, January 18, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing Room
18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, Mike Reed and Allan Doe. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch
and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:29 p.m., Maronn opened the meeting with the Continuation of Discussion on a Preliminary Subdivision Plan by the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust (John
J. Hanley) 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 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. Mark Reed, Heritage Surveys, Inc. began the discussion by submitting
three new plans for the Commission to review. Reed discussed each plan and outlined the proposed changes. Alternative Plan 1 In the first plan, Maronn had some concerns surrounding the
detention basins. He thought that the detention basins were far to close to the wetlands. He also had some additional questions regarding detention basin E. Maronn questioned some aspects
of lot one. He asked about the access because it looked difficult to reach and it appeared to have a fairly steep slope. On lot two, Maronn asked about the location of the proposed house,
and if the house would be in the buffer zone. Maronn had some questions regarding the easement between lots 9 and 10.
2 Maronn inquired about the house on lot 5 and wondered if it was completely in the buffer zone. He further asked if the City would own the vernal pool lot and detention basin, or if
the land owner would own it. Reed replied that it would most likely be owned through an association. Maronn had a some additional questions in connection with lot 4. Lastly, Maronn commented
that plan one does not show any replication areas. Montgomery had some comments regarding the Route 9 crossing. Montgomery thought that we should look at another alternative. She also
had some concerns in connection to raising a structure up over the wetlands. Maronn asked if there were any other comments. There were none. Alternative Plan 2 In the second plan, Maronn
had the same concerns as he did in plan one in relation to the detention areas and the proposed crossing. However, he commented that in this plan the houses appeared to be outside of
the buffer zone. Reed replied that there would be some lots within the buffer zone; however, the shaded areas shown on the plan are, in fact, outside the buffer zone. Maronn commented
that he liked the protection for the vernal pool located on the other side of Grove Avenue in this proposed plan. Reed said that he was aware of the vernal pool on the property owned
by Mr. Keith. Reed informed the Commission that the proposed sewer line which was in the last set of plans, had been eliminated. Maronn asked if there were any other comments. There
were none. Alternative Plan 3 In the third plan, Maronn again had some concerns surrounding the detention basins and the wetland crossing. Allan Doe raised some issues surrounding the
common driveway. Maronn said that the Commission would like the common driveway to be located out of the buffer zone. Maronn thought that this plan gave more open space around the buffer
zone, with the exception of lot 37.
3 Joanne Montgomery questioned some of the back property lines. She was concerned if some of these property lines were entering into the buffer zone. Maronn said that there would need
to be restrictions regarding the property lines in connection with the buffer zone. Misch suggested a “no build line” 100 feet from buffer zone. Maronn said this could added as a restriction
that would be included in the Order of Conditions. Maronn informed Mark Reed that he would have to go before the Commission with the proposal for a crossing. Misch suggested that an
alternative to a bridge crossing could be a narrower culvert crossing at the wetlands. Reed also informed the Commission that the sidewalks had been minimized in order to decrease the
amount of impact to the wetlands at this location. Montgomery inquired about the possibility of reducing the pavement to 22 feet. Reed said that by reducing the pavement to that extent,
plowing might be a little tough. Montgomery asked if the streets would be public. Marron replied that eventually it would. Maronn asked if there were any additional comments. There were
none. Marron had the following recommendations for the Planning Board: • The wetland crossing proposed from Route 9 into the subdivision should be constructed with a bridge to minimize
wetland impacts. • If the applicant does not construct a bridge, the culverts should be oversized and the paved width of road should be reduced from 26’ to 22’ or 24’, with as narrow
as possible sidewalk and gabion wall structure. • Any wetland reduction will require wetland replication of 115%. This replication area should be shown on the definitive plan, if applicable.
• Detention Basins should be drawn and designed so that a grass swale from the outlet control structure is the only portion of the facility within the wetland buffer. Any outlet should
flow through a swale before entering the wetland area. • A 100’ buffer line should be drawn around all Vernal Pools shown on the plan. • No disturbance should occur within this 100’
buffer buffer of the Vernal Pools. • Permanent “no build” bounds should be placed along the 100’ buffer of the Vernal Pools. Lot 37 is of particular concern. • Subdivision plan alternative
number 3, (open space cluster with flag lots) may do a better job of protecting the Vernal Pool located adjacent to lot 37. • The common driveway shown on alternative number 3 should
be shifted so that no portion of the driveway, grass strip or any other area to be disturbed falls within 100’ of this vernal pool.
4 • All building envelopes for house construction should be outside the 100’ buffer. Lawn area should not encroach within the 50’ buffer of wetlands. • All lots that have property boundaries
that fall within the 100’ buffer should contain language in the deeds indicating that no disturbance is allowed within 100’ of wetlands or Riverfront Area without permits from the Conservation
Commission. • The Commission generally feels that the tighter radius of the proposed Grove Avenue extension protects the Vernal Pool and surrounding habitat and would recommend that
the Planning Board waive the radius requirements for this street. • If sewer easements shown off of the Grove Avenue cul-de-sac are no longer contemplated, they should be taken off the
plans. • Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in alternative #1 should not be considered buildable without providing more detail about building envelopes and Riverfront encroachment. Maronn asked for
a motion to send these comments to the Planning Board. Joanne Montgomery moved to submit these comments to the Planning Board. Michael Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously 4:0.
Misch asked the Commission to consider a permanent change for the meetings to 6 p.m., instead of the current 7 p.m. Also, Misch suggested limiting all future applicants to a thirty minute
presentation. Misch further suggested that as soon as new applications come in, staff will notify each City Councillor before the agenda is set and before the legal ads are published
defining the times. Allan Doe moved to adopt these new suggestions. Joanne Montgomery seconded it. The motion passed unanimously. 4:0. Misch passed out correspondence to the Commission
regarding the Pioneer Wetland festival, which is being held during the month of May. Misch told the members that the Commission has been invited to attend and participate. The festival
organizers would like the Commission to set up a showcase detailing the conservation areas that are located in Northampton. Misch asked if any of the members would like to participate.
Misch stated she would bring additional information regarding the festival for the Commission members to review. At 7:15 p.m., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a
Request for Determination filed by the Northampton Recreation Department to confirm the
5 delineation of wetland boundaries and determine whether the construction of athletic fields, a concession/restroom building, play area, gravel parking and driveway, etc., will have
an impact on any wetland resource for property located at Burts Pit Road, also known as Assessor’s Map 38A, Parcel 30. Maronn said that he, Montgomery and Doe were satisfied with the
location of the flags and the site when they visited on Saturday, January 6, 2001. Allan Doe moved to close the Public Hearing. Michael Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously 4:0.
Maronn said that the work is within the buffer zone. Maronn recommended checking Box # 2A and Box # 3. Joanne Montgomery moved to issue a negative determination for work and positive
for flagging and location of buffer on a portion of the site check Box #2A and Box #3. Allan Doe seconded. The motion passed unanimously 4:0. Peter Wells informed the Commission of another
resource area he located while performing work for another client. After flagging wetlands on a site on Westhampton Road, north of the landfill, he discovered a spotted turtle and noted
that there was still water in the vernal pool within the area. He felt the Commission should be aware of this finding. Order
of Conditions for Valley CDC Misch recommended to approve the Order of Conditions with the first 24 conditions. Maronn asked Misch if she thought if it would be necessary to keep a wetland
scientist on board. Misch thought it would not. Maronn asked if there were any other conditions to discuss. There were none. Joanne Montgomery moved to issue the orders as discussed.
Allan Doe seconded. The motion passed unanimously 4:0. Misch showed the Commission the new map in the meeting room from the City’s GIS system showing all the wetland resources. She explained
the map and pointed out some of the different areas of the map. Misch told the Commission that she would try to enlarge the map in order to have a better view of it. Allan Doe motioned
to adjourn the meeting. Joanne Montgomery seconded. The motion motion passed unanimously 4:0. At 7:42 the meeting was adjourned.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meetings February 1, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, February 1, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing
Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair C. Mason Maronn,, Joanne Montgomery, Mike Reed and Allan Doe. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn
Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:01 Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Valley Aggregates to restore approximately 30,000 square
feet of upland buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), restore approximately 1,000 square feet of BVW, and propose sediment and erosion control plans for the ongoing upland
site work related to the quarry operation for property located on Turkey Hill Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 34, Parcel 2 and 4. Mickey Marcus, New England Environmental,
Inc. began the discussion by addressing the issues to continued from at the last meeting. He spoke about the two aspects of the proposed project as well as the alteration of the buffer
zone and alteration of the BVW. He said he was hopeful that the aspect of alteration of the buffer zone and BVW could be voted on tonight. At that time, he directed the Commission to
discuss the plan for the restoration process. Marcus spoke about the fact that there has been recent work within the buffer zone without a permit. He also mentioned that he wanted to
pull out the sediment during the spring by hand. Marcus discussed the slope, and he thought that the entire buffer zone could be re-planted, re-seeded and restored. Marcus told the Commission
members that he thought the final number of 30,000 square feet of upland buffer was slightly larger than what he first thought. He discussed the sedimentation and control plan. He suggested
that the Commission keep the haybale barriers present; however, he also spoke about placing a low berm in order to have something more permanent. Permanent Wetland Markers Attorney Jonathan
Souweine raised the issue of marking the buffer zone.
2 Marcus brought in a few examples of some markers. He told the Commission that the plastic markers could display any written information the Commission thought was necessary. Marron
asked where these markers could be placed. Marcus said he thought that the trees would be a good place to attach the markers. Montgomery wondered if the area would have adequate trees
to place these markers. She also questioned if the idea of marking the trees would go into the formal plan. Reed suggested that the markers be a bright orange color or place the markers
in a highly visible in areas where big machinery may be present. Montgomery thought that one suggestion could be to place the markers close to each other. Marcus thought that the buffer
zone could be flagged prior to placing the markers. Then after this area is flagged, the Commission could determine whether or not the flagged area would be reasonable. Mitigation/Sedimentation
Rosen questioned how the sediment should get pulled out of the area surrounding the first first crossing. Marcus replied that he thought it should be done by using wheelbarrows and shovels.
He thought that there was recent sediment which could get pulled out with little disturbance. Doe asked about the berm. Maronn said that Marcus will be bringing in some details and examples
for the Commission to look at. Paul Davis, of Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. asked the Commission if they had made a final determination regarding the road into the adjacent
wetlands. Davis said that he believed that there were some new disturbed areas. The Commission could require that a pre-existing condition be established in order to determine if the
road had been widened illegally. Marcus commented that he was not sure how recent the disturbance occurred or if in fact the road had been widened. Marcus suggested an erosion control
blanket could be placed on the side slopes to protect the wetland. Reed wondered if the effect of moving sediments from the resource area will lower the grade and thus encourage more
growth. Marcus said that this area is all sand and gravel and that most likely not much will grow.
3 Reed asked if Marcus had a plans for future restoration for this area. Marcus said that the plans for restoration are discussed in the Notice of Intent. Marcus said that he thought
this restoration plan is minimal, and that he was certain that more areas would be discovered. However, he was sure that the Commission would not sign off, unless they were satisfied.
Marcus reminded the Commission that the intent was to come to a suitable restoration. This plan includes all the areas which need to be restored. He believed that the only complicated
issue would be the issue of old sediment. Doe asked Paul Davis how he thought this process would be different. Davis replied that he thought some probing should be done to check the
extent of past violations. He thought that this might require the total restoration and replication area to be increased. In addition, the determination of the status of the Vernal Pool
in the spring may require an increase in total replication. Marcus thought that this was a fine idea; however, he had some issues that he could not respond to at this time. Marcus reminded
the Commission about the neighbors speaking about another wetland (roadside wetland) he thought that the Commission could address this issue next spring. Davis questioned the prospect
of any disturbed site being colonized by aggressive/invasive species. Mason said he was not sure of that. Marcus said that there were no obvious species. Watershed Characteristics Davis
mentioned that he thought that the second crossing and vernal pool area should be added to the overall restoration plan. Also, Davis had one other comment about the crossing area being
designated as perennial or intermittent stream. He said that residents have indicated that the amount of water has decreased over the years. Basically part of the watershed was being
excavated by the quarrying and thought that this may be affecting/changing the water flow in this area . A full drainage calculation and analysis should be part of the Notice of Intent.
He asked the Commission to look into this, both now and in the future. Davis believes that there would be some long term effects. Maronn asked Davis if he was inferring that aquatic
macroinvertebrates should be checked. Davis affirmed this and said that a review of the watershed divides and changes in these over the last several years should be evaluated. IN addition
future changes based on proposed work should be analyzed. Montgomery asked if these requests would be considered normal for the Notice of Intent or does the Commission need to make a
special request.
4 Marcus suggested a quarry is a changing landscape and therefore he has recommended a monthly inspection or monitoring in order to evaluate changes and effects on the restoration. Souweine
passed out some information regarding past and present blasting. He said that the blasting has gone up and down depending on the demand. Mostly, he wanted to tell the Commission that
Valley Aggregates will fix what is broken. He said that if the Commission wants something different, the Commission should let him know. His hope was that the Commission would give a
vote on how to restore this area. He was concerned about the comments from Mr. Davis, However, he wanted to stay on the issues at hand. He thought that there was no basis to justify
what happened years ago that we should get on to the other issues. Souweine further said that if the Commission wanted him to collect more data to fix the things that are being addressed,
he would be happy to do this. Maronn said that the Commission was not going to vote on this and close out a portion of this restoration. Maronn said that new information to supplement
the Notice of Intent was just passed out tonight and that there are issues that cannot be addressed until spring. Souweine said that he did not hear any thing that would impede the restoration
of this area. Doe wondered if we could sign off on the Notice of Intent if the whole plan was not complete. He said that there is vernal pool and other things that cannot be evaluated
until spring. Souweine thought that phase two is not ready. However, phase one could be done and could make a good impact if it were complete. He was concerned about running out of time
for phase one. Doe questioned the need for two different Notice of Intents. Maronn thought that the restoration work could be done without another Notice of Intent. Marcus said that
as soon as winter is over, possibly April, the area could be seeded. Marcus said that there is a process that is involved and if we wait any longer it may hinder this process. Because
they need to retain contractors in place. Marcus said that he did not think the restoration plan had changed. His recommendation is that the Commission have this plan implemented and
at least get one aspect of the project done. He believed that the other parts of the project are going to be more difficult. Reed wanted to know if an Order of Conditions would be involved
5 Montgomery did not think that phase one (restoration plan) was complete and ready to be voted on. Marcus said that just the restoration end of project one could be started. He wants
to move forward. Even though there is no final restoration plan, he wanted to flag the buffer zone so that the Commission could review them. Joanne Bessette, of 228 Sylvester Road did
not think that the blasting information was accurate. She said that she had an affidavit regarding the blasting from Westfield Sand and Gravel. Maronn asked Bessette for that information.
Davis commented that the amount of material that is moved in a blast varies. Bessette raised the issue of truck traffic. Maronn informed her that the Commission can only discuss how
the truck traffic is going to effect the crossing. Davis thought that the truck traffic was an issue. He thought that this was a result of some of the impacts. Councillor Marianne LeBarge
spoke and told the Commission that she has data in connection to these issues. Maronn asked her to give that to the Commission. She said she would be happy to. Marcus said that at the
last meeting, the Commission wanted a newer plan. He was submitting a revised plan with updated property lines and adjacent abutters. Marcus then discussed the rest of the project. He
explained the buffer zone, the intermittent stream and a small drainage channel. He was not sure if it was a little channel or not. He thought that he was going to have to leave the
additional wetland areas alone until the spring. Expansion Plans Marcus said that the projections are to expand the quarry by one acre per year. Montgomery wondered if there was a certain
time limit of years that the quarry would be expanding. Marcus further explained this revised plan to the Commission. Montgomery again inquired about the additional acre a year proposal.
Souweine said that the estimate of five years was discussed because it seemed to be a reasonable number. Montgomery further asked if such an expansion would impact the overall characteristics
of of the watershed.
6 Marcus thought that the maximum period allowed for a Commission to grant a maintenance agreement under the Act was five years. The perimeter road was about five acres and he thought
that this was a good starting place. He said that at some point, possibly three or five years, the Commission could look back and see what has been done. He then mentioned that possibly
a new Notice of Intent would need to be filed. Marcus passed out an expansion plan for the next five years. Carolyn Misch asked if the expansion would go beyond the perimeter road. Marcus
clarified that the expansion would be six acres on top of the proposed five acres previously discussed. Montgomery inquired whether or not the expansion plan addressed impacts to the
Vernal Pool area. Marcus said that it did not. He could not make a recommendation on how to address this area, until Spring. As soon as he can determine this status, then the area could
be addressed in the plan based upon whether this area falls under Federal, State or local jurisdiction. Maronn wanted to know if Marcus wanted to discuss the expansion plan further and
if the plan were going to address hydraulics. Marcus said hydraulics would not be addressed because of the distance between the operation area and the BVW and he had no further comments.
Maronn reminded Marcus that if the expansion affects the wetlands than the Commission would want to discuss it. Marcus said that there are measures included in the updated information
that had been passed out. Misch thought that what was included in the Notice of Intent is quite generic. She felt that the Commission would have to see more information before a determination
could be made. She believed that the size requirements would have to be reviewed. Marcus said the location of these sedimentation controls are not on the map because the operation of
Valley Aggregates is constantly changing. Because of the changes, the location of the detention facilities will have to change on a regular basis. Marcus thought that Valley Aggregates
should have someone go out there and report back to the Commission once a month. Marcus said that there is no work proposed in the wetland or buffer zone. The idea is to keep the work
out of these areas. Montgomery asked how Marcus planned to document this. Maronn said that someone would have to report back to the Commission once a month. Marcus brought up the issues
of the check dams and that he thought someone should go in there and make sure that the plans are being implemented. Davis thought that the mobile erosion control plan was appropriate.
However, he thought that he could be more specific to the conditions on which type of erosion control could be set in place under various scenarios. He did not agree with Marcus on the
enforcement. He was concerned about the changes to the watershed. Davis felt that the watershed was
7 going to change over time and that something should be put in place to prevent negative impacts. Davis thought that the Commission should also address the watershed issues. Bessette
said that if the Commission was interested in knowing what has happened since 1996, the Commission could find out by requesting the data on the expansion and in turn the Commission could
find out the amount of rock which was produced. Maronn was interested in knowing what changes are going to occur to the wetland resource areas due to changes in drainage resulting from
the planned expansion Souweine inquired if in fact this was in the jurisdiction of the Commission, since activities are outside the 100’ buffer of BVW. Maronn wondered if there are already
changes that have occurred. Souweine said that the Commission couldn’t rely solely on what some neighbors have said. Souweine said that the burden should be on the Commission to assess
impacts. Souweine said that he would give the Commission what it needs unless the law does not require them to. Reed affirmed that the Commission does have jurisdiction to review overall
drainage plans and characteristics of drainage flow before and after disturbance/project work. Souweine clarified that the Commission would be looking for current runoff versus projected
runoff based upon the planned blasting and expansion. Bessette questioned the depth of the excavation. She wondered if the excavation had changed the water table. She said that they
do not have town water that everyone has wells. Reed said that this is beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction. He told Bessette to direct her questions to the Board of Health. Paul Foster,
Turkey Hill Road wondered if the Commission needed to know the long term effects (50 years). Rosen stated that he did not think that the Commission could go that far into the future.
Souweine said that the projected numbers are estimates. However the numbers depended on the demand that was there. He reminded the Commission about the 1990’s when there was little demand.
Souweine said that if the economy keeps going these estimates are the best estimate that could be given. The numbers could be more or could be less. Montgomery wanted to know if the
five or six acres of projected expansion is the maximum amount. Souweine said that this is the best estimate as of right now. Souweine was not sure what the future numbers will be. Maronn
said that these matters will be continued to the next meeting on February 15, 2001 at 6:15 p.m.
8 Marcus asked if this should be continued to April or May. However, Maronn thought that it should be at next meeting, the Commission needed to review the new information submitted and
there might be some additional questions. Jim Kaplan moved to continue the Public Hearing to February 15, 2001 at 6:15 p.m. Mike Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:26
p.m., Maronn opened Informal Discussion of Compliance with Enforcement Order for David Short, Amherst Woodworking (at the corner of Industrial Drive and Bradford Street) Misch began
the discussion by going over some background information regarding how Mr. Short had just purchased the lot, and how he wanted to create some parking in this area. Misch also told the
Commission that because of an disturbance prior to Mr. Short purchasing this property, Mr. Short did not realize that there were some existing conditions which would need to be addressed.
David Short informed the Commission that he had opened in the current location in 1994. He also pointed out a road that he purchased from the City. He showed the Commission where the
lot lines are located and where the existing catch basins are. Mr. Short had purchased the second lot (subject of enforcement order) in October and removed some junk cars. He also repaired
the fence that had been damaged. David Short specified that Huntley Associates will be looking at the site He told the Commission that he had only excavated in order to get ground samples.
These samples, had in fact, come back clear. The extent of work, which he had done, was bringing some gravel in for a parking lot, and clearing some trees. Misch said that when she went
out to the site, she could clearly see that there had been some gravel work done. Misch also said that she and Wayne Feiden had discussed that the drainage and wetland issues needed
to be addressed before any parking lot could be approved. Maronn questioned the amount of compliance that has been done thus far. Short said that they have not yet moved the storage
trailer and most likely would not until the end of winter. Short asked the Commission to give him some indication of what additional work needs to be done. He also asked the Commission
where he needed to plan for restoration.
9 Maronn said that not much could be done until spring and that in the spring; the Commission could discuss future parking plans with Mr. Short. Maronn said if the wetlands are filled,
than that issue would have to be addressed. He further thought that in the spring a final recommendation could be discussed. Montgomery had a question about who was liable for the wetlands
if someone else had created a problem. Mason told Mr. Short that if the previous owner received a Certificate of Compliance he would not have to fix what the previous owner did. Mr.
Short was unsure about the restoration. Maronn also said that a wetland delineation would need to be done. Short asked if the back area is considered wetlands because he may have future
plans about putting a new building there. Maronn said that it would depend on where the wetland boundaries are on the piece of property he is considering. Lastly, Short wanted to ask
if this area could go back to parking as it had in the past. He informed the Commission that his employees are having a tough time finding available parking. Misch thought that parking
should not go all the way back; however, she thought that it would be fine to use the areas up to the post for parking. Maronn did not have a problem with this. Short also inquired about
plowing up to a certain point. Reed thought that a date should be set as a time limit that Mr. Short could use this area for parking. Short asked the Commission if he could use it until
May 1, 2001. Maronn suggested that the Commission agree to allow Mr. Short to use this area until April 1, 2001 and should he need additional time, this could be furthered discussed.
Montgomery also wanted to know how Mr. Short would control the men who are going to plow this back area. Short replied that he would tell the plowing company not to plow all the way
back. Doe motioned to allow parking in the back area until April 1, 2001. Rosen seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Deep Woods, 399 Bridge Road, Certificate of Compliance. Deep
woods requested requested a Certificate of Compliance. The only outstanding item was that they needed to submit a plan where permanent bounds are located.
10 Misch said she had been to the site on a number of occasions. There were originally problems with the detention basin in the front of the project. However, this one was out of the
jurisdiction of the Commission. Reed moved to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Doe seconded. Joanne Montgomery abstained. Susan Kohler Gray, 188 Hinkley Street, Certificate of Compliance.
Misch told the Commission that the Order of Conditions requires that an engineer sign off. Maronn asked if this was a basic driveway that went up to a lawn area. Maronn said that a few
neighbors had some concerns regarding drainage. Maronn said that he thought that Huntley had signed off by submitting a letter. Misch thought that an engineer needs to go out to the
site. Maronn did not have a problem with this. Doe moved that the Commission not issue a Certificate of Compliance. Rosen seconded The motion passed unanimously. Misch spoke to the members
of the Commission regarding the issues surrounding the Dekin Certificate of Compliance which had already been issued by the Commission. She informed the Commission that an Attorney had
questioned the dates that the certificate was issued, and the date the certificate is sent to the DEP. Misch told the Commission that in order to eliminate confusion between these two
dates, we have now added the line “date sent to DEP on all the future Certificates. Misch asked the Commission if they would be willing to re-issue another certificate for Dekin because
of the differences in the dates. Maronn did not want to re-issue this project. Reed agreed. Other Business. Misch asked the Commission if they wanted to do a site visit on the Boston
and Maine Railroad and Mass Highway Department. Both of these projects are being addressed at the next meeting. Maronn did not think that a site visit was necessary for either project.
Reed moved to adjourn the meeting. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting February 15, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, February 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing
Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, William Rosen, Mike Reed and Allan Doe. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch
and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:06 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Mark Bernstein and Susan Carbin to stabilize and repair
a steep and eroded section of bank behind a single-family home to prevent potential collapse for property located at 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map
10B, Parcel 58. Resource areas affected include Land Under Water, Bank and Riverfront Area. Maronn read a letter from Mr. Bernstein dated February 8, 2001 which addressed possible solutions
that the applicants are pursuing at this time. The letter outlined one suggestion regarding a a possible recreation area. The applicants have discussed this idea with Cynthia Williams
of the Planning Office, who is assisting the applicants with possible funding resources. The Commission discussed the possible solutions that the applicants are looking into. Reed asked
Misch if she thought that the applicants were making a serious attempt to resolve this issue. Misch told the Commission that she has not had a chance to discuss this idea with Cynthia
Williams since the letter. She said that it appears that the applicants are trying to find creative ways in dealing with the problem. Rosen asked what was the immediate effect on the
bank from the erosion.
Maronn said that the house is out of immediate danger at the moment. It has been secured with a type of beam. The concern is now the bank, he said. Misch told the Commission that nothing
has been done to mitigate the damage of the flow that hits the abutment. When spring comes, there may be a larger problem, she said. Rosen asked what the Commission thought would be
a reasonable time limit to wait in order to address this new concern. Misch suggested that another month may be sufficient. This would give the applicant more time to look into funding
sources. Due to time constraints, she has not been able to speak with Williams as of yet. Some discussion took place about the possible time lines concerning funding attempts. Maronn
suggested that the hearing be continued until next month. In the meantime, Misch should contact Brian Connor, from Huntley regarding the stabilization of the bank. Misch suggested that
the Commission ask Brian Connor to attend the next meeting to discuss both short and long term solutions to this issue. Rosen moved to continue the hearing until March 15, 2001 at 6:00
P.M. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously 4:0. At 6:16 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Valley Aggregates to restore approximately
30,000 square feet of upland buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), restore approximately 1,000 square feet of BVW, and propose sediment and erosion control plans for the
ongoing upland site work related to the quarry operation for property located on Turkey Hill Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 34, Parcel 2 and 4. Maronn said that this
hearing had been continued to address the Enforcement Order. He said that a new Enforcement Order was going to be issued because the old one did not have a deadline in which to finish
the mitigation work. Misch said that at the last two hearings, the applicant had present the project as a twophased approach to include mitigation & erosion and sedimentation control.
The drainage calculations and the determination of the status of the “vernal” pool on the north side of the quarry had not been addressed yet. Misch explained that this information couldn’t
be gathered until spring. She said that it would be appropriate to reissue a new Enforcement Order that allows the mitigation to go forward as described in the Notice of Intent, including
dates that these measures should be in place. Also, she said, dates for receiving the other information that the commission has requested regarding drainage could be incorporated into
the Order. By setting these dates, a timeframe will be set in which this information can be reviewed, stated Misch. 2
Reed asked about the status of the field work and if the work should be done after the spring thaw. Mickey Marcus, New England Environmental, Inc. said that there were aspects of the
project which should be done in early May. Maronn asked Marcus when he thought the restoration work could be completed. Maronn
asked if this could be done by the second meeting in April. Marcus replied that the restoration work could be completed possibly by mid-May but it would depend on the soil conditions.
The Commission discussed the dates. Jonathan Souweine wanted to know when work at the quarry could begin again. He also wanted to clarify the restoration process. He asked that the Commission
be clear and precise regarding the timeline. Misch suggested that the Commission clarify the dates and specifics as to how the mitigation and flagging is to be done. Marcus stated that
the wetland areas have been flagged and surveyed. He said that the buffer area has not been flagged. He suggested that he notify the Commission members members when the flagging is done.
After the flagging, the Commission members can come and look at it to make sure that it is reasonable and agree to some permanent markers similar to the markers that he had shown the
Commission members before, he suggested. He would like to see this area marked out by spring so that none of the equipment operators would enter the buffer area. The intent of the restoration
was that 100 percent of the buffer area will be restored, stated Marcus, and the plan is written to include the areas shown (on the plan) as well as the other areas which were disturbed.
Misch suggested that as soon as the buffer is flagged, the Commission members could conduct a site visit. The height and color of the permanent markers was in question and should be
addressed, said Misch. Also, the design for the gabion berm on the road crossing should be discussed. Misch said that it was unclear how long the berm was going to be and where the beginning
and ending point should be. Marcus explained that they are replacing the existing haybales with the gabion structure.. This area is where the actual wetland crossing is, plus a little
on both ends, he said. Misch asked if the berm would extend up to prevent runoff from coming down the road. Marcus said that it goes beyond the actual crossing. Misch said that this
could be inspected after it is in place. 3
Reed said that the Commission would look while they are out there to see what they are comfortable with. Maronn said that there is a signoff on the Enforcement Order and if the Commission
does not feel that it was complied with, then they will not sign off on the Order. Rosen asked if the Commission was content with the design of the berm. Misch said that she thought
the design was fine but that she was concerned about how far it would extend in order to prevent sediments from washing down the side slopes before the crossing. Doe asked Misch to explain
what she thought was reasonable. Misch suggested going out to the site and making a determination at that time. Souweine suggested putting the berm in using their best judgment, and
if the Commission wants an additional five or ten more feet, they would be willing to comply. Maronn asked about the earliest date that the Commission could inspect the wetland boundary
and the buffer zone marks. Marcus responded that sometime in early April should be reasonable. Maronn suggested that the gabion berm be staked out so the Commission can see how far it
will be extended. Souweine said that would be fine. Misch suggested the site inspection of the wetland delineation and the berm be done at the same time. Doe asked what other details
were required at this time. Maronn said that the height and color of the buffer zone tags as well as how far apart the tags should be, needed to be determined. Souweine asked how much
of the wetland and buffer should be marked (beyond the extent of the work area). There needs to be some judgment about this because he may have a different opinion regarding this, he
said. Maronn said that he thought all the buffer was going to be marked. 4
Souweine responded that the entire buffer is going to be determined. The question is that some of this buffer is only accessible by foot. The issue is to be certain that the machine
operators do not go anywhere near that area, said Souweine. Rosen clarified that the whole point of the markers is to keep the machinery associated with the quarry operations, out of
the area. He said that most likely four wheelers would ignore the markers. Maronn said that the markers are intended for the machine operators. Reed said the markers should be everywhere
work is anticipated. Souweine responded that they are going to be generous; however, they are not going to misunderstand the Commission by saying the entire wetland, anywhere on the
property will be marked. Maronn said in regards to the Enforcement Order, which is what is being addressed tonight, the Commission does not have to go beyond the area that has already
been disturbed in regards to placing the initial markers. Eventually as he flags the wetland and moves around, if the area looks as if there is going to have work done there, then place
the markers up, he said. Souweine agreed. Maronn said that there is going to be a wetland scientist/consultant writing the Commission reports and checking in with them. The Commission
discussed the wording on the markers. Several suggestions were shared as well as the height and distance between the markers. Members agreed that the tags should read “work limit”, and
should be placed six feet off the ground and twenty five feet apart. The color should be bright orange or red. Maronn asked about the textile blanket that is going to be placed on the
crossing. Marcus showed some samples to the members. Maronn said that it would have to be a long lasting blanket. Marcus described the material of the blanket. He said that it would
be placed on the gravel side slopes. It is biodegradable and there will be seed underneath. Maronn asked about dates for accomplishing the proposed restoration. Marcus responded that
it could be done between April 15, 2001 and June 15, 2001. Realistically it could be done by the end of May, weather dependent, he said. However, 5
as far as the BVW restoration, the sediment would be removed by early April, but that a firm date could be set as soon as the snow melts. Misch suggested setting the date for the middle
of May, and if the work is not complete, then it could be extended to June. Souweine and Marcus agreed. Maronn requested a date that the Commission could conduct the site visit to review
the wetland line and the buffer zone markers. Marcus suggested early April. Misch suggested April 10th at 5:30 P.M. She clarified that this site visit would include buffer & wetland
flagging and review of the gabion structure. The buffer zone markers could be put in place based on this visit, she said. Reed asked what conditions should be placed on the Enforcement
Order. Misch said that the Commission can place conditions on the Order, but the intent of the Enforcement Order will be to specify what else needs to be submitted so an Order of Conditions
can be issued for the Notice of Intent. Reed asked if the conditions should be discussed tonight. Misch said that the conditions should be discussed so that the Enforcement Order could
be issued. Souweine said that he was unclear about the Enforcement Order. Depending on what the Enforcement Order says, he prefers that the order be entered by consent because the Commission
is ordering them to do what they already have proposed to do. Misch said that she was clarifying that she did not want to vote on the Enforcement Order until the Commission identifies
the other conditions that are going to be a part of it. Souweine said that he was unclear that anything else that was going to be a part of it. It was his understanding that they were
already in a Notice of Intent, he said. Misch clarified that the Enforcement Order tonight is going to replace the existing Enforcement Order in order to specify the dates that the other
material should be submitted. Then in turn, the Notice of Intent can be finalized and an Order of Conditions can be issued. Souwine said that he would like to receive an Enforcement
Order that deals with restoration so that Valley Aggregates can resume work. He said that if they get an Enforcement Order with additional items in it, this could lead to unnecessary
litigation 6
and delays in the restoration. Souweine stated that he did not understand the reasons for a new Enforcement Order. Doe asked if the current Enforcement Order could be amended. Misch
explained that the new Enforcement Order would act as an amendment since it would replace the other Enforcement Order. It will include dates by which mitigation should be done and submittal
dates for the other material, stated Misch. Souweine asked Misch to clarify what other materials were required. Misch said the drainage calculations as well as the vernal pool status
in the quarry are required. This new order will identify dates by which these items would be required. Souweine did not think that a new Enforcement Order was necessary. He suggested
that the Commission just respond to the Notice of Intent by stating that the Notice of Intent will not be approved until the information requested, is submitted. Marcus clarified that
Valley Aggregates retained Huntley to deal with the drainage issues. He wants the area that is referred to as a vernal pool to be looked at to determine whether or not it is a vernal
pool, he said. Misch said that the Enforcement Order should be as specific as possible. Souweine said that he had concerns over this new Enforcement Order and he did not want to have
conflict over a procedural issue when they are restoring the wetland. He would like to see an Enforcement Order which allows the restoration as described in the Notice of Intent, as
well as all the applications discussed tonight. He suggested that in response to the Notice of Intent, all the Commission needs to do is ask for more information on the drainage and
the possible vernal pool. He suggested that a date should be stated. He reminded the members that the current Enforcement Order has already led to litigation. He did not think that the
Commission needed to order Valley Aggregates to do what the Commission has already ordered them to do. Doe explained the reasons why the Commission wanted a new Enforcement Order. Rosen
said that the Notice of Intent is incomplete. He said that perhaps what Mr. Souweine is looking for is a memo to attach to the current Enforcement Order. Reed asked when the quarry operations
are scheduled to begin again. Souweine said that weather permitting, sometime in April. He said that until the area where the vernal pool is located is determined, the area will be treated
as a vernal pool wetland with a 100 foot buffer. He said all other areas in the quarry are not within the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction except the area where the restoration
is. No one has ever said or suggested that the operations can’t go forward in April, he said. 7
Rosen wanted to clarify that the operations will absolutely stay out of any areas subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission until all the issues contained in the Notice of Intent
are addressed. Souweine clarified that they are doing that and more. They are treating the possible vernal pool as a wetland until the Commission determines if in fact, it is a vernal
pool. Marcus said that he wrote in the Notice of Intent that he did not think this area was a jurisdictional wetland under the Wetlands Protection Act but the Commission stated that
it may be jurisdictional under the City’s bylaws. For this reason, he has spoken with Valley Aggregates and has asked them to stay away from that area. Misch said that if Valley Aggregates
wants to start work, the wetland flagging and the other items have to be completed (the entry, gravel entry way and other sedimentation controls at the quarry). In addition, the Commission
must approve these items. Because of these outstanding items, the Enforcement Order should be issued. If Valley Aggregates wants to start work soon, the information should be submitted
to the Commission so that a final Order of Conditions can be written specifying which sedimentation control measures can be put in place, what time and what measures, she stated. Reed
said that he was uncomfortable with the open ended aspect of this. He said that the work is going to commence but the Commission has not finalized what the second phase of activities
should be. Doe said that part of the Enforcement Order states that Valley Aggregates can’t start up until the Enforcement Order is lifted. Souwiene said that the Enforcement Order is
what led Valley Aggregates to court. As a result of that court finding, Valley Aggregates is back in business. He said that the work of the quarry is hundreds of feet away from the wetland.
The work of the quarry, the wetland restoration and the general Notice of Intent can go along separately. Shutting down a business is very serious, he said. He suggested that an Enforcement
Order be issued that is very date specific. Rosen said that the crossing is an issue. Assuming that the quarry is going to resume, the Commission does not want the operations to cross
into the sensitive areas there, stated Rosen. He suggested that the mitigation be in place before the operations can resume. Souweine stated that it is not quite as simple. The road
is the critical issue. The gabion berm is going to be put in, but whether Valley Aggregates resumes work is not going to have any further impact to the wetlands because the damage which
has been done, was done because Valley Aggregates cut down vegetation in the wetlands/buffer. Misch said that the other issue is drainage. 8
Souweine said that there is no evidence that suggests this; however, they are going to look into this. Maronn reminded Souweine that the Commission needs to have the drainage report
in order to make a determination. Reed said that that these attempts to deal with the issues is an “after the fact” filing. Normally, before a project begins, the Commission would require
this information, he said. Marcus wanted to clarify that they were trying to bring the quarry into compliance with the regulations. He said that the quarry has been in operation for
years. Reed said that hopefully in the Notice of Intent all the work that might be done in the course of five years would be in the Notice of Intent. He asked how long it would take
to get the Hydrology Report. Marcus said that he had met with an engineer this week and they had discussed the fiveyear expansion, existing conditions and future conditions. He said
he would submit the report when it was ready. Marcus said that on the May 17th meeting, they could go forward with as much information that they have available. If the mitigation has
not been completed, then it can be continued to the next meeting, he suggested. There was some discussion regarding a site visit. Maronn wanted to select a date and all the conditions
that should be in the new Enforcement Order. Misch suggested that the detailed drainage calculations as well as the status of the wetland in the quarry, be submitted by May 17, 2001.
Rosen wanted to clarify that the complete contours will be included in the drainage calculations. Misch responded that it should be included. Misch also included that all the items previously
discussed including the buffer line delineation should be addressed in the Enforcement Order. She also said that the issue of when quarry operations should resume should be based on
the Notice of Intent. Doe asked when the mitigation would be stable. 9
Maronn said that getting the crossing to this stage would consist of putting a gabion berm in and removing the sediment and the erosion control barriers. Misch said that the markers
should be in place as well. Reed said that he thought the gabion berm was the most important part. Doe said that he thought Valley Aggregates would like to know when they could start.
Misch asked if the Commission felt comfortable with the blasting and rock removal taking place without the other measures being addressed first. Rosen said that he was not comfortable
with any blasting and rock removal. Misch clarified that the gabion structure should be put into place first before a decision about resuming operations could be made. Maronn said that
a date can’t be determined tonight. He said that the crossing must be stabilized first. Misch suggested that the hearing be continued prior to the 17th if the drainage calculations can
be submitted for review. She did not think a date could be set for resumptions until the drainage calculations have been submitted. Marcus wanted to clarify that quarry operations continued
after the last Enforcement Order. He said that there is no reason why the quarry operation should cease. Souweine did not think that the harm the Commission was referring to, had anything
to do with the quarry operations. He stated that the Commission is creating conflict if they go down that road. He recommended that a new Enforcement Order be put in place for the restoration.
Lastly, he suggested that they come back in March. Maronn said that he was fine with the hearing being continued in March. Misch suggested that the drainage information be submitted
to the Commission by March 8th so the members can review the information prior to the next meeting. Souweine asked that the Commission discuss what they mean by “other sedimentation
control.” Reed said that the generic details are spelled out in the Notice of Intent. Rosen said that “other sedimentation controls” refers to what is already in the sedimentation plan.
Souweine wanted to clarify what the drainage calculations mean. He asked if it meant “as you take more land, where is that water going to end up”. 10
The members confirmed this. Doe moved to continue the hearing until March 15, at 6:15. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Rosen moved to issue the Enforcement Order that specified
the dates with the mitigation details as the Commission had discussed. Paul Davis interrupted the vote and asked about public discussion regarding the vote. He had some concerns that
were outlined in a letter to the Commission regarding the outcome of this vote in connection to the actions under the Enforcement Order. If this is limited to just the restoration activities,
then the Commission is limiting the enforcement action, he stated. Misch said that the items to complete the Notice of Intent are due by May 17th. Davis said that he simply wanted to
be assured that the scope of the Enforcement Order had not been lessened. Doe seconded the motion to issue the Enforcement Order. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:28 P.M., Maronn
opened the Public Hearing on a Request for an Extension filed by the Office of Planning & Development, to Request a three-year extension of the Order of Conditions (File # 246-426) for
the downtown section of the Manhan Rail Trail. Misch said that the financial resources have not been obtained as of yet and the Order of Conditions would expire soon. Doe moved to extend
the Order of Conditions for an additional three years. Rosen seconded. The motion passed unanimously. ============================================================ At 7:34 P.M. Mason
opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Keith L. Morris on behalf of Boston and Maine Corporation, for the verification of wetland boundaries along Boston &
Maine Corporation right-of-ways, for the entire rail segment running from the Easthampton to the Hatfield town line. Maronn said that unless the wetlands have changed, he does not see
a problem. Misch said that the applicant told her that he was unable to attend the meeting tonight. 11
Reed moved to close the public hearing. Rosen seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to check Box 2A. Rosen seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:37 P.M., Maronn
opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by the Massachusetts Highway Department, to see whether the resurfacing of a portion of Route 91, northbound and southbound
lanes, from the Northampton/Hatfield Town Line, extending southerly approximately 628 meters for a total distance of 2,007 feet, will have an impact on any wetland resources. Proposed
work consists of cold planing of existing pavement and resurfacing with bituminous concrete. In addition, work involving adjusting or rebuilding drainage structures, placing pavement
markings, construction safety signs and other miscellaneous items necessary to complete the work. Maronn asked what the work would entail. Tim Myer of the Massachusetts Highway Department
said that the work entailed taking two inches of concrete and replacing it with two inches with bituminous concrete. He said that no work would be performed in any resource areas. He
told the members where the work would be taking place and the process of removing the concrete. Maronn asked if any of the drainage structures were going to be changed. Myer said no.
There was more discussion regarding the process and the area of where the work was going to take place. Doe moved to close the hearing. Reed seconded. Reed moved to check Box 5. Doe
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes of December 11, 2000 were discussed and edits were suggested Doe moved to accept the minutes with the changes. Reed seconded. The motion
passed unanimously. Minutes of January 4, 2001 were discussed and edits were suggested. Reed moved to accept the minutes of January 4, 2001 with the minor change. Rosen seconded. The
motion passed unanimously. 12
13 Other Business Doe moved to sign the Order of Conditions for the three-year extension for the Manhan Rail Trail. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to adjourn
the meeting. Rosen seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting March 1, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, March 1, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18,
City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, Mike Reed, Allan Doe and Jim Kaplan. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn
Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:05 p.m., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Smith College to confirm whether the demolition and removal
of an existing classroom and ramp leading to the classroom, will have an impact on any wetland resources for property located at the Lyman Greenhouse, Paradise Road, also known as Northampton
Assessor’s Map 31D, Parcels 2 & 8. Charlie Conant, Mike Gagnon and Ken Packard from Smith College were present to explain the project as described in the application. Conant told the
Commission that the structure of the building was in need of repair. He said that some demolition will be required. Maronn asked about the Notice of Intent in regards to drainage. He
wanted to know if this project will disrupt the drainage. Conant replied no. He also explained how they are going to reconnect services to the new drain line. There was some discussion
regarding the drain line. Conant told the Commission that the drainage system is plagued with problems. Maronn asked about other lines that tie into the Lyman plant house. Conant confirmed
that area lines also would be upgraded. Maronn asked if they were comments.
Reed asked where the storm runoff is going to be. Gagnon directed the Commission to the Notice of Intent that had been filed in the fall for the storm drain reconstruction. He told the
members that in conjunction with the storm line, there will be a sanitary sewer line. Kaplan moved to close the public hearing. Montgomery seconded. Reed moved to issue a Negative Determination,
Box 4 because the work is not in an area which requires protection. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business There was some discussion regarding the Community
Preservation Act. Misch explained the new surcharge which has been imposed on many of the documents recorded at the Registry of Deeds. She told the Commission that city and towns can
receive money out of these funds if individual bylaws are passed that raise local property tax funds from residents as a “match”. Reed said that this issue should go on the agenda for
the next meeting. At 6:28 P.M., Jonathan Souweine arrived. Maronn told Souweine that any issues he wished to discuss needed to wait until the next meeting scheduled for March 15th. Souweine
replied that if he waits until the March 15th meeting, some timing problems may be created. Maronn responded that the Commission could not discuss any items outside the public hearing
process and could not address any of the issues he had raised since the Commission had not had time to review them. This discussion would occur at the March 15th meeting. Jonathan Souweine
left. Angela Dion left. Minutes There were some minor changes discussed to the November 27, 2000 and February 1, 2001 minutes.
Reed moved to accept the minutes with the changes. Doe seconded. There was some discussion regarding a Certificate of Compliance that should have been issued in the past for Howard and
Stephanie Moore on Cross Path Road. Doe moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Reed seconded. Montgomery abstained. There was some discussion regarding the upcoming wetland festival
scheduled in May. Wayne Feiden arrived. He had a brief discussion with the Commission regarding the landfill project. Doe moved to adjourn. Reed seconded. The meeting was adjourned at
7:40 P.M.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting March 15, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, March 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing Room
18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, William Rosen, and Jim Kaplan and Frank Fournier, III (late
arrival) Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. EXECUTIVE SESSION (FOR MINUTES REFER TO NON-PUBLIC FILE) At 6:12 P.M., Maronn announced that they would
be entering Executive Session. Maronn, Montgomery, Rosen, and Kaplan all agreeing affirmatively to enter an Executive Session by roll-call vote. Maronn announced they would be entering
Executive Session for the purpose of discussing the litigation process with Valley Aggregates. When members emerged from Executive Session, Maronn again announced the reason. At 6:29
P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Mark Bernstein and and Susan Carbin to stabilize and repair a steep and eroded section of bank
behind a single-family home to prevent potential collapse for property located at 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 10B, Parcel 58. Resource areas affected
include Land Under Water, Bank and Riverfront Area. Maronn read the legal notice. Mark Bernstein brought the Commission up-to-date regarding the progress of this project. He told the
Commission that he and Susan Carbin have spent some time contacting people who have experience with bank stabilization. Also, he stated that he received information from Cynthia Williams
regarding sources for funding such a project. Bernstein said that he is still looking into some of the suggestions from Huntley. At this time, he would like to continue to pursue other
alternatives and funding sources because he believes that there is another approach that might be just as effective (as
removal of the abutment recommended by Huntley) and not quite as costly. He has contacted several contractors who specialize in dam repair and he is waiting for a response. He would
like to request a continuance so that he can look into this approach (concrete encasement) more carefully, stated Bernstein. Maronn asked Bernstein if he had spoken with anyone at Huntley
regarding his ideas. Bernstein said that Huntley acknowledged that they do not have a lot of experience in this area of work. Therefore, he will speak directly with contractors who do
have experience in these types of projects. Maronn asked Bernstein when he thought a contractor could go out to the site and assess it. Bernstein said that he was hopeful that someone
could go out there this week but now there is too much snow on the ground, so he was unsure. Mason told Bernstein that he is running out of time. He said that he was concerned with the
stabilization of the bank because of the coming spring season. Bernstein said that he has spoken with Huntley and has taken some pictures in the last week. He stated that it is hard
to judge the spring season and what additional erosion might occur. He stated
that he has been working on this diligently. Maronn asked Bernstein when he might have an answer for the Commission. Bernstein said that he hoped to have someone out there in the next
two weeks. Maronn suggested continuing the hearing until the next meeting. Susan Carbin said that as far as she knew all the work would have to wait until the summer months. Misch said
that she spoke with Huntley and they were also concerned about the spring runoff doing some additional damage to the bank. Misch stated that an assessment of the bank needs to be brought
to the Commission. Kaplan asked if this was an emergency situation. Bernstein responded that he does not think that emergency measures are needed for this project. There were additional
discussions regarding the stabilization of the bank and ideas on how to deal with the problem. Maronn asked Bernstein to to have something to the Commission by April 5th. 2
At 6:40 P.M., Frank Fournier arrived. Rosen moved to continue the hearing to April 5th at 6:00 P.M. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:45 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation
of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Valley Aggregates to restore approximately 30,000 square feet of upland buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), restore
approximately 1,000 square feet of BVW, and propose sediment and erosion control plans for the ongoing upland site work related to the quarry operation for property located on Turkey
Hill Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 34, Parcel 2 and 4. Maronn read the legal notice. Maronn told Jonathan Souweine that this hearing was going to be continued because
no drainage calculations had been submitted to the Commission. Jonathan Souweine responded. He told the Commission that after reviewing his notes, he had previously stated that he would
try to get the calculations to the Commission; however, they were not able to get the calculations to the Commission as of today. Souweine directed the Commission to the letter in regards
to the Enforcement Order that he had recently written to the Commission. He stated that he would like to discuss the contents of the letter. Maronn stated that the Commission could discuss
the letter at this time; however, the Enforcement Order is going to stand. Misch asked Souweine if he would like to discuss the letter point by point. Quarry v. Gravel Misch clarified
that quarry activity means pulling out rock from the north side of the property and all activity on the site. Souweine asked Misch to clarify if she meant going over the wetland crossing.
Misch responded yes. Souweine clarified that she meant any activity associated with the movement of rock. He asked Misch if Valley Aggregates were to remove rock and take it down Turkey
Hill road, will that be considered a violation? Misch said that any activity would be considered a violation. 3
Misch clarified that this condition applies to all work on the site. Souweine clarified that the condition means no activity at any time can be done on the site. Misch responded yes.
Language of the Order Misch read item number two and stated that she was unsure which point needed to be clarified. She told Souweine that everything must be completed to the satisfaction
of the Commission. She clarified that if there was something else that was discovered during the site visit, then that would have to be addressed as well. Souweine asked Misch if the
list is comprehensive as of today or is there anything else that needs to be added. Maronn said that the Commission will not know if anything needs to be added until the site visit is
done. Geo-textile Blanket on Side Slope of Gravel Souweine clarified why he addressed this issue in his letter. He told the Commission that there is a gravel bank on the left side where
Valley Aggregates does not intend on doing any work until the blanket is put in and inspected. He stated that he has tried to explain that the quarry pit is out of the jurisdiction of
the Commission. Maronn said that the Commission would not know if the quarry pit is out of the jurisdiction of the Commission for sure until the Commission hears from the engineer with
respect to the hydrology report. Excavation has been done there since Huntley did their initial contour work (in the 1980’s) and the Commission does not know what effect that has had
on the wetlands, stated Maronn. He explained to Souweine that other reports show that quarrying has had an impact on the wetland and until they have the new report they are not going
to know whether or not there has been an impact. Souweine stated that the Commission would be prohibiting work that is far away from the wetlands. There is no evidence that any damage
has been done there, stated Souweine. Misch said that storm water calculations are required as part of the filing of a Notice of Intent. She said that the Notice of Intent is not complete,
and therefore, the Commission can’t make a determination until that is done. Placement of Permanent Buffer Tags Misch clarified that the buffers must be marked. 4
Souweine stated that his question was not regarding whether or not the buffers need to be marked but instead whether work must await the permanent markings? Misch responded yes. Maronn
announced that to the hearing should be continued. Souweine requested that the hearing be continued to the next meeting. Maronn stated that the next meeting was April 5th. Paul Davis
spoke. He told the Commission that he submitted a letter. He asked if the Commission had an opportunity to review it yet. Maronn said that he has not had time to review it as of yet.
Kaplan moved to continue the hearing to April 5th at 6:15 P.M. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:56 P.M., Maronn opened a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed
by the Smith Vocational & Agricultural High School for removal of storm debris from the Elm Street Brook for properties located from Locust St. to Elm St., also known as Assessor’s Map
23B, Parcel 47. Maronn read the legal notice. He asked if a file number had been received from DEP. Maronn read the number that DEP had assigned and read the comments from DEP. Dave
Travis of Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School spoke. He explained to the Commission the project as stated in the application that was submitted. He said that what Smith Vocational
was interested in doing was removing the storm debris from recent years that has accumulated in the Elm Street Brook. He explained that the brook crosses the campus of Smith Vocational.
He stated that over the years the brook has been neglected, and as a result, the storm debris has accumulated. He said that the work would be done by students who would be supervised.
He asked the Commission how long permits are good for. Maronn stated that permits are good for three years. He suggested that the Commission approve a Maintenance Permit that would give
Smith Vocational five years. He explained the difference between the two permits to Mr. Travis. Montgomery asked if the work was going to be done during the school year. Travis said
that most likely the work would be done in the fall when it is drier. 5
Maronn asked if there were any other questions or comments. There were none. Rosen moved to close the hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:11 P.M., Maronn
opened a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Howard and Stephanie Moore to construct a bedroom, greenhouse and a composting toilet for property located at 56 Cross Path Road,
also known as Assessor’s Map 25, Parcel 20. Howard Moore was present to explain the application. Montgomery asked why they are putting a composting toilet in. Moore explained that by
putting a composting toilet in, there would be more sewage capacity without the hassle of changing the current septic system. He explained several benefits in having the composting toilet.
There was some discussion regarding the project. Rosen moved to close the hearing. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes Montgomery moved to accept the minutes of January
18, 2001 with some minor corrections. Rosen seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Rosen discussed former Conservation Commission member, Sue Bankman. He said that she
passed away last week and that she will be sadly missed. Also, he stated that he is leaving the Conservation Commission to work on the Licensing Commission. He told the Commission members
that this would be his last meeting. At 7:35 P.M., Wayne Feiden arrived. Maronn stated that he would like to put off writing the Order of Conditions for Smith Vocational because he would
like it to be a Maintenance Order. He said that he would like Carolyn Misch to look into some of the issues with that in mind. 6
7 Land Acquisition Update Feiden updated the Commission on the land in the meadows. He explained where the City currently was in the process of taking the land. Order of Conditions for
56 Cross Path Road Members discussed issuing the Standard Conditions 1-24 together with the following special conditions: PRE-CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS: 1. The applicant shall notify
the Commission, in writing, as to the date that the work will commence on the project. Said notification must be received by the Commission no sooner than ten (10) days and no later
than five (5) days prior to the commencement of the approved activity. POST CONSTRUCTION SUBMITTALS & WORK IN BUFFER ZONE: 1. Upon completion of the project, the Applicant shall submit
a certification that all work has been done in conformance with provision of the Order of Conditions and request a Certificate of Compliance. If checked: [X] YES Certification shall
be by a Professional Engineer or by a Wetlands Consultant who shall have been approved by the Commission. Commission. Rosen moved to issue the Order of Conditions as discussed. Montgomery
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Montgomery moved to adjourn. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Executive Session March 15, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, March 15, 2001 at 6:00 P.M. in Hearing
Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, William Rosen, and Jim Kaplan. At 6:12 P.M., Maronn opened
the meeting. Maronn announced that the first item on the Agenda necessitated an Executive Session to discuss the litigation process with Valley Aggregates. Maronn, Montgomery, Rosen,
and Kaplan all agreeing affirmatively to enter an Executive Session by roll-call vote. Minutes of Executive Session Maronn read a confidential memorandum dated March 13, 2001 from City
Solicitor, Janet Sheppard, Esq. He asked the members if they had received the letter from Attorney Souweine that is referred to in Attorney Sheppard’s memo. Members confirmed that they
had. Misch stated that according to Janet Sheppard, there is no need for clarification of the current Enforcement Order against Valley Aggregates. She said that there should be no blasting
until the conditions in the Enforcement Order have been met. Rosen asked for clarification regarding the conditions. Misch read the Enforcement Order to the Commission highlighting page
2 of the Order. Misch said that there should be no blasting without first completing the conditions listed in the Enforcement Order.
2 Rosen asked Misch to again clarify the conditions of the Enforcement Order. Misch explained that she has a revised Enforcement Order that will replace the existing Enforcement Order
dated October 2, 2000. She told the members of the Board that a revised order was needed so that the Commission can have clear and specific dates for which the conditions must be met.
Rosen asked if the buffer tags will be in place and if the mitigation will be done to the Commission’s satisfaction. In addition, he asked the members their thoughts regarding what should
be said to Valley Aggregates when the issue of blasting and work is brought up and/or if they ask what authority the Commission has to keep them from blasting? Misch said that the Commission
needs to have the drainage issues defined for storm water calculations prior to resuming work. She stated that April 10, 2001 is the date of inspection of the markers. Misch clarified
that permanent tags must be in place, and in fact, she believes Valley Aggregates could have the tags available during the site inspection. Rosen said that the Commission should have
the calculations. Misch said she believes Attorney Souweine is concerned that the Commission will go to the site and see something that they can add to the Enforcement Order. She told
the members that Souweine does not like the language “all inclusive”. Maronn suggested that the Commission just order another Enforcement Order if they find something else out on the
site that they are concerned with. Rosen asked if Valley Aggregates completes everything in the Enforcement Order, could they resume work on the site? Montgomery stated that she did
not think that the Commission should feel pressured in giving any date to Valley Aggregates at this time. Maronn told the members that they would just be discussing the Enforcement Order
tonight. He did not want to discuss anything else in regards to Valley Aggregates. Lastly, he stated that he is not going to change the language of the Enforcement Order. At 6:29 P.M.,
Maronn, Montgomery, Rosen, and Kaplan all agreed affirmatively by roll-call vote to end the Executive Session.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting April 5, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, April 5, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18,
City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, Susan Carbin, Jim Kaplan, Mike Reed, Frank Fournier (late arrival)
and Allan Doe. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch, Wayne Feiden and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:05 P.M., Maronn opened the meeting. Wayne Feiden began by discussing the Memorandum
of Agreement for Roberts Meadow and the Leeds Civic Association. He explained each agreement to the Commissioners. He stated that the name of the group would be “Leeds Conservation Coalition.”
Kaplan moved to approve the Memorandum of Agreement. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Feiden also gave the members an update on the 50 acres of land to be added at Fitzgerald
Lake. There is a new Memorandum of Agreement for Broad Brook Coalition to replace the current one, he said. Reed moved to accept the new Memorandum of Agreement. Montgomery seconded.
The motion passed unanimously. At 6:10 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Mark Bernstein and Susan Carbin to stabilize and repair
a steep and eroded section of bank behind a single-family home to prevent potential collapse for property located at 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map
10B, Parcel 58. Resource areas affected include Land Under Water, Bank and Riverfront Area. Maronn read the legal notice. Carbin stated for the record that she would eliminate herself
from any discussion by the Commission because of her involvement in this project. Frank Fournier arrived at 6:12 P.M.
2 Mark Bernstein began by introducing Albert Lewis. He told the members that Mr. Lewis is present to discuss using a substance called Gunite to stabilize the bank. Bernstein explained
that Mr. Lewis has been out to the site to evaluate it. He said that he also has taken measurements and photos as recent as last week. Maronn asked if this was a short-term or a long-term
solution. Mr. Lewis stated that this would be a long-term solution. Bernstein said that there would be no additional work on the south bank. He stated that from the information he has
reviewed, he is confident that there will not be any further damage (to the bank, once the Gunite is placed on the north side). Maronn asked Bernstein if Huntley would be handling the
Notice of Intent. Bernstein stated that he was unsure at this time what company would be handling the Notice of Intent. Mr. Lewis handed out some information to the Commissioners regarding
various projects for erosion control that were done in the Midwest, using Gunite. He explained that Gunite, is sand that is blended with cement and put in place after it is hard or well
cured. This substance is applied to banks to stop them from eroding, Lewis said. Maronn asked if Gunite was placed over wire fabric. Lewis stated that it could be. Montgomery asked if
you don’t place it over fabric, what else would it adhere to. Lewis stated that it would adhere to the ground. He clarified that it is a solid wall that is one piece. There are no expansion
joints and it is one unit that locks together. He said that this process would stop the river from eroding the ground. Maronn asked how the bottom of the river’s edge would be done.
Bernstein responded that he would bring in concrete units that were pre-fabricated and that he would line the riverbank at the base, creating a solid wall. Mr. Lewis stated that normally
the bricks are lined up in a row. Then when the water is down in July, he would bring this concrete wall in and lock it together, he said. Reed asked how long of a process would this
be. Fournier asked if this was just a west coast product. He also asked if the water could get behind it the concrete wall.
3 Mr. Lewis said that they would be putting in PVC pipes (weep holes) in various spots in order to ensure that water would drain from behind the wall. Mr. Lewis said that he did this
type of work at Clear Falls and so far it is still in good condition. He offered to show the members pictures of his work. He said that the whole project was done in Gunite. Maronn asked
how far up the bank he would go with the concrete. Bernstein stated that they would go to the top of the bank. He said that he would have to create a structural support for the porch;
however this could be incorporated into the design. He suggested that steel could be placed in it in order to make the wall more sound. Bernstein said that this product is used in some
pools in this area. Recently, he has seen bridge repair work done with Gunite. Maronn said that most likely DEP would be concerned with vegetation. Bernstein said that he did not think
there was a way to incorporate plants. Misch asked Lewis if the flow of the river would be restricted. Lewis said that the flow would stay the same. He explained that on the bottom of
the river, the boulders would be taken out and used on the bank to fill the various low spots because the bank must be filled prior to the application of the Gunite. Maronn asked how
thick the application would be. Lewis said most likely 4 to 6 inches. He explained that after the Gunite is applied, it would need to be sealed. Maronn asked how long does it take for
the first application to set. Lewis said about 15 minutes in 85 to 90 degree temperatures. The surface needs to be watered down in order to cure the area, explained Lewis. Bernstein
suggested that the work be done in July. Reed asked how much spray would be used and if there would any rebound of material during application. Lewis said that because of the rebound,
Bernstein would need approximately 20 percent more for materials. He stated that he might be able to reduce that as low as 10 percent. Doe asked if the rebound would fall into the brook.
4 Lewis said yes but that it would not contaminate it. Bernstein said that he would take measure so that the rebound would not all go into the brook. . Montgomery moved to continue the
hearing to May 3rd at 6:00 P.M. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin returned to the table with the Commission. At 6:35 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public
Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Valley Aggregates to restore approximately 30,000 square feet of upland buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), restore approximately
1,000 square feet of BVW, and propose sediment and erosion control plans for the ongoing upland site work related to the quarry operation for property located on Turkey Hill Road, also
known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 34, Parcel 2 and 4. Misch told the Commissioners that today she received the drainage calculations for the site. She said that the members need some
additional time to review this new information. She said that Jonathan Souweine submitted a letter requesting that the date for the site visit be moved because the site still has a substantial
amount of snow and it would be hard to detect the wetland area with that much snow still present. She suggested that the Commission push the date back. It was agreed that April 25th
at 5:30 would be the new date for the site visit. Doe moved to continue the hearing to April 19th at 6:00 P.M. Reed seconded. The Motion passed unanimously. At 6:47 P.M., Maronn opened
the Discussion on a Request by Wzorek Family Investment 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 off of Burts Pit Road and Westhampton Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 36, Parcels
71 & 74. Maronn read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance. Misch stated that the applicant has requested the continuance because the wetland delineation is not complete.
She said that the flagging would be done sometime next week. She also explained that the applicant would be submitting a wetland survey. Reed asked if the Commission could have a copy
of that survey. Kaplan moved to continue the discussion to April 29th at 7:00 P.M. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
5 Misch told the Commission that John Body was present tonight. She explained that he has submitted a written request regarding an appointment to the Commission. Doe moved to appoint
John Body to the Commission as an associate member. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Misch spoke to the members about an Enforcement Order sent to DPW relating
to the Coachlight Condominium sewage overflow. Misch explained the problems that have been occurring. She said that recently the Mayor sat down with a group from the Condominium Owners
Association. Misch stated that this problem has reached a peak and can’t go on any longer. Maronn read the response from DPW. Montgomery asked Misch to clarify why she gave the Enforcement
Order to the DPW. Misch stated that DPW did that actual dumping of sewage into the Barrett Street marsh. Kaplan moved to ratify the Enforcement Order. Reed seconded. The motion passed
unanimously. Several of the members stated that they would like George Andrikidis to come to the next meeting and discuss the violation/Enforcement Order with them and to specify how
much sewage was pumped into the marsh, where it went and where the flow will end up. Members also agreed that a site visit should be done sometime in the next week. Doe asked if there
were any legal ramifications for the City because of this. Misch stated that there are some issues surrounding who is responsible. Misch discussed the vernal pool resource guide. Misch
said that DEP had sent a letter regarding 221 Pine Street in response to complaints from a resident. The letter related to junk cars and snow storage in a watershed protection (floodplain)
district along the Mill River. The members discussed the complaint and some possible options. Commission members discussed that DPW had received permission from the Commission to store
snow on that site.
6 Misch clarified that DPW will be searching for a new snow storage site for next winter. Misch stated that she sent a letter to the landowner of 221 Pine Street and also to the Police
Department in hopes that this would address the junk car issues at hand. Fournier suggested that the Police Department could put “abandoned” stickers on the junk cars. He said that after
30 days, there are some junkyards that will come and haul the cars away. Misch asked if that was a complicated process. Fournier said that he would think about a possible solution. He
offered to speak with someone at the Police Department. Misch said that she would send a letter to the DEP stating that they are working on getting rid of the cars and that the site
will no longer be used as a snow disposal site. Misch updated the Commission on Amherst Woodworking and the Northampton Athletic Club. Misch told the members that she received an email
stating that a Bobcat was seen at Fitzgerald Lake. Order of Conditions for Smith Vocational Reed asked when the work would be done. Misch stated that the work should be done during low
flow even though they are just pulling out debris. Montgomery moved to accept the conditions. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. There was some discussion regarding the
Wetland Fair in Amherst. Maronn formerly welcomed Susan Carbin to the Commission. Kaplan moved to adjourn the meeting. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:05 P.M.,
the meeting was adjourned.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting May 3, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, May 3, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, City
Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, Mike Reed, Susan Carbin and John Body. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn
Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:15 p.m., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Mark Bernstein and Susan Carbin to stabilize and
repair a steep and eroded section of bank behind a single-family home to prevent potential collapse for property located at 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds, also known as Northampton Assessor’s
Map 10B, Parcel 58. Resource areas affected include Land Under Water, Bank and Riverfront Area. Maronn asked if the applicant had submitted any new information. Brian Conner, from Almer
Huntley, Jr & Associates stated that due to needs for funding, he would like to hold off discussions to a future date. Montgomery moved to continue to May 17, 2001 at 6:15 P.M. Reed
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:17 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Valley Aggregates to restore approximately 30,000
square feet of upland buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), restore approximately 1,000 square feet of BVW, and propose sediment and erosion control plans for the ongoing
upland site work related to the quarry operation for property located on Turkey Hill Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 34, Parcel 2 and 4. Brian Conner from Huntley stated
that he was hired by Mickey Marcus to determine the possible effects of future plans to expand the quarry by one acre per year. Conner stated
that if Valley Aggregates were to expand, the best way to expand would be straight up the hill. He stated that by moving straight up the hill, a larger detention area would be formed.
Maronn questioned if Valley Aggregates does in fact expand, what effects would the expansion have on what is now known as the vernal pool. Conner stated that at the time of his report,
the area in question was not considered a vernal pool. He added that he would not have calculated the excavation area quite so close to that area had he know that it was a vernal pool.
He suggested that Valley Aggregates keep their work area more to the west of the quarry. Montgomery had some questions and concerns raised by staff regarding the ability for water to
recharge if all surface soils and vegetation are removed down to the bedrock. Misch stated that at some point the area becomes virtually impervious. Conner stated that if there were
any overflow, the water runoff would flow along its normal course to the wetlands. He suggested putting putting in an oversized drywell. Montgomery asked about the status of the initial
request to provide the Commission with a hydrology report. She questioned if the operations to date have caused a negative impact to the area. She stated that she did not believe the
current report historical levels and that the report only addressed future hydrologic changes and stormwater management. Conner stated he had no historic data and could therefore not
make any comparisons. Thus, he addressed issue for future excavation. Conner stated that he could discuss how the surface
has changed. However, he couldn’t determine the effects to the wetlands. Maronn stated that the earliest plan that the Commission has is from 1987. He stated that it appears from the
contours that if there were a direct flow, it would not have affected the areas. There was some discussion regarding the quarry and the wetland areas shown on the 1987 map. Maronn added
that the Commission was still waiting for the designs for the sedimentation basin. He stated that he would like to go on-site with a PE and discuss where the sedimentation basin should
go. Mickey Marcus explained to the Commission that the basin was located on the right immediately adjacent to the entrance. He also told the Commission that a small depression at the
base of the slope had been created to capture snowmelt and sediments from the exposed hillside. He described the location and maintenance requirements for 2
the gravel entrance (for trucks). Finally, Markus recommended that another sedimentation basin be installed north of the wetlands crossing on the left hand side. Maronn asked if there
were plans to grade the road. Marcus stated that all the water within the quarry itself will evaporate . Maronn stated that the Commission would still need something on paper indicating
where the basins are located. Misch stated that the basins at the entrance appeared shallow and might not hold the amount of water and sediments coming off the site. Marcus stated that
the location for the basin should stay the same. Maronn confirmed that the basins would be built. Jonathan Souweine wanted to ensure that the Commission was satisfied with the location
of the basins and if the Commission did not like the location, could they suggest an alternative location. Misch suggested that the designs be submitted and approved first, (prior to
construction). Maronn suggested that a sketch on a map of the location of the planned basins would be sufficient. Marcus stated that the sizes of the basins are in the report submitted.
He said he would like to see the basin put in so that Valley Aggregates does not have to come back before the Commission. After further discussion the Commission agreed that Brian Conner
would provide a sketch of the location of the basin and Mickey Marcus would submit an as-built upon completion. Maronn stated that he would still like to see a sketch. He would like
to see the size and shape of the basin that would protect the road. Misch updated the Commission on the cleanup process. She stated that the area looks good; however, while on a site
visit she noticed an old barrel that was lodged in the wetland buffer area. She said that this should be removed. Alfreda Robertson, 6 Sylvester Road asked about the legal process in
deeming an area a vernal pool. Maronn stated that the Commission has requested permission from Valley Aggregates to have someone certify the vernal pool. 3
Souweine stated that he would respond soon. However, the pool should not be an issue because Valley Aggregates is keeping excavation away from it. Maronn stated that there does not seem
to be a problem and that the 100 foot buffer seems to be working out fine. He would still like to get the wetland area certified as a vernal pool but the Commission needs written permission
in order to do that. Souweine stated that he would look into that issue and would get back to the Commission during the month of May. Paul Foster, an abutter, asked the Commission to
consider a 250-foot buffer instead of just the 100-foot buffer. He had some concerns that blasting would have negative impacts on the vernal pool. He read a statement to the Commission.
Lastly, he told the Commission that the vernal pool has two tires in it. Paul Davis stated that he did review the hydrology report. He submitted a handout to the Commission. He discussed
the second crossing area and stated that he suspects that the recent quarry operations have affected the area. Davis had additional concerns surrounding erosion controls and the culvert
crossing between the gravel and quarry operations. He said that he does believe that the total width of the roadway is unnecessary and that some reasonable measures should be taken to
determine if they need such a wide wetland crossing. Davis stated that if the wetland inside the quarry is a vernal pool, then it should be protected. He suggested a more rigorous analysis
of the area would be appropriate to determine what activities would affect the habitat. He questioned if the USGS maps are accurate. He added that if the quarry operations continue,
then he believes the Commission should consider what the affects of further excavation would have on ground water flow. He said that there is a change in the ground water flow and it
should be considered. Souweine responded that although Mr. Davis has raised some interesting questions, it is easier to raise questions but harder to find the answers. He said that it
is his opinion that Valley Aggregates has complied with the regulations and have been good neighbors. The issues surrounding cleanup have been addressed, stated Souweine. Reed stated
that there are two ways in which to measure the hydrology. He suggested either do a study or monitor the present hydrology and note any changes. He stated that this avenue would be cheaper
and that the water elevations are already known. He said that as the quarry work progresses, the Commission could determine if the water levels go down or stay the same. There was some
discussion as to how often reports such as these are required by the state. 4
Marcus suggested that the barrier along the vernal pool be removed to allow overland migration for fauna in the pool and he agreed with the suggestion of monitoring the ground water.
Davis asked about the logistics of implementing ground water monitoring. Joanne Bessette, 228 Sylvester Road stated her concerns regarding the private wells in the area and the possibility
that they could be harmed because of further quarry work. Montgomery asked if some of the concerns mentioned by Bessette have been submitted to the Board of Health. Souweine said that
he did not see the need for a site visit. Souweine asked the Commission to provide a written acknowledgement that Valley Aggregates has done everything that the Commission has been looking
for. Maronn stated that the permanent markers need to be in place and that the Commission would like to see a sketch. Misch clarified that May 17th was the date that the Commission had
asked Valley Aggregates to submit the information they had requested. She said that May 17th 17th was not a date set for a site visit. Montgomery stated that because new issues have
been brought to her attention, she made need some additional time to review the new issues. After further discussion of concerns about the silt fencing and the use of trucks in the area,
the Commission agreed to continue the hearing. Montgomery moved to continue to May 17th at 6:30 P.M. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:20 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation
of a Discussion on a Request by Wzorek Family Investment 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 off of Burts Pit Road and Westhampton Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 36, Parcels
71 & 74. Alec MacLeod from Huntley & Associates presented the application. He informed the Commission that he would need to go back out to the site again after the snow melts to complete
complete the delineation. He showed the Commission the areas on the plan and the wetlands that have been delineated. Paul Dethier from Huntley & Associates explained the proposed open
space residential development that included a new subdivision road. 5
MacLeod said that both of the proposed entrances would require crossing the wetland areas. The early intent for this project was to have only one entrance, stated MacLeod. Misch said
that originally several departments had encouraged a through road. She said that normally an emergency access road (shown on plan) is not an option for the city. The suggestion of an
emergency access road was made prior to the wetland delineations, she said. There was some discussion regarding possible future plans to link this subdivision to another subdivision
and how to get the landowners to agree to such a plan. Montgomery stated that by putting the through road in, it would destroy the topography and the open space. She also discussed her
concerns regarding communications between the adjoining landowners and where a connection could be made without creating a second wetland crossing. Misch stated that if the landowner
is unwilling to discuss access to connect a street, it could be next to impossible. Thomas Miranda, Esq., 351 Pleasant Street, spoke in favor of the possibility of a road ending at a
“T” at the Willard property (for future connection). He said that most likely it would take a strong statement from the Conservation Commission to the DPW in favor of the road. Maronn
stated that environmentally it would make sense. Mr. Wzorek stated that the wetland crossing in this vicinity exists and was placed there to bring the water line across the property.
Maronn stated that these issues must be better defined when the applicant files a Notice of Intent. MacLeod stated that the land on the site is steep and if the road is going to be widened,
the slopes most likely will be high. Misch explained that almost all of the lots fall into the 50-foot buffer of the wetlands. She added that even with the elimination of the road, there
would still be an issue with the placements of the lots. She discussed several ideas regarding solutions to buffer encroachment. Mr. Wzorek stated that the whole proposed project is
a series of compromises. He stated that this project is providing additional green space for the City. Wzorek stated that he has been trying to discuss the issues with the neighborhood.
Lastly, he stated that the wetland areas that have already been crossed are going to be improved. 6
MacLeod added that the created wetlands are highly disturbed. He stated that these areas would be improved and stabilized. Mr. Wzorek told the Commission that there are some concrete
structures that would be crushed up for the proposed roadway. He said that this project would provide affordable homes for people and the wildlife would be protected. The Commission
members suggested continuing the discussion. Maronn stated that some of his concerns are the road between lots 21 and 17 as well as the second crossing. He added that if the Planning
Board informs the Commission that the second crossing is needed, then DEP most likely would allow it. There was some discussion regarding DEP regulations. Montgomery asked if the applicant
has considered where the wetland replication would be located. MacLeod suggested where the replication would be appropriate. Montgomery recalled that during the Beaver Brook Subdivision
discussion, the Conservation Commission recommended altering the lots lines or adding a deed restrictions to avoid wetland encroachment. Misch asked the applicant to explain the type
of wetlands that are located on the southern side. MacLeod said that they are bordering vegetated wetlands. Montgomery suggested that the discussion be continued to the next meeting.
Misch suggested that the Conservation Commission give the Planning Board some direction as to where the sensitive areas are located. Maronn requested a copy of the plan that indicates
where the functional vernal pool is. He stated that he would allow the through road to stay, if the wetland could be relocated. Misch said that the applicant should formerly request
an extension for board review. She added that she would relay to the Planning Board the concerns that were raised during this discussion. Reed moved to continue the discussion to May
17th at 7:00 P.M. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:20 P.M., Montgomery left. 7
8 Reed moved to table the minutes of February 15, 2001 to the next meeting. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Misch discussed the upcoming summer schedule.
She suggested that the Commission meet on the 3rd week during the summer months. Misch updated the Commission on the Northampton Athletic Club, stating that they were working on a full
plan for parking. Misch discussed the progress of Amherst Woodworking. She told the Commission that David Short hired a consultant to conduct the delineation. Misch provided an update
on the Wetland Festival. On land acquisitions: Misch explained the different areas available for land taking. She informed the Commission that Wayne Feiden was going to be applying for
grants this summer and wanted feedback on priority sites. Carbin moved to adjourn. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 9:50 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting May 17, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, May 17, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18,
City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Joanne Montgomery, Mike Reed, Susan Carbin, Jim Kaplan and John Body. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch
and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:05 P.M., Reed opened a discussion with George Andrikidis from the Department of Public Works in regards to the discharging of sewage into the Barrett
Street marsh that led to the issuing of an Enforcement Order by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Andrikidis began by apologizing to the Commission for the recent actions and negligence
of the DPW. He told the members that DPW has two issues at hand, the Coach Light Condominiums and Hamden Street. Coach Light Andrikidis informed the Commission that the sewer line that
serves the Coach Light Condos has been a problem for the last 30 years because the sewer line on Barrett Street has a flat gradient. This line on Barrett Street serves a large area and
when there are heavy rains, the sewer line surcharges due to infiltration of rainwater into that line. Because the Coachlight Condo line was constructed with a gradient or 0 degree slope,
this line surcharges when the main line surcharges, stated Andrikidis. He said that DPW has taken certain steps in order to deal with this issue in hopes that the problems would be reduced.
Andrikidis explained that approximately one-month prior, the Coach Light apartments were flooding and DPW needed to make a decision as to how to deal with this problem. DPW decided to
pump the manholes out. He estimates that 54,000 gallons were pumped into the Barrett Street Marsh. After this incident, in response to the Enforcement Order, the sewer division drafted
a response plan to deal with future surcharges of these lines. (Copies of the response plan were distributed to members). Andrikidis told the Commissioners that after this plan was in
place place and implemented during the last rainstorm, it worked effectively. He discussed possible future plans to replace the old lines; however, he told the Commission that in order
to replace the old lines, it would be quite costly. He stated that in the year 2003, the
size of the line would be increased. Also, he explained a process called “sliplining”, which would keep the line from leaking and would bring the line to almost a new state. Kaplan asked
if there is still a danger that some additional sewage will have to go into the marsh again. Mr. Andrikidis said no. He stated that this whole procedure was very costly. He said that
the problem with Coach Light is separate from the trunk line problem. He clarified that every time the line surcharges, Coach Light has a problem. Commission members discussed the impacts
to the wetland resource area and determined that the marsh would act as a filter for the wastewater prior to entering King Street Brook and the Connecticut River and that it would be
impossible to remove the sewage without creating greater disturbance and/or impact. Hamden Street Andrikidis said that similar to Coach Light, the lines here are also quite old. He stated
that the line on Hamden Street goes over a very steep line and DPW suspects that the line is broken. DPW has redirected sewage from approximately 97 houses to a downstream manhole. Montgomery
asked if DPW has addressed the issue of leasing a truck to pump the lines if in fact, this type of situation arises again. Andrikidis said that DPW can’t lease a truck because of the
expense of finding a truck on a moments notice. He said that DPW is currently pumping from an upstream manhole to a downstream manhole. He informed the Commission that he is trying to
make DPW’s workers aware of the procedure when a problem arises. He stated that he would be happy to make any necessary changes to the procedure list if the Commission wanted him to.
Montgomery clarified that if something should go wrong in the future, she did not want DPW to be dumping sewage into the marsh or other resource areas. She wanted to know what DPW will
do if something does go wrong. Andrikidis discussed some possibilities. He said that the intent is to try to avoid this situation. Reed asked about the communication between DPW and
the Conservation Commission. He said that in the future, he would like to be contacted sooner. Andrikidis suggested having an emergency number for the Conservation Commission that could
be put in the procedure list. Misch stated that she did get a call fairly quickly after this situation. 2
Reed suggested that if another problem arises, either he or Mason Maronn should be contacted that way they could go to the site and concentrate on the potential impact to the wetlands.
Andrikidis suggested that the Conservation Commission evaluate the procedure list that the DPW has put together. He asked to Commission to let him know if there are any necessary changes.
Montgomery said that the Conservation Commission is not authorized to allow DPW to put sewage in the marsh. Andrikidis said that he couldn’t promise the Commission that DPW will never
dump sewage in the marsh again. Montgomery said that she did not think that just because someone has sewage in their apartment, it was a good enough reason to dump that sewage into the
marsh. Misch suggested that the easiest way to let the Commission know about any future problems is to contact the staff in Planning Office and they will let the Commissioners know what
is going on. Andrikidis suggested that either DPW have an after hours number that they could call in an emergency or that they could just call the office as soon as it opens. Reed said
that he would like to be informed within 24 hours. Jim Kaplan stated that if there were a foreman on the site, the Conservation Commission would not go over what the foreman is doing.
Andrikidis suggested that this might complicate the foreman’s job and it was decided that Andrikidis would contact Commission staff as soon as practicable and staff would notify members.
At 6:40 P.M., Reed opened a Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by the Three County Fairgrounds, Map 25C Parcels 264 & 251 to see whether the removal of 3”of gravel in
the roadway and parking area and replacing it with 3” of bituminous concrete paving, to the land adjacent to the Arena, will have an impact on any wetland resources. Almer Huntley, P.E.
was present on behalf of the applicant. He told the Commission that this request is a joint effort between Paradise City Arts, Morgan Horse Show and the Northampton Soccer League. He
explained where the proposed area of paving would be. He stated that they have taken elevations of the area as it currently exists. 3
Reed stated that the only problem he could see is if heavy rains came in during the paving process. He suggested that there should be some steps they could follow should this happen.
Reed stated the he would like the gravel to be kept away from the catch basins and also the pond. Reed asked if there were any questions. There were none. Kaplan moved to close the Public
Hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch suggested issuing a negative determination, Box 2. Also, she suggested that an asbuilt showing a new survey of the
finished elevations be submitted upon completion. Montgomery moved to issue to issue a negative determination and to check box 2, with haybales as needed around the catch basins. Kaplan
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:49 P.M., Reed opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Mark Bernstein and Susan Carbin to stabilize and
repair a steep and eroded section of bank behind a single-family home to prevent potential collapse collapse for property located at 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds, also known as Northampton
Assessor’s Map 10B, Parcel 58. Resource areas affected include Land Under Water, Bank and Riverfront Area. Misch stated that the applicants are in the process of receiving information.
She said that the applicant would like to continue the hearing until June 21st in order to give them more time to get additional information from DPW. Montgomery moved to continue the
hearing to June 21st at 7:15 P.M. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:53 P.M., Reed opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Valley
Aggregates to restore approximately 30,000 square feet of upland buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), restore approximately 1,000 square feet of BVW, and propose sediment
and erosion control plans for the ongoing upland site work related to the quarry operation for property located on Turkey Hill Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 34, Parcel
2 and 4. Misch stated that she received a fax requesting a continuance because there has been no new information submitted. She brought the Commission up-to-date on the events that have
been going on. She told the Commission that the permanent tags have not come in yet. 4
Montgomery asked if the certification of the vernal pool has been done yet. She stated that she would like that done by the next meeting. In addition, she discussed the need for a hydrology
report. She stated that the Commission should have a concise discussion regarding this report. Lastly, she stated that it appeared that the road had recently been widened, before the
first Enforcement Order. Misch suggested that the Commission continue this discussion at a later meeting. Kaplan moved to continue the hearing to June 7th at 6:00 P.M. Montgomery seconded.
The motion passed unanimously. Misch told the Commission about a grant application that Wayne Feiden would like to apply for. The grant was for land acquisition. Feiden would like the
Commission to allow him to apply for the grant. Kaplan moved to support Feiden’s grant application. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:05 P.M., Reed opened the Continuation
of a Discussion on a Request by Wzorek Family Investment 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 off of Burts Pit Road and Westhampton Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 36, Parcels
71 & 74. Alec MacLeod, Environmental Scientist was present to discuss the application. He stated that they had gone before the Planning Board last week, and he was anticipating some
comments from the Board. Misch stated that there were some comments from the Planning Board. She stated that one of the comments was that the Planning Board would like to see a connection
between the two proposed roads. Lastly, Misch stated that the amount of open space should be adjusted in order to meet the zoning ordinance. MacLeod stated that one of the issues that
the Conservation Commission should take into consideration is that the proposed road will cross approximately 5,000 s.f. of wetlands. He showed the Commission where the isolated wetlands
wetlands could be moved. He stated that he was here to address the comments from the Planning Board and to move forward on this project. Reed asked if the Planning Board wanted a straight
road or one with a curve. Misch stated that the Planning Board was not specific as to the direction of the road. She told the Commission that the Planning Board continued the hearing
until June 14th in order to do a site visit. She stated that based on the information at hand, the Conservation 5
Commission could make a recommendation that the wetlands be replicated but that the future replications would be subject to approval through separate Notices of Intent. The plan could
change if the Commission felt that the value of the wetlands was greater than currently presented. MacLeod showed the members the areas of the wetlands that are a lower value. He made
suggestions regarding which wetlands could be filled and replicated. Misch read the recommendations as stated in the Staff Report. Misch stated that the water elevations should be maintained
to their current level. There was some discussion regarding the culverts and the water levels that should be maintained. Mr. Wzorek asked about the brook. Misch stated that an open bottom
culvert should be used for that area. Reed asked if there were public comments. George Kohout, 37 Evergreen Street spoke about the boundary lines. He wanted to know how the Conservation
Commission clarifies the lines. Reed stated that the 50’ buffer limit evolved over time. He stated that the Conservation Commission does not restrict all disturbances in the 100’ buffer.
He said that some activities can be allowed; however, the rule becomes more strict the closer that you get to the wetlands. Misch stated that some of the lots are located on steeper
slopes; therefore, there may be an issue in regards to runoff and larger buffers may be appropriate. Reed asked if there were any other comments. Nina Slovik, 62 West Parsons Lane spoke.
She said that she is concerned about the wetlands that abut her property. She wanted to know if this project would definitely go through. She also wanted to know if the wetlands are
going to be moved. Mr. Wzorek stated that certain areas of this land would be donated to the City. John Eckstein, 408 Westhampton Road asked about the beavers. Reed asked if there were
any comments from the Commission. There were none. Misch stated that a recommendation from the Commission should be forwarded to the Planning Board. 6
7 Kaplan moved that the recommendations be sent to the Planning Board. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Minutes of February 15, 2001. The minutes were tabled
because the members had not had an opportunity to review them. Misch discussed some site visits that needed to be scheduled. She told the Commission that a site visit was necessary for
Amherst Woodworking because David Short would like to be on the agenda on June 7th. The members agreed to do a site visit on May 29th at 5:30 P.M. The members also agreed to a site visit
to 408 Bridge Road for June 2nd at 8:00 A.M. Misch also updated the Commission about the Meadows Conservation Area. She told the members that a neighborhood (steward) group would be
coming in with a Memorandum of Agreement. Misch also updated the members on the status of the Wetland Festival. Lastly, Misch told the Commission that the Planning Board would like to
wait to meet with them regarding the Community Preservation Act. Kaplan moved to adjourn. Carbin Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:45 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting June 7, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, June 7, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18,
City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, Mike Reed, Susan Carbin and John Body. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn
Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:50 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Valley Aggregates to restore approximately 30,000
square feet of upland buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), restore approximately 1,000 square feet of BVW, and propose sediment and erosion control plans for the ongoing
upland site work related to the quarry operation for property located on Turkey Hill Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 34, Parcel 2 and 4. Misch discussed the three outstanding
issues
from the last meeting and site visit. First, the applicant informed her that the wetland tags would be placed as soon as they receive the tags from the manufacturer, stated Misch. Second,
she said that the Commission has not seen the as-built for the sedimentation structures. Lastly, the Commission wanted to receive permission to have Molly Hale go out and certify the
vernal pool, stated Misch. Misch added that she received a letter today from Jonathan Souweine requesting several items including lifting the Enforcement Order and also a letter from
Paul Davis from Baystate Environmental that was submitted since the last meeting. Jonathan Souweine, 39 Main Street said that he had been out to the site today, and the site looks terrific.
He said that he is aware that the permanent markers are still outstanding; however, the temporary markers are currently out there and the permanent markers will be placed as soon as
they become available. Souweine said that the sediment basins on the north side above the stream crossing are in place. The as-builts will be submitted as soon as the survey from Huntley
is done. Maronn said that he would like to see the as-built. He added that the Enforcement Order would not be released until this is done.
Souweine stated that as far as he knows the work that was required in the Enforcement Order has been done with the exception of the permanent markers. He is requesting that the Enforcement
Order be lifted. Souweine said that the work in the Notice of Intent is separate from the Enforcement Order. He suggested that the Enforcement Order be lifted with the condition that
the rest of the work be completed. He added that he believes it would be excessive to stop a business from working solely because the permanent markers are not in place because of reason
that are out of his control. All of the work that was promised in the Notice of Intent has been done, said Souweine. He suggested that the hearing be closed and the Commission writes
an Order of Conditions. He added that he expected that any unfinished work would be a part of the Order of Conditions. Souweine informed the Commission that Brian Conner from Huntley
wrote a report that he will submit with the as built plans. He discussed the contents of the report with the Commission. Mickey Marcus stated that he contacted the company that is handling
the markers and was informed that the markers should be in within two weeks. Souweine said that at the last meeting, it was suggested and the Commission agreed that the orange fencing
along the isolated wetland on the north side be removed. He said that it has been removed. He said that a different pipe has been installed at the second crossing and that it has been
covered with rock. Lastly, he stated that because this area is protected, there is no reason to certify the vernal pool through DEP. Maronn said that in order to certify the vernal pool,
the mapping should be done. Souweine stated that because certifying the vernal pool is an option and not a requirement, most likely it would not be certified. Misch clarified that because
the Enforcement Order states that sedimentation control structures need to be in place prior to any work, it is important to not lift the Enforcement Order yet. Misch stated that at
the south end there was impact to the wetlands; therefore, in accordance with the Enforcement Order, the as-builts should be submitted and verified. Souweine stated that he is not clear
about the south end as-builts. However, if required, they will complete them. There was more discussion about what would be required to lift the Enforcement Order. Maronn asked Mickey
Marcus to clarify where the detention basins are and if they will be moved. Marcus said that they might be moved because the shape may change. In any case, Huntley has already been retained
to do the survey. 2
Maronn stated that he would like the Commission to have at least a sketch showing where the detention areas would be. Souweine said that he would get a sketch of the south side to the
Commission. He said that the project is much better since they have started and that the stream looks 100 percent better. Reed stated that there is still one underlying issue, for instance,
the effects of the size of this project on the wetland area and the changes to the hydrology of the wetlands over time. He briefly discussed how these changes could be documented over
time. Souweine stated that this specific issue had been talked about. Souweine said that he does not disagree with the overall intention of the Commission but he questioned whether impacts
could be linked to activities on site. There was some discussion and suggestions were made regarding where the areas of control should be concentrated on. Reed asked how often the PE
would be on site during active operations. Marcus replied that he would be out once a month. month. Montgomery stated that the issue of hydrology relates to things that couldn’t be known
but might be speculated, but because there has been no data flow over the years, it is hard to speculate what has happened. She said that it seems reasonable to think that there have
been impacts to the wetlands based on the testimony from people in the area. She suggested that directing water from the detention pond in the quarry through the sedimentation pond and
into the wetlands would replenish the wetlands and possibly mitigate impacts Souweine added that he thought it would not be a good idea to start pumping water from the base of the gravel
quarry into a detention basin that would only be done if the data showed him that they were supposed to be putting more water in. Paul Davis from Baystate Environmental stated that he
does agree that water flows down hill and that future-quarrying activity may intercept this. He suggested that the Commission pursue this. He also discussed his concerns regarding future
quarry work. Davis made several suggestions to the applicant about diverting water. He referred back to an earlier letter that was submitted to the Commission. Souweine stated that it
couldn’t be confirmed that quarry operations were drying the wetlands. Maronn questioned whether monitoring would show if there had been a decrease in water flowing to the wetlands.
3
Souweine responded that we would only know that there was a decrease in water within the wetlands, but we still would not know why. Reed stated that less water could be an early warning
that some changes to the area are occurring. Souweine stated that if they were ordered to have a hydrology report done, then they would have it done. Maronn stated that it most likely
would not be ordered until he saw some of the results from the monitoring that is going to be done. Marcus said that he believes that what the Commission is talking about is future modification
of the Notice of Intent if data show it is necessary. Maronn stated that the Order of Conditions could be reviewed in three years. Reed said that he would like to have something more
concrete rather than just the residents saying that the wetlands are drying up as opposed to saying they are not. Souweine stated that he is not opposed to collecting data as long as
the mere change in data is the beginning of talks and not the end. Public Comment Joanne Bessette, 228 Sylvester Road spoke about a similar study that was done on the landfill on Glendale
Road. She stated that the study was done because of changes in a nearby brook. Maronn stated that changes to the area of the wetlands would be shown in the monitoring. Alfreda Robertson,
6 Sylvester Road questioned whether more plantings would be located on the hillside. Marcus said that all the plants were in. Maronn asked if there were any other comments. There were
none. Maronn asked if the Commission would like to entertain the idea of lifting the Enforcement Order. Montgomery stated that she believed that there were still issues left to discuss.
Misch clarified the issues outstanding on the Enforcement Order. Marcus updated the Commission regarding the work that has been done. 4
Montgomery asked if the markers would prevent someone from going into the wetland areas. Joanne Bessette stated that for the record that she had submitted a letter to the Commission
informing them of the correct property lines. Reed clarified that the Commission could only address the wetland in itself. Bessette questioned the blasting. Maronn stated that the blasting
was out of his jurisdiction. After further discussion the Commission agreed to lift the Enforcement Order. Reed moved to lift the Enforcement Order. Carbin seconded. The motion passed
unanimously. Maronn asked the Commission if they have enough information to close the Public Hearing. Montgomery asked about the topography of the area and if the Commission wanted that
included in the Order of Conditions. Misch stated that it could be added to the Order of Conditions. Reed moved to close the Public Hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Other Business Karen Simon presented some information regarding the Community Preservation Act. She gave the Commission a brief explanation of where the funds associated with this would
come from. She stated that she is not in favor of the one to three percent tax surcharge. There was a discussion with Cynthia Boettner from the Silvio Conte Wildlife Service. She gave
the Commission a demonstration about water chestnuts and the lasting effects if the chestnuts are not removed and properly discarded. After the discussion, the Commission agreed to set
aside July 21st aside in order to pull water chestnuts out of the Oxbow area. 5
6 The Minutes of February 15, 2001 were discussed and edits were suggested. Reed moved to approve the minutes with the changes. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Minutes
of March 1, 2001 were discussed and edits were suggested. Reed moved to approve the minutes with the changes. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch updated the Commission
about the Leeds Enforcement Order. Misch discussed the Woodmont Road and the Millbank Condo Association Enforcement Orders that were issued after the packets went out last week. Misch
discussed the topic of attendance and availability. She mentioned sending a letter to members who have not been able to attend regularly. Misch stated that Wayne Feiden is committed
to creating a “super permit” night. Also, she updated the Commission on Saw Mill Hills and the $5,000 dollar check that was received. There was also an $110,000 reimbursement for the
Meadows. Lastly, she discussed the Vaughn property. Misch stated that for the last two years, the Conservation Commission has allowed a $1,000 contribution from an unknown person. She
stated that a motion is needed to continue to allow this money to come to the Conservation fund. Reed moved to approve the money to pass through the Conservation Commission funds. Montgomery
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch explained the Greenways Grant. She stated that a motion is needed to allow $5,000 to pass through the fund. Montgomery moved to accept
the $5,000 for the Greenways Grant. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting June 21, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, June 21, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18,
City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Frank Fournier, III, Joanne Montgomery, Susan Carbin, and John Body. Staff:
Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:10 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by New Harmony Properties, Inc. for the construction
of two single-family houses for property located on Florence Road, also known as Assessor’s Map 44, Parcel 51. Mark Reed, of Heritage Surveys began by introducing himself, William Cannon
and Jonathan Wright to the members. Reed stated that the applicant is proposing two singlefamily houses on property owned by the Lathrop community. He explained to the Commission that
some exploratory testing had been done on the site and during the testing it was discovered that both of the proposed lots would not pass a perk test. Therefore, it was determined that
a sewer force main should be installed down Florence Road to connect to an existing sewer line in Easthampton. Reed showed the Commission on the plans that the proposed work within the
buffer would include utility and sewer lines along the street and grading to the side and rear of the homes to provide landscaped lawns. All work would be within the 50’ to 100’ buffer
zone, he said. Montgomery asked what is currently in the 50’ to 100’ buffer zone area? Reed stated that the lots used to be a farm field that is now overgrown. William Cannon stated
that the existing tree line is located just about where the 50’ buffer is. He added that this area would not be disturbed at all. Reed said the main sewer line would run down along the
shoulder of the road to connect with work only within the buffer zone as a limited project. He added that the excavation
of the trench for the sewer line is only about a 1’ to 2’ in width and 5’ to 6’ in depth. The sewer main would be installed and the area would be returned to its original state, Reed
said. At 6:15 P.M., Frank Fournier arrived. Maronn asked what type of erosion control would be used in crossing over the brook area. Reed showed the Commission where the erosion control
barriers are shown on the plan along the whole perimeter of the property. He stated that both hay bales and silt fence would be used as outlined in the plan in Exhibit C of the Notice
of Intent. Montgomery asked Mark Reed to clarify where the property lines are in relation to the 100’ buffer. Reed pointed out the property lines on the plans. Montgomery asked about
the rear border and if it was within the 50’ buffer area. Reed explained that at the 50’ buffer area, erosion control barriers would be set up. Also, at the request of the City of Northampton,
they have incorporated into the plans some permanent markers that are shown on the plan. Montgomery asked if the markers would be included in the deed to the property. Reed responded
that the permanent markers would be in the deed. Misch asked if they were planning on maintaining the tree line that runs west from Florence Road. Reed said that they would be maintaining
those particular trees. He stated that there is some very large Maple trees located there. Jonathan Wright said that the houses were situated this way in order to achieve optimal views,
privacy, and to allow for a decrease in road noise. Montgomery asked whether the clearing of the 50’ to 100’ buffer area is necessary or is it being cleared for additional lawn space.
Cannon explained that they are trying to take advantage of the drop in grade that goes from Florence Road down to the wetland boundary line. He added that the houses were set up so that
they would have a walk out basement feature. Because of this feature, the grade had to be set at a specific height. He explained that they wanted a gradual type of grade that would entail
going to the limits of the 50’ buffer. Additionally, they wanted to provide a back yard for the houses, said Cannon. 2
Montgomery asked if a buyer of the proposed house wanted some of the brush instead of having additional lawn space, would the developer leave the brush? Cannon stated that the houses
are custom built houses and the yards would be designed to meet the needs of the buyers. Maronn asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Maronn asked if the Commission
felt that they had enough information to close the Public Hearing. Reed moved to close the Public Hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:28 P.M., Maronn opened
the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Bill Muller for the construction of a common driveway and thirteen building structures for residential use for property located at 408
Bridge Road, also known as Assessor’s Map 17B, Parcel 10. Rick Klein of Berkshire Design Group stated that he was representing Stephen Petegorsky, the owner of the property, and Bill
Muller, the developer. He explained that they were here tonight to discuss the Notice of Intent that was submitted to the Commission for a proposed development on Bridge Road. He showed
the Commission where 408 Bridge Road is located and the current structure at this site. Klein explained that the proposal is to take down the garage that currently is on the site in
order to construct a road that will run to the back of the parcel that will accommodate the proposed structures. He confirmed that there are wetlands that run along the back of the parcel.
He showed the Commission the areas where the wetlands are located on the plan. He explained that the proposal is to build seven new houses for a total of fourteen new accessory apartment
units. He stated that all of the work with the exception of some drainage control is outside the 50’ buffer area. Klein explained to the Commission that the proposed roadway would be
drained to 2 outlet structures. He showed the Commission where these structures are located according to the plans. He said that in all cases they are outside the 50’ buffer with the
exception of disbursement of the excess storm water. Lastly, he stated that the project meets all of the DEP guidelines for saltwater management. Montgomery added that she believed that
the delineation was approved sometime between January and March of this year. Bill Muller explained that the footprints for the proposed structures are small and that the homes are meant
for single-family households. 3
Montgomery asked if the 50’ foot buffer could be marked and if they could be marked, would something be written in the deed in regards to this 50’ buffer zone? Klein responded that it
is quite easy to have a surveyor mark the 50’ buffer. Misch asked about the proposed road width. Klein responded that the road width is 22’. Montgomery asked Klein some questions regarding
flood insurance rates and the part of the Notice of Intent regarding recharge to groundwater. Klein stated that the project meets the TSS levels and the project is less than the existing
runoff of the 2 year, 10 year and 100 year storm. Montgomery asked if the road sweeping would be done annually. Klein stated that is it annual. He directed the Commission to the maintenance
scheduled included with the Notice of Intent. Montgomery asked if the grading and utilities plan should list a maintenance plan as well. Klein responded that the only reason why they
did not list a maintenance plan is because a maintenance plan is already included in the Notice of Intent. Maronn asked the applicant to go over the maintenance plan. Klein read the
maintenance plan, both during and after construction, as listed on page one of the Notice of Intent. Klein added that the intent of the project is to keep some of the area a woodland
area. Maronn asked if an association was going to own the buildings. Muller clarified that a Condominium association would own the buildings. Maronn asked who would be maintaining the
grounds. Muller responded that a certain area around the house, mostly the front area, would be maintained by whoever is residing there. Maronn stated that he has concerns that the lawns
would get closer and closer to the wetland areas over the years. Muller said that his hope is that the City can purchase a piece of land that will connect with this property and Fitzgerald
Lake. 4
Public Comment Jim Hutchins, 444 Bridge Road said that he is the property owner to the east of the proposed project. He asked how much blasting of the ledge would take place in order
to construct the road going into the proposed project. Klein responded that there would be some blasting of the ledge in the neighborhood of 8 to 10’. Hutchins added that he has additional
concerns regarding the blasting of the ledge and the gap that would be left after the blasting is complete. He said that he has grandchildren who could potentially get hurt on the ledge
should they fall. Maronn stated that any questions during the hearing must be related to the wetlands. Hutchins asked if the rear of the proposed buildings would be at the 50’ buffer
area. Klein clarified that the rear of the proposed buildings would be at the 75’ line. Hutchins asked about snow removal and if the snow would be stored or hauled away. Klein stated
that the Condominium association would contract out the snow removal. Misch stated that the proposed project has not been filed with the Planning Board yet and when it does the project
would need Planning Board approval. Hutchins submitted pictures of the wetland area to the Commission that were taken in the middle of April. He said that if you look at the pictures,
you could see water that is present. He said that there is water at this location every spring. He stated that his concern is where is this water going to go once blacktop and buildings
are constructed. Montgomery asked if the wetland delineation indicated this area. Klein stated that the wetland delineation did in fact show this area. He added that the Commission looked
at these lines during their site visit. Klein also explained that in regards to drainage, the road would be curved so that no drainage would flow back towards the abutter’s property.
He explained the proposed drainage plans to the members and explained where the water would flow to according to the plans. Montgomery asked if indeed the areas shown in the pictures
are wetlands, how were they missed in the delineation? Maronn clarified that just because there is standing water does not mean that it is deemed a wetland. 5
Wanda Kimbell, 399 Bridge Road wanted to know if the proposed structures were going to be single-family homes. Muller clarified that there are going to be 7 houses built. Each house,
under the new ordinance for Northampton, allows for an accessory apartment, stated Muller. Elsie Newman, 399 Bridge Road asked for the definition of an accessory apartment. Misch described
the definition in the zoning ordinance. Richard Newman, 399 Bridge Road stated that he is concerned about the safety of entering and exiting the site. Maronn reminded Mr. Newman that
all questions and concerns discussed during this hearing must be in regards to wetland issues. David Pesuit, of Goshen stated that he owned 408 Bridge Road and he does not believe that
the wetland delineation is correct. He added that the area of the proposed road is a wetland. Linda Santoni, 394 Bridge Road asked if the structures were going to have basements. She
also had some questions in regards to blasting. Maronn asked if there were any other comments from the public. There were none. Montgomery asked how the Commission could address the
issues regarding the wetland delineation. Maronn said that he has a lot of faith in the wetland delineation report. He stated that if there were wetlands there, they would have been
flagged. Maronn asked if there was enough information to close the hearing. There was some discussion regarding abutter notifications. Eamon Mohan, 400 Bridge Road stated that he also
did not receive any notification. Misch stated that abutter notice is based upon the Assessor’s Office data and updates are conducted yearly. It would be likely that he would be added
to the list the next time it is updated, she said. Reed moved to close the Public Hearing. Montgomery seconded although she stated to the abutters that the Commission is simply closing
the Public Hearing and the issues they raised would still be taken into consideration. The motion passed unanimously. 6
Maronn stated that the Order of Conditions would be written at the next meeting. At 7:02 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Sweet Meadow Properties,
LLC for the construction of a shared driveway to access three single-family dwellings for property located on North Farms Road, also known as Assessor’s Map 2, Parcel 1. Mark Reed of
Heritage Surveys and Bill Cannon of Landscape Architect introduced themselves to the Commission. Misch asked the applicant to show the Commission where the site is located in Northampton.
Reed said that the site is on the northern boundary of Northampton. He said that Charles Dauchy had flagged the wetland boundaries. Reed said the houses were going to be developed off
a common driveway from North Farms Road. The driveway would cross a wetland area and a small streambed, Reed explained. He stated that all three of the houses are out of the 100’ buffer
zone as shown on the plan. Reed stated they are proposing a wetland crossing using a 6 by 4’ wide wide box culvert. He said that this area is a broad area that has low flows that are
approximately 4 to 6” in depth; however, the wetland meanders and spreads out. Reed wanted to be certain that the area was adequately protected. Reed said that the second crossing could
be accommodated with a standard culvert. He stated that in compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act, they are proposing replication for the proposed fill required for the culverts.
He added that the driveway is proposed to be a gravel driveway with no future plans to pave the driveway, which would allow the stormwater to recharge. Maronn asked if the houses would
still be outside the 100’ buffer zone. Reed confirmed that they would. Mike Reed asked if the entire leach field for all three septic systems would also be outside the buffer zone. Reed
stated that the leach fields would be outside the buffer zone. He added that there would be an association developed for the three lots for maintenance of the common driveway and the
wetland crossing. Further, there would also be an agreements and easements drafted for the three owners of the proposed development regarding the maintenance of the three septic systems.
7
There were some questions regarding the driveway maintenance. It was agreed that a gravel driveway would be best because the amount of runoff that goes toward the wetlands. Maronn had
some questions regarding the long stretch of driveway. He asked if part of the driveway could have been placed outside of the buffer zone. Reed responded that if they had moved the driveway,
the grade of the driveway would have been over 8 percent and the Fire Department would have had concerns associated with the amount of grade. Also, Reed added that he was trying to minimize
the amount of tree that would have been cut had the driveway been different. Montgomery questioned if the road could be banked away from the wetland instead of being flat. Bill Cannon
explained the reasons why the road was proposed this way. Body had some concerns regarding plowing in the winter and the potential snow banks. Reed informed the Commission that they
would stabilize the area in order to avoid erosion. Cannon explained the level of maintenance that would be required to maintain this driveway. He added that there would be strict guidelines
in order to keep the integrity of the driveway. Misch asked how the guidelines would be enforced. She suggested an agreement or a deed restriction. She stated that this would be an issue
for the Planning Board. After further discussion, the Commission agreed that a plan should be submitted indicating proposed swales prior to the start of work. Yvonne Freccero, 602 North
Farms Road had some concerns regarding the effect that the proposed driveway would have on her water table. Reed addressed her concerns. Freccero had additional concerns regarding black
ice in the winter. Maronn suggested that she bring those particular concerns up at the Planning Board meeting. There was some discussion regarding the different types of culvert that
could be used. After the discussion, it was agreed to continue the hearing because a number from DEP had not yet been issued. 8
Reed moved to continue to July 19, 2001 at 6:30 P.M. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:15 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice
of Intent filed by Mark Bernstein and Susan Carbin to stabilize and repair a steep and eroded section of bank behind a single-family home to prevent potential collapse for property located
at 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 10B, Parcel 58. Resource areas affected include Land Under Water, Bank and Riverfront Area. Maronn read a letter
dated June 11, 2001 from Beth Schreier who is a Soil Conservationist from
USDA. The letter stated a joint application from the applicants had been received for some funding and that the application was currently under review. Montgomery moved to continue the
hearing to July 19 at 6:45 P.M. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Amherst Woodworking
and Supply, Inc. to confirm wetland delineation and whether the construction of an earthen filled ramp, from the rear parking lot to the lower parking area, adjacent to the wetlands,
will have an impact on any wetland resources for property located at 30 Industrial Drive, also known as Assessor’s Map 25A, Parcels 186 & 189. David Short of Amherst Woodworking and
Supply, Inc. and Ray Levesque, Environmental Professional introduced themselves to the Commission. Levesque explained the proposed work as described in the application. He discussed
how Mr. Short acquired the property behind Amherst Woodworking. Levesque explained that a ramp had been constructed by Mr. Short after he purchased the property. This ramp eventually
led to an Enforcement Order from the Commission, said Levesque. Levesque told the Commission that he had completed a delineation of the wetland areas. He discussed his report with the
Commission showing the Commission the areas that had been flagged. Montgomery asked Levesque to show the Commission where both the 50 to 100 foot buffer lines are located. Levesque showed
the Commission Line A and Line B as shown on the plan. There was some discussion regarding work that was performed during the construction of a gravel parking lot that was created in
order to park busses. 9
Levesque stated that there was a permit for this work. Levesque showed the Commission the various wetlands that were discovered during the delineation process. He explained the lines
that are shown on the plan and are labeled areas A, B & C. Levesque discussed the work that was done during construction of the ramp. He requested that the Commission accept this work
as an after-the-fact filing. He said that Mr. Short would like to continue the maintenance that he currently performs. Misch had some questions regarding the stream. She clarified to
the Commission that the brook is the Bradford Brook and that the brook is listed as perennial. Bud Huntley of Huntley & Associates spoke about the brook. He stated to the Commission
that he was unsure if the brook was in fact perennial. Montgomery asked if the brook is not perennial then why does it indicate on the USGS map that it is perennial? Levesque stated
that he did see water, but the water was pooled and not flowing. He said that he would like to research the status of the brook to clear up this issue. Montgomery asked if unless proven
otherwise would the brook be considered perennial? Maronn stated that it would be considered perennial. He stated to the applicant that it would be very important for him to have this
researched. Reed asked the members of the Commission who went on the site visit if they saw whether or not the water was standing water. There was some discussion regarding the future
plans for the gravel parking area. Levesque stated that Mr. Short would like to continue to use the gravel parking area for additional parking for his employees. Misch clarified that
the issue is not whether or not the parking lot can’t be used but instead that the wetland line should be done again and that some restoration should also be done along the wetland boundary.
Reed said that his concerns surround the status of the stream and if it is perennial. Members agreed that the status of the brook needed to be confirmed. Mr. Short asked the Commission
if the catch basin basin near the parking lot could be reset so that the drainage would be better in this area. The Commission had some questions regarding the catch basin and suggestions
were shared with the applicant whether or not the basin could be lowered. 10
Reed moved to close the Hearing. Mr. Short asked the Commission if he could have permission to brush hog the side of his property where a catch basin is located. Reed stated that it
is up to the Commission the level of protection to enforce. He stated that he is not concerned about the area where the brush hogging has and is being done. Montgomery questioned whether
the brush hogging was necessary or not. Misch stated that if the catch basins were placed in that area, drainage facilities could be maintained. After the discussion, Carbin seconded
the motion to close the Public Hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Misch suggested that the Commission accept the boundaries located near the fence line and also that the area near
the catch basin may be maintained by brush hogging. However, she clarified that acceptance is not a determination of the nature of the stream. Staff recommended that the Commission issue
a Positive Determination for the delineation and a Negative Determination for the work that had been done with the construction of the ramp and the brush hogging. Reed moved to issue
a Positive Determination for the wetland boundary excluding a determination regarding Bradford Brook’s classification as a perennial or intermittent stream. Reed further moved to issue
a Negative Determination checking box #3 for the maintenance of the gravel parking lot for parking purposes up to the fence line, maintenance of the fence line, brush hogging the north
property boundary and the catch basin north of the parking lot may be reset to allow for better drainage. Fournier seconded the motion. The motion passed with Montgomery opposed. Order
of Conditions for Valley Aggregates Staff discussed possible conditions with the Commission and changes were made. Members discussed issuing Standard Conditions #1 -#24 with the following
special conditions: Issue conditions 1-24. Condition 4 shall be modified to read: this is a 5-year maintenance project 11
Condition 5 shall be modified to read: This Order may be extended for one or more periods of up to 5 years. Condition #23-(ongoing conditions are maintenance (sedimentation basins and
gabion berm)) Pre-Construction conditions # 3, the applicant shall notify the Commission in writing of the name, business of project supervisor in charge of ensuring compliance with
the conditions with the Order. (may be the same as the engineer in charge of reporting to the Commission on detention facility maintenance) Active Construction Condition #4, wetlands
and buffer flags shall be checked by the wetlands scientist and replaced as necessary for the duration of the project. These flags shall be checked on a monthly basis. A report shall
be submitted at the end of the season indicating that the wetland scientist has checked the flags during the quarry season. Erosion Control Conditions #1 erosion control measures must
be maintained in accordance with the plan. Haybales/silt fencing should be placed between the active gravel operation and the newly restored buffer area along the side slopes, south
of the first crossing to avoid #2-slopes with disturbed soils on the gravel bank shall be seeded with temporary rye between seasons (winter) to prevent sedimentation run off. 1. Gabion
berms shall be maintained free of sediments. Sand and other debris must be removed/excavated from the wetland crossing when half of the height of the berm is covered by sand and debris.
2. Surveyed as-builts of all permanent sedimentation basins must be submitted prior to beginning operations to the Office of Planning and Development. (includes basin at the entrance
of site) 3. Maintenance of stone entryway shall be in accordance with specifications within maintenance plan page 5 (submitted Feb 1, 2001) 4. All maintenance and construction of mobile
sedimentation basins, rock lined channels, and check dams shall be constructed in accordance with maintenance plan submitted Feb. 1, 2001 by New England Environmental. All permanent
basins must be cleaned out at least once per year. 5. An engineer shall perform monthly monitoring to ensure erosion control measures are sized and located appropriately. The name of
the engineer shall be submitted to the Commission before beginning operations. Reports shall be submitted to the Commission at the end of every season, with a map showing the extent
of excavation during that season as well as documentation of cleaning of all sedimentation basins located on site. 12
6. All runoff must be contained on site and no unfiltered runoff shall be directed onto Turkey Hill Road. Vehicle Access/Storage Conditions #2. All motor vehicles must use the existing
crossing where the berms are located. #3-all equipment must be operated to prevent alteration of the resource area #4-all equipment stored outside of the 100’ buffer. Wetland Replication
Conditions #12, report of successive revegetation of buffer and wetland shall be submitted October 2001, and October 2002 #13, 50% wetland vegetation after 1st season #14 75% revegetation
after two seasons. 7. Increase replication area around first crossing to compensate for the apparent road crossing expansion. Total disturbed area is not precisely known, but the total
crossing is approximately 95’ (linear) x2’ width x2 sides of the road. This total is approximately 380 square feet. With replication being 115% by ordinance, Valley Aggregates should
expand the boundary of the wetlands by ~440 square feet. The replication should be distributed distributed on both sides of the crossing with approximately 220 square feet of replication
on each side of the culvert. Replication should consist of the same mix indicated in the Notice of Intent. 8. Wetland flags should be adjusted to indicate new boundary that includes
the 220’ on either side of the crossing. 9. Deteriorated drain pipe shall be replaced from the channel of “second crossing”, east of the vernal pool. 10. Applicant shall stabilize and
hand place stone along access road leading north from “second crossing”. 11. All garbage shall be removed from buffer and wetland resource areas including old tires and oil drums. Vernal
Pool conditions 1 and 2. soils to be stabilized and erosion control devices shall not block passage. 12. The entire 100’ buffer surrounding the vernal pool shall be restored with trees
and shrubs consisting of a mix to be approved by the Commission. Submittal of planting list shall be no later than July 19, 2001 and shall include enough habitat protection to provide
necessary shade/protection for the vernal pool. Trees should be at least 2.5” caliper. 13
13. No blasting, rock removal, or other disturbance/activity shall take place beyond the area identified as future expansion in the stormwater calculations report. Additional conditions:
(as per NOI submitted by VA) BUFFERS 14. Permanent round plastic buffer tags must be placed at the edge of the 100’ buffer shown on the plans. These shall be staked no more than 25’
apart and 6’ off the ground. Plastic tags shall be bright orange or red and be labeled as “Work Limit Line”. 15. Place permanent round plastic buffer flags, as described in the amended
NOI, 100 feet from the vernal pool, including the area on top of the quarry face that is within 100’ parallel to the edge of the pool itself. WETLAND IMPROVEMENTS: 16. Because of the
concern that the quarry operations may effectively be blocking water from entering the wetland resource area on site, hydrologic conditions shall be monitored annually by an engineer.
A report of changes in drainage characteristics shall be submitted to the Commission at the end of each quarry season or by January 15 of each year at the latest. The report shall indicate
any changes in flow to the wetlands due to topographic changes and removal of rock. Three ground water monitoring stations shall be placed along the intermittent stream through the property.
One shall be placed upgradient from the quarry operations (proximate to the top of the watershed) as a control point and one shall be placed on each side of the “saddle” that runs out
of the quarry toward the intermittent stream. Monthly readings of water levels shall be taken from each station and included into the annual report. A report of monthly rainfalls should
also be incorporated into this report. Montgomery moved to issue the standard #1-#24 with the additional special conditions. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business
Misch informed the Commission that July 21st was the date that had been set aside to pull water chestnuts out of the Oxbow area of the river. Misch provided an update on restoration
project for the Old Mill River, stating that Wayne Feiden was trying to obtain a quote on how much it would cost to restore the Old Mill River corridor, including a feasibility study.
. 14
15 Misch updated the Commission on the Goulet property located on Park Hill Road. She stated that the APR was drafted with the owners so that a trail would be available to the city.
Lastly, she said that the owner has agreed to a conservation restriction. Order of Conditions for New Harmony Properties Reed moved to issue the orders as discussed and described in
the staff report. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission agreed to write the Order of Conditions for 408 Bridge Road (Bill Muller) at the next meeting. Montgomery
moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting July 19, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, July 19, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18,
City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Joanne Montgomery, Susan Carbin, and John Body. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn
Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:05 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Northampton Department of Public Works to stabilize the banks and
side slopes of an intermittent stream which flows from a 30” reinforced concrete pipe along Clements Street into the Mill River for property located at 54 Clements Street, also known
as Map 30C, Parcel 67. Ned Huntley, City Engineer from DPW and Steven Mason of SVE Associates introduced themselves and explained that they filed the Notice of Intent to stabilize the
banks along Clement Street. Steven Mason of SVE Associates spoke in behalf of DPW. He asked if any of of the Commissioners had seen the site. Maronn said that he had seen the site some
years ago. Mason stated that the original intention was to extend the existing 30-inch pipe. However, discussion with DPW and Carolyn Misch resulted in a design that would preserve the
stream channel. He stated that some work in the stream would be required to provide long-term stability to this channel and to prevent further erosion and collapse of the bank. He added
that both sides of the pipe are now eroding due to some heavy storms. He explained that the soil at the site is a sandy soil but it is extremely rocky. He directed the Commission to
the last page of the Notice of Intent to describe the plans. Maronn asked if the drainage coming out of the culvert is intermittent. Mason said that according to DPW, the stream does
dry up.
There was some discussion about the intermittent status. It was agreed that most likely the stream would be classified as intermittent Mason explained that the 100-year floodplain line
for the Mill River was located and added and that there was no intent to fill in any area of the floodplain. Montgomery questioned page one of the Notice of Intent regarding the contours.
She asked how many linear feet of work were proposed. Mason responded that it is approximately 150 feet. Lastly, Mason explained that the applicant is requesting to do this project under
a limited project status because it is considered normal maintenance for waterways and ditches. In addition, this project is a revitalization of resources areas. There was some discussion
regarding water on the opposite side of the street and if this water would affect the channel. Reed questioned how much erosion is occurring past the proposed stilling pool. Mason described
that there was less water below the pool and the bank widens at that point, which dissipates the flow and erosive effects. Reed asked what his hopes for flows are after the improvements
have been made. Mason responded that the flow would be reduced to 12 feet per second but they had not calculated the velocities below the stilling basin. He also told the Commission
that he would submit revised plans of the flood elevations. There was some discussion regarding the erosion and the locations where the erosion is more intense. Maronn asked if a DEP
number had been issued. Steve Mason said that a number has not been issued yet. Maronn stated that the hearing would need to be continued because there is not a DEP number yet. Montgomery
moved to continue the hearing to August 23, 2001 at 5:30 P.M. Reed seconded. At 6:35 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Cheryl Fox & Fred
Callahan to confirm whether the addition of a drainage pipe to carry water down the street and connect it to city street drainage will have an impact on 2
any wetland resources for property located at 129 Water Street, also known as Assessor’s Map 10D, Parcels 10 & 45. Larry Yentsch 111 Water Street spoke on behalf of the applicants. He
stated that about a year ago, an addition was constructed on this house. Since the addition, there have been numerous problems with water drainage in the new addition. He stated that
the main problem is that the house sits at the base of a hill where there are several springs. Maronn asked if DPW was aware of this project and if they were aware of the fact that this
additional drainage pipe would eventually tie into a DPW line. Montgomery asked Mr. Yentsch to explain why he is digging a trench for the drainpipe, how this trench would be beneficial
to the project and if he was a contractor Yentsch explained the process to Montgomery and he informed the Commission that he was the contractor who constructed the addition a year ago.
Maronn asked if there were any further comments. There were none. Reed moved to close the hearing. Montgomery seconded. Maronn read the recommendations from staff that stated, “a silt
fence must be placed along the perimeter of the disturbed area prior to the trench being dug for the drain line. The disturbed area must be seeded as soon as possible upon completion
of the project and the silt fence must remain until ground cover is fully established.” Carbin moved to issue a Negative Determination checking Box 2 with the recommendations from staff.
Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:43 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Sweet Meadow Properties, LLC for the construction
of a shared driveway to access three single-family dwellings for property located on North Farms Road, also known as Assessor’s Map 2, Parcel 1. Maronn stated that this hearing was continued
because a DEP number had not yet been issued. Since that hearing, a number had been issued, stated Maronn. Mark Reed of Heritage Surveys submitted two revised plans addressing the comments
from the last hearing. He explained the changes to the Commission, which also addressed the comments from DEP. Reed addressed each concern that was listed from DEP. There was some discussion
regarding several of the comments from DEP. Reed responded to questions from the Commission. 3
Bill Canon highlighted several other additions to the revised plans. He discussed the swales on both sides of the driveway and that there is a rip rap swale at the low points of the
driveway in order to protect the embankment from erosion. He explained to the Commission where the low points are on the driveway and where the water would go. He explained several other
points of the revised plans and responded to questions from the Commission. There were other questions from the Commission regarding the plantings in the replication areas. Canon explained
the planting plans and directed the Commission to the planting lists submitted with the Notice of Intent. Maronn asked if there were any additional questions. There were none. Reed moved
to close the hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:08 P.M., Maronn stated that there was a continuation scheduled for the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent
filed by Mark Bernstein and Susan Carbin but due to a lack of quorum, the hearing could not be opened. There was an informal discussion about the Commission’s options relative to the
Enforcement Order and the Notice of Intent. Maronn asked Susan Carbin to give the Commission an update on the status of the project. Carbin stated that Mark Bernstein is discussing the
possibility of a donation of land to the City of Northampton. Misch suggested that the Commission determine whether or not the Enforcement Order can be released with the stipulation
that there may be future Enforcement Orders should the site become unstable again instead of leaving the existing Enforcement Order hanging. She explained the liabilities that the City
may absorb should they accept the donation of land. She encouraged the Commission to either release the Enforcement Order stating that the property owners need to maintain the stability
of the slopes or deny the Notice of Intent so that it is not left open. There was some discussion regarding the stability of Susan’s house. After the discussion, Maronn explained that
the Commission could not vote on this matter tonight because there was not a quorum. Reed stated that he would like to see what happens with the discussions with the City regarding the
donation of land. 4
It was agreed between the members that the hearing be continued to the next hearing. Note: Rick Klein and William Muller attended the meeting in order to be present while the Commission
wrote the Order of Conditions for 408 Bridge Road. Jeff Hutchins of 444 Bridge Road asked if he could address some concerns that he has regarding the Notice of Intent for 408 Bridge
Road since he was unable to attend the last hearing. Maronn asked the applicant if they would mind if Mr. Hutchins spoke. The applicant agreed that Mr. Hutchins could discuss his concerns
even though the hearing had already been closed. Maronn reminded Mr. Hutchins that the Commission could only hear issues related to the wetlands. Misch stated that the discussion would
not be a matter of record because the hearing has already been closed. Mr. Hutchins explained his concerns. He stated that the project abuts his backyard and he has concerns regarding
vegetation, snow, salt, sand and the amount of runoff that may affect the wetlands and his property. Rick Klein of Berkshire Design addressed the concerns that Mr. Hutchins brought up.
Misch informed Mr. Hutchins that the Planning Board would be holding a Public Hearing on this project next week. After the brief discussion, the Commission agreed to write an Order of
Conditions. Minutes of March 15, 2001 were discussed and edits were suggested Reed moved to accept the minutes with the changes. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed
moved to accept the minutes of March 15, 2001 Executive Session. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Montgomery moved to accept the minutes of April 5, 2001. Reed seconded.
The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to accept the minutes of May 17, 2001. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 5
6 Order of Conditions for Sweet Meadow Properties, LLC. Montgomery moved to issue the orders as discussed and described in the staff report. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Other Business Misch updated the Commission on the Forest Cutting Plan that was submitted for Westhampton Road. Misch updated the Commission on the Broadbrook Coalition. She said that
they would like to start work on the easement given by Giangregorio. Misch said that a Request for Determination would be submitted because some stepping-stones need to be placed in
the stream in order for people to cross it. Also, the applicants would like the Commission to go on a site visit, Misch said. The Commission agreed to go on a site visit on July 25th
at 5:30 P.M. Misch updated the Commission on the status of the Barrett Street Marsh. Misch discussed a letter from Karen Simon regarding the Community Preservation Act. Montgomery moved
to adjourn. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting August 23, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, August 23, 2001 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room
18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Joanne Montgomery, Susan Carbin. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch.
At 5:45 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Northampton Department of Public Works to stabilize the banks and side slopes of an intermittent
stream which flows from a 30” reinforced concrete pipe along Clements Street into the Mill River for property located at 54 Clements Street, also known as Map 30C, Parcel 67. Steve Mason
of SVE, representing DPW, addressed the Commission by responding to all the comments that were returned from DEP with the file number. The consultant indicated that the wetland replication
issues raised by DEP would be addressed by not interfering with the wetland at the toe toe of the slope where the channel enters the Mill River. Additionally, Mr. Mason indicated that
they changed the specifications for the seed mix to address DEP concerns regarding non-wetland mix that had been previously proposed. No other concerns from the public were made. Reed
moved to close the hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:00 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Mark Bernstein
and Susan Carbin to stabilize and repair a steep and eroded section of bank behind a single-family home to prevent potential collapse for property located at 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds,
also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 10B, Parcel 58. Resource areas affected include Land Under Water, Bank and Riverfront Area. Maronn entertained a motion by Montgomery to continue
the hearing without further discussion due to lack of a quorum (Carbin stepped down from the
discussion). Reed seconded. The motion passed to continue the hearing to September 13, 2001 at 5:30 P.M. At 6:03 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by
Rebecca Lillian to replace an existing septic system for property located at 101 Old Ferry Road, also known as Map 25, Parcel 61. Mickey Spokas of 13 Curtis Road from Environmental Field
Services spoke on behalf of the client, Rebecca Lillian. She briefly explained the application and informed the Commission that Rebecca Lillian submitted an Affidavit of Service for
the record. Spokas asked for feedback from the Commission on the request not to provide compensatory storage for the 3,000 or more of cubic feet of fill that was necessary to construct
the septic system. She explained that over the course of the floodplain this amount was in itself, insignificant. Additionally, she questioned the likelihood of flooding to occur on
that side of 1-91 since the interstate acted as a dike. Maronn asked about providing storage toward the the front of the lot where the elevations were greater than those (99’ vs. 97’
and 98’) in the rear where the fill was being proposed. He also asked about removal of the shed to create flood storage since it looked as though the proposed new grades would require
the shed to be moved or removed altogether. Mark Tanner of Morse and Sacks, representing the property owner, indicated that he did not know if the owner was willing to remove the shed.
He was unsure what that would do to the property value, since the owners were trying to sell this lot. Commission members continued discussing ways in which the applicant might provide
compensatory storage and requested written rationales for the options that the applicant had considered and dismissed. Members clarified that the policy was to require a footfor-foot
replacement of flood storage capacity regardless of the size of this project. Maronn requested that true contours be submitted as well as alternatives for creating compensatory storage.
Information would need to be provided
to the Office of Planning & Development by September 5, 2001, stated Maronn. Robert Raymond, a potential contract purchaser, spoke to the Commission reiterating that he had conducted
a feasibility study of off-site compensatory storage within the same reach of the river and could find none. Reed moved to continue the hearing to September 13, 2001 at 5:45 P.M. Carbin
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:25 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by William Gruber to confirm whether boundaries and work
for the creation of four 2
residential lots will have an impact on any wetland resources for property located on Grove Street, also known as Maps 37 & 38A, Parcel 34, 57 & 78. Ray Levesque, Environmental Consultant
and William Gruber explained the application. Levesque described the site as having two wetlands, one isolated and one bordering on an intermittent stream. The one he referred to as
“bordering” was based on a defined swale that takes runoff from Route 66. Reed mentioned that it appeared that the wetlands act as a detention basin from runoff from both Grove Street
and Route 66. Levesque asked how the Commission would feel if the isolated wetland were to be filled and replicated adjacent to the “bordering” wetland. Montgomery asked if the newly
expanded wetland (with replicated area) would be viable if in fact it is only fed by runoff from Route 66, that will be relocated, once Mass Highway reconstructs Route 66 and its associated
drain lines. Levesque agreed that more detailed study would have to be conducted to determine the source of water and impetus from development of the wetland conditions in this area.
He also suggested that through developments of proposed lots 1, 2 and 3, runoff could be directed to this expanded wetland to provide some amount of consistent water infiltrating to
the area. Levesque requested determination for proposed lots 1 and 2 so that the applicant could move forward on construction of these lots and proceed with further study for a Notice
of Intent for the remaining proposed lots. Reed moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to issue a Positive Determination Box 2A and Negative
Determination Box 3 so long as there is no disturbance within 35’ buffer of the isolated wetland. This is applicable for proposed lots 1 and 2 as depicted on the revised plans dated
August 21, 2001 and August 23, 2001. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:00 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by the Broad
Brook Coalition to confirm whether the construction of a 10’ wide and 600’ long trail for pedestrian use will have an impact on any wetland resources for property located on Coles Meadow
Road, also known as Map 13, Parcel 1. Norma Roach and Ann Pufall were present to speak on behalf of the Broad Brook Coalition and explained the application. 3
Maronn asked for a description of the bog bridge. Roach and Pufall described that like the other bog bridges throughout the Fitzgerald Lake Conservation area, this one would be about
2 feet wide, not including the gap in the planks. The Planks would rest on short crosspieces, stated Roach and Pufall. Montgomery moved to close the hearing. Reed seconded. The motion
passed unanimously. At 7:05 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Dora Lewis to clear brush and lay natural materials in order to construct a 6’ wide
trail around the outside perimeter of the Montview Conservation area for property located on Montview Avenue, also known as Map 32C, Parcel 283. Dora Lewis spoke on behalf of the neighborhood
and presented the proposed project for the conservation area that surrounds this isolated wetland. Lewis clarified that the original map that she submitted did not accurately depict
the desired location of the trail as it skirted the boundary of the 100’ buffer that encroached on private property. She showed a plan that had a trail that traversed more centrally
though the conservation land. Misch mentioned that NRCS grant application did not specify mowing within the 20’ buffer as identified in the NOI Conservation Planner Cynthia Williams
was recommending that the application to NRCS could be modified to request a one time mowing within the 20’ buffer in order to establish a wetland grass seed mix. Outside of that 20’
buffer mowing was planned to take place annually, late in the season. Montgomery asked about the type of mulch being proposed for the trail and that the applicant might consider a type
that would be appropriate and beneficial for the conditions on the site. Greg Kerstetter 100 Williams, an abutter, asked what the differences were in the types of mulch. Maronn responded
that some are more acidic than others and enhance soil conditions. Members discussed having NRCS approve the type of mulch, since they were providing the funds for planting activities
on site. Ann Pufall, acting President of the Broad Brook Coalition, requested that a copy of the final Order of Conditions be sent to them, since they were joint holder of the Conservation
Restriction. Reed moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 4
5 Other Business Commission members discussed and ratified two Enforcement Orders. Maronn suggested that if staff does not hear from Russell Myette by August 24, 2001 in response to
the Enforcement Order that fines be implemented on a daily basis until a response is made. Montgomery initiated a discussion about fines and how they are administered. Reed mentioned
that historically fines had been used to get people’s attention and only if there was no response did the Commission issue more than one $100 fine. Additionally, they established this
practice based upon the principal that people might not know they are violating the Wetlands Act and that if the Commission was to begin issuing more or greater fines, this would indicate
a change in procedure. Lastly, he felt further discussion was required. Montgomery asked for staff to explore the options of increasing the fines and requested that the Commission look
at how many fines it issues at one time. As it related to the Wzorek Enforcement Order for removing the beaver dam, Montgomery moved to issue additional retroactive fines to the date
of the dam removal upon determining that date. There was no second. The motion failed. Commission members requested more information relating to fines to be discussed at the September
13th meeting. Maronn opened discussion of the Order of Conditions for the DPW at Clement Street project. Reed moved the conditions, as recommended by staff, with the addition of a requirement
that the NRCS grass seed mix number 6 be used instead of Crown Vetch. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Montgomery moved to issue the Order of Conditions recommended
by staff for the Notice of Intent filed by Dora Lewis with additional conditions being that only a one time mowing may occur within the 20’ buffer of the wetlands in order to establish
an approved wetland seed mix, that the bog bridge be no wider than 3’ and that the mulch used be approved by NRCS, further that the time of annual mowing be approved by NRCS. Reed seconded.
The motion passed unanimously. At 8:05 P.M., Carbin moved to adjourn. Montgomery seconded.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting September 13, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, September 13, 2001 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing
Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Joanne Montgomery, Susan Carbin, Alan Doe and John Body. Staff:
Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:30 P.M., Maronn opened the meeting. The Commission agreed to discuss the “other business” items so that absent members
could have additional time to arrive. Misch discussed the Enforcement Order for Russ Myette at 86 Riverbank Road. She stated that she had spoken with Myette and he informed her that
he was currently looking for a different location to place his trailer. Misch informed the Commission that the Building Inspector gave Mr. Myette an additional 30 days to resolve the
matter. Skorupski Certificate of Compliance could not be discussed because of a lack of quorum. Misch updated the Commission of the status of the Wzorek Enforcement Order. She informed
the Commission that Mr. Wzorek had paid the fine and that he would be filing a Notice of Intent to address the beaver dam. Misch stated that the Conservation Commission’s member list
needed to be updated to include John Body. Misch discussed a letter from Cynthia Williams in regards to maintaining the trail link that connects Marian Street to the Fitzgerald Lake
Conservation area. At 5:40 P.M., Alan Doe arrived. Susan Carbin stepped down. At 5:44 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Mark Bernstein
and Susan Carbin to stabilize and repair a steep and eroded section of bank behind a single-family home to prevent potential collapse for property located at 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds,
also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 10B, Parcel 58. Resource areas affected include Land Under Water, Bank and Riverfront area.
2 Mark Bernstein stated that he has been working on a number of approaches in order to reach a solution to this problem. He informed the Commission that he had applied for a grant but
recently found out that the grant did not go through. He explained that if the property were public property, the chances of getting a grant would be better. He told the Commission that
he is currently looking into several avenues including looking for a more experienced engineer. There was some discussion regarding possible solutions that Mr. Bernstein could explore.
Maronn stated that he would like to see something done as soon as possible. He asked Mr. Bernstein what the potential timeline might be for the short term and the long term because this
project needs to be finalized. Mr. Bernstein stated that he would like to finish the discussions with Wayne Feiden regarding the donation of land to the City. Doe asked Mr. Bernstein
if he is aware of the grants that may be available to him. There was further discussion regarding the removal of the abutment and other possible solutions. Maronn asked what the timeline
would be. Mr. Bernstein stated that the timeline would most likely be an additional 30 to 60 days. Misch stated that Mr. Bernstein would have to amend the application and submit a new
drawing to the Commission outlining the changes. Maronn stated that he would like to see the new drawings by October 25th. Doe stated that he did not think that it should be the City’s
responsibility to find a grant for this project. Misch stated that the impacts downstream may need to be addressed in the future. After further discussion regarding different solutions,
Misch suggested that the hearing be continued to November 8th. Reed stated that he would like to see the revised plans indicating a short-term solution no later than October 11th. Montgomery
moved to continue the hearing to November 8, 2001 at 5:30. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
3 At 6:20 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Rebecca Lillian to replace an existing septic system for property located at 101 Old
Ferry Road, also known as Map 25, Parcel 61. Lesley Spokas, Environmental Field Services, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant is willing to remove the existing sheds
in order to provide for compensatory storage. There was discussion regarding the amount of compensatory storage that would be achieved by removing the sheds and some additional trees.
Maronn read the comments from DEP. Misch stated that it is unclear how much compensatory storage is on site. Maronn stated that he would like the figures for compensatory storage in
writing. Spokas stated that she has been before the Board of Health regarding the septic system and has met the criteria. Carbin moved to continue the hearing to October 11, 2001. Montgomery
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Skorupski-Certificate of Compliance. Maronn stepped down. down. Misch stated that she had been on a site visit and everything looks great. Carbin
moved to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. There was discussion regarding the fines issued by the Commission and whether the fines
should be increased. Misch discussed past fines and the amount of the fines. In addition, she discussed the potential to raise fines based on the amount of days of a violation. Maronn
stated that he agrees with the fines increasing with the amount of days. Misch explained the process in issuing a fine. She stated that she would put some information together for the
Commission that they could discuss at the next meeting. Reed moved to adjourn. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:52 P.M.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting October 11, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, October 11, 2001 at 5:30 P.M. in Hearing Room
18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Alan Doe, Joanne Montgomery, Frank Fournier (late arrival), Jim Kaplan
(late arrival), Susan Carbin, and John Body. Staff: Wayne Feiden and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 6:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent
filed by Rebecca Lillian to replace an existing septic system for property located at 101 Old Ferry Road, also known as Map 25, Parcel 61. Maronn read the recommendations from the staff
report and stated that all the previous issues have been addressed. Montgomery moved to close the Public Hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:42 P.M., Maronn
opened the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Northampton Department of Public Works for the construction of a sedimentation basin and access ramp for the King Street Brook
Drainage Channel on property located at the junction of the King Street Brook and the Northampton Bikeway, also known as Map 24B, Parcel 42. Work will take place within a Bordering Vegetated
Wetland and its buffer zone. Ned Huntley, Assistant City Engineer with the Northampton DPW introduced himself, Tom Jenkins & Pedro Cruz of Baystate Environmental Services, Inc. to the
Commission. Tom Jenkins explained that the proposed work involves the reconstruction of a sedimentation basin in line with the King Street Brook. He explained the direction and the flow
of the King Street Brook. He stated that in 1905 the brook was diverted across the property that is now known as the Barrett Street Marsh. This area has been a problem since 1905 and
has required a great deal of maintenance over the years, stated Jenkins. He explained that because the diversion channel has not been maintained for a number of years, it is gradually
filling up with sedimentation and debris. He discussed the reasons for constructing the sedimentation basin as explained in the Notice of Intent.
Montgomery asked if the existing debris has come through the culvert and possibly stopped there because of the elevation? Jenkins stated that he believes that the debris has primarily
come through the culvert but there are also some very large trees that have broken over. Montgomery asked if the sediment is mostly sand from the upland residential areas. She asked
if there was a way to intercept it. Jenkins responded that a large portion of the sand is from the road that is carried downstream and by constructing a sediment basin (he pointed out
on the plan), some of the load would be taken off of the channel itself. He explained the proposed sediment basin according to the plans submitted with the application as well as the
benefits in completing this project. At 5:55 P.M., Frank Fournier arrived. Reed asked where the sediments in the stream would drop and if that would be in the sediment basin itself or
inside of the culvert. Jenkins responded that it would be inside the sedimentation basin. He stated that there would be enough velocity in the box culvert to transport sediments/debris
through the culvert. There was discussion regarding the basin, what it would be made of and the proposed depth. Jenkins stated that the basin is approximately 6 feet deep. Montgomery
asked if water would continue to reach the marsh or would it have to reach a 6-foot level first. Jenkins said that when they did a survey some time ago, there was standing water at the
site of the marsh. To clarify, they would not be interrupting what already exists, stated Jenkins. Wayne Feiden discussed the guidelines regarding prohibiting detention ponds in wetlands.
He explained that this is an existing problem and not one where a new wetland is being created. Lastly, he explained that when the Commission acquired this property, DPW was granted
an easement to maintain it. Jenkins read the comments from DEP and explained how the comments would be addressed. Maronn asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or opposition
of the project.
project. Karen Bellavance-Grace, Church Street, spoke in favor of the project and stated that she is hopeful that this project would help the flooding problem for this area. Ned Huntley
stated that he would like to have an agreement from the Commission to maintain the basin and he explained that DPW is working on a generic Notice of Intent that would address this type
of maintenance. Maronn stated that there could be conditions written that would be considered ongoing conditions. Doe moved to close the hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed
unanimously. Order of Conditions Maronn read the recommendations from staff. Reed moved to issue the orders described in the staff report with the changes discussed. Carbin seconded.
The motion passed unanimously. Kaplan arrived at 6:16 P.M. At 6:19 P.M. Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Wzorek Family Investment Trust for the installation
of stones to encourage beaver to move their lodge and removal of the existing beaver dam for property located off of Burts Pit Road, also known as Map 36, Parcel 71. Work will take place
within the buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, Bank, Land Under Water and Riverfront Area. Alec McLeod, representing Wzorek, presented the application. He explained that the
area where the beaver had constructed a dam is the same location where a proposed access road will be constructed for the planned subdivision. Because the road will be located in the
same location as the beaver dam, they are proposing to take an innovated approach to move the beaver dam so that it would be re-established between 12 and 20 feet upstream, stated McLeod.
He explained how a row of closely spaced rocks would be placed upstream of the current location of the dam. He directed the Commission to the pictures submitted with the Notice of Intent.
Additionally, he suggested that a temporary mesh fence be placed on the downstream side of the rocks in order to keep the beavers out of the old beaver site and encourage them to adopt
the new site. There was discussion regarding the placement of the rocks and the mesh fence. Maronn said that he would like the old dam to remain in place until the beavers have built
up the new dam.
Montgomery asked if it was too late in the season to breach the dam. She stated that she had been told that beaver have been in this area for approximately 10 years. Jim Wzorek spoke
regarding the beaver dams and the different locations of the dams in last few years. Maronn asked McLeod to indicate on the proposed plans where the crossing would be. McLeod explained
where the dam would be constructed in relation to the access road. Feiden said that his only concern is the construction process. He asked if the dam would be built from the existing
road. McLeod responded that the work would be done from an existing dirt road. Montgomery asked if he had consulted with a biologist. She would like to see information that indicates
that he consulted with a biologist and why this project would work as it has been suggested that it would. McLeod addressed Montgomery’s concerns and stated that based upon his experience
(over 10 years) he is confident that this proposed project would work. Montgomery asked if he would bring in someone with this kind of experience to perform the work. McLeod responded
that the method is very simple and that the project is a very straightforward project. He added that he would be overseeing any of the work. Doe asked if there would be any holes in
the fence that wildlife may get caught in? McLeod stated that it is a temporary fence. Suggestions were discussed between McLeod and the Commission regarding the placing of the fence
and the rocks as well as discussion regarding the installation of a Clemson Leveler at the site. Feiden discussed the concerns addressed in the staff report. Reed stated that he would
like to establish the existing water level. McLeod responded that the level that the beavers have been maintaining is the same level that they are proposing to keep. He suggested that
the leveler be set in such a way that a higher water level is allowed (approximately 6 inches). Members asked questions about the water elevation and determined that the water level
should be set approximately 1½ feet above its present setting.
Public Comment Bob Starr, Burts Pit Road asked about the culvert that is right off of Burts Pit Road and if this culvert would be included in the cleanup. Jim Wzorek addressed his concerns.
Susan Grant, 24 Trumbull Road, stated that there is no guarantee that this proposed project will work. She suggested that the dam remain as it is until spring. Maronn explained that
if the stones are placed now, the beavers might start a new dam before the old dam is breached. McLeod stated that he understands the concerns regarding the dam, however, the whole focus
of this project is to maintain the presence of the beavers in that area. It is not the desire of anyone to kill off the beavers, stated McLeod. Montgomery said that unless things are
not done properly and at the right time, it could be critical to the beavers. Feiden suggested that the placement of the rocks be completed and that staff could determine whether or
not the dam was working properly. Montgomery asked if the beavers would construct the new dam? Dave Lepine stated that he would like to get going as quickly as possible with this project.
He added that the definitive plan for the subdivision is almost complete. Lepine reminded the Commission that there is no certainty the beaver will remain in the area. Feiden spoke about
a previous dam project that was constructed at the Brookwood Marsh. Doe asked how many days would it take to place the stone. Lepine stated that it should be just a few days. Maronn
discussed the recommendations from DEP. Feiden left. Maronn asked if the design for the water leveler has been completed.
Montgomery stated that in conversations with Karen Hirschberg from DEP, Hirschberg indicated that there was some confusion regarding whether the dam would be breached prior to the construction
of the second dam. McLeod responded that he had spoken with Karen today and he had explained the project in greater detail. Beth Willard, an abutter to the Wzorek property, stated that
she water backing up onto her property and asked who would be responsible for ensuring that the water level was maintained. She wanted to see a written agreement about maintenance of
the structure. Lastly, Willard discussed other concerns regarding the wildlife in the area and how the wildlife would be accommodated within the developed parcel. McLeod explained that
the beavers have already changed the water level. He addressed the concerns regarding the wildlife in this area. There was discussion regarding the water level and how it could be maintained.
The applicant clarified for the board the existing level of the dam and explained that the water level would not be higher than the current conditions. Maronn stated that the elevation
of the concrete ford should be established so that the water elevation can be set 6 inches above the ford. McLeod stated that the level is 263.1 and this level was taken at the concrete
ford. Willard stated that she is concerned that the wetland and buffer zone will be expanded on her property by this project. Angela Carbone, Union News asked the applicant to explain
what will happen to the beavers should this project fail. Would the beavers be destroyed if they don’t take to the new foundation? McLeod explained that it would be the last alternative.
Montgomery stated that she is concerned that this is now a critical time and that possibly the need to breach the dam is one of convenience. Lepine clarified that by having the new dam
structurally set and keeping the culvert clean may be enough to encourage the beavers to go to the new dam. Reed suggested that the Commission ask a wetland scientist to inspect the
dam at the critical times. There was further discussion regarding this project and if it is an appropriate time to start the project because of the possible harm to the wildlife.
McLeod stated that this is a simple solution and one that has worked. The only issue with this project that has been mentioned is the time limit. Kaplan moved to close the Public Hearing.
Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Packaging Corporation of America to confirm whether
the replacement of an existing corn silo in a different location will have an impact on any wetland resources for property located on 525 Mt. Tom Road, also known as Map 53, Parcel 5.
Tom Dougherty, representing Packing Corporation of America explained the application to the Commission. Maronn asked if the proposed silo would be the same size as the existing silo.
Doe asked if the old silo was going to be removed. Dougherty responded that the proposed silo is the same size and that the old silo would be removed. Maronn read the recommendations
listed in the staff report. Reed moved to close the Public Hearing. Doe seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to issue a Negative Determination. Doe seconded. The motion
passed unanimously. Doe left. At 7:45 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Amherst Woodworking and Supply, Inc. to confirm a wetland delineation
and to determine whether the area is subject to jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property located on 30 Industrial Drive, also known as Maps 25A, Parcel 186 & 189. Ray
Levesque, representing Amherst Woodworking explained the project to the Commission. He stated that he is here to confirm wetland delineation that he completed. He directed the Commission
to the wetland delineation report that was submitted with the request. He stated that the resource areas were included in this report including the bordering vegetated wetland. In addition,
the issue whether Bradford Brook is intermittent or perennial has been addressed, stated Levesque. He stated that he believes that he has shown that Bradford Brook is intermittent under
the Rivers Protection Act and therefore the Rivers Protection Act would not apply to this parcel. He explained that when this project first came before the Commission, the issue of status
of Bradford Brook
had not been determined. Since that time it has been determined that this area does dry up during non-drought conditions, stated Levesque. He showed the Commission pictures that indicate
pools of water but show that there is no flow of water. He explained the rainfall data that was submitted with the application. Montgomery inquired about the dates that the low flow
was documented. Levesque stated that it was July 25th. Montgomery asked how the precipitation was calculated. Levesque explained that the precipitation was obtained from the weather
observer at Westover Air Force Base. Maronn asked if there were other stations closer where he could obtain the same data. There was discussion regarding the amount of rainfall in the
last few months. Levesque explained that the rainfall data was the actual 20 year average. He offered to request rainfall data from the Northampton Wastewater Treatment plant for the
Commission.
Maronn stated that DEP is supposed to inform each town/city if there is there is a drought warning. Montgomery asked if he used other data other than the rainfall data to make this determination.
Levesque explained that the watershed for this area is fairly small. He clarified the requirements according to the Rivers Protection Act and stated that based on all the criteria, it
is his opinion that the stream is intermittent. Montgomery stated that she was not convinced about the status of the stream. She discussed the reasons why she did not think that the
stream was intermittent. Levesque and the Commission discussed the status of the stream and the fact that the area is currently dry. Levesque stated that he is confident that the stream
is intermittent according to the definitions from DEP. Commissioners suggested where Levesque could obtain additional data to confirm the status of the stream. Maronn asked the Commission
if they wanted to vote on the delineation. Reed moved to accept the wetlands line as shown on the plan submitted with the application. Carbin seconded. Montgomery abstained.
Montgomery moved to continue the Request for Determination portion of this application to October 25th at 5:30 P.M. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:10 P.M., Maronn
opened the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Roy S. Socolow of the USGS to confirm whether the installation of a new streamflow monitoring system will have an impact
on any wetland resources for property located at 27 Ladd Avenue, also known as Map 30B, Parcel 81. Maronn read the comments in the staff report and explained that the applicant being
a federal agency was technically not required to file with the local government. The applicant could not be present. He explained that there were no concerns from staff. Kaplan moved
to close the Public Hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to issue a Negative Determination. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Order of
Conditions for Wzorek Family Investment Trust Montgomery moved to issue the orders as described in the staff report with the changes discussed. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Montgomery left. Order of Conditions for Old Ferry Road Reed moved to issue the orders as described in the staff report. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved
to adjourn. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting October 25, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, October 25, 2001 at 5:30 p.m. in Hearing Room
18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Joanne Montgomery, Alan Doe, Susan Carbin, and John Body. Staff: Senior
Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:35 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Amherst Woodworking and
Supply, Inc. to confirm a wetland delineation and to determine whether the area is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act for property located on 30 Industrial Drive,
also known as Map 25A, Parcel 186 & 189. Maronn stated that at the last meeting the Commission confirmed the wetland delineation but the holdup for completing this application was whether
the brook would be considered an intermittent stream or not. He said that the Commission was was waiting on rainfall data in order to make a determination. He stated that the rainfall
data has since been provided and it has been determined that the stream is intermittent. David Short of Amherst Woodworking stated that Ray Levesque discussed rainfall data he had submitted
to the Commission. Doe questioned the numbers regarding the amount of rainfall. Maronn explained that DEP uses a formula to define drought conditions for specific geographic areas. He
clarified that all of the figures that Mr. Short provided indicate that there is not an extended drought. Based on the figures and the photographs showing that the stream was not flowing,
the Commission could make a determination regarding the stream, stated Maronn. Mike Reed arrived. Ray Levesque arrived to discuss the rainfall data with the Commission. Montgomery asked
Levesque to clarify how it is determined if a stream is intermittent.
Levesque submitted a letter to the Commission dated October 25, 2001 regarding the rainfall data. He explained the letter to the Commission. Misch recommended a positive determination
for the wetland boundaries with work within the 100’ buffer. She stated that some language would be added to the determination stating that the stream is intermittent. Montgomery stated
that she has some hesitation regarding the stream. Reed moved to accept the data supporting the status of the river as intermittent. Carbin seconded. Montgomery opposed. At 5:40 P.M.,
Maronn opened the 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. Mark Reed of Heritage Surveys representing Beaver Brook Nominee Trust
gave a brief explanation of the project as stated in the Notice of Intent. He stated that a preliminary plan had already been approved by the Planning Board and comments from those hearings
have been incorporated into the current plans. He stated that the road way had been moved to avoid a vernal pool, its associated vegetative wetland, and 100’ buffer. He clarified that
this area would remain as open space. He said that all construction on the lots would be outside of the 100’ and 200’ riverfront area or 100’ buffer zone. He explained to the Commission
that the only alteration of a wetland area is within the area of the proposed crossing. He described other changes related to the location of the roadway drainage, sewer lines and the
location of the detention basins. Doe asked Reed to clarify the location of detention basin A in regards to the nearest proposed structure. Reed responded approximately 50 feet. Montgomery
asked Reed to discuss the detention basin that is proposed within the buffer zone. Reed explained that there is some minor grading associated with the outlets that are within the 100’
buffer zone; however, the main detention basin is outside of the 100’ buffer zone. Doe asked how much water would the detention basins hold on an average basis. 2
Reed explained that all five basins were designed to handle the 100 year storm event as outlined in the drainage calculations submitted with the Notice of Intent. Doe asked if there
would be water in the basins all the time. Reed explained that the basins are intended to be dry basins and not wet bottom basins. He then submitted some pictures to the Commission of
a wetland crossing so the Commission would have an idea of the proposed crossing. Maronn asked if there was a DEP file number yet. Misch stated that there was not a number yet. Reed
explained different options for designs for the wetland crossing and explained that some of the soils within the streambed are unstable. Montgomery asked Reed to explain the unstable
soils. Reed explained that the soils are raw with no vegetation. Reed explained that after looking into several options to cross the wetland area, he believes that a culvert that has
stable ends would be better for the project. There was discussion regarding the advantages in constructing a a culvert. Montgomery asked how large the proposed culvert would be. Reed
responded that the culvert would be approximately 42 inches. Maronn asked if there was a channel that runs through this area. Reed stated that there is no defined channel at the crossing.
Doe stated that he has some concerns regarding the decrease in the size of the culvert. Reed explained the calculations in relation to a storm event. Montgomery suggested constructing
either a larger culvert or possibly maybe two culverts. Reed stated that he did not think that it would be necessary. There was discussion as to the volume of water and if the channel
would be dry in the summer. 3
Misch asked Reed to explain why the plans did not show a connection between the BVW and Beaver Brook, though these were designated as bordering wetlands. Reed explained that there appeared
to be an underground hydraulic connection to Beaver Brook. Maronn asked Reed to explain what measures would be taken to ensure that there would be no construction within the buffer zone.
He stated that he is concerned about the future landowners. Reed stated that there would be deed restrictions imposed with limits of the lawn areas. Montgomery stated that there is a
good probability that over time the boundaries would be affected. She suggested that the applicant discuss eliminating one of the lots that are close to the wetlands. Reed responded
that the size of the lots and the location of the lots have been minimized to ensure that they would meet the open space regulations. Mike Reed asked how many flag lots are necessary
to meet the requirements. Mark Reed explained the location of the flag lots. Mike Reed stated that that he has concerns about lot 46 located near the vernal pool. Mark Reed explained
that the driveway access for lot 46 would be a shared driveway. Montgomery had some concerns regarding lots 51 and 54. She asked what are the requirements for flag lots. Misch explained
the requirements for flag lots. Reed stated that he would like to focus on lots 51 and 54. He asked if there is a restriction as to where the building envelope could be. Misch explained
the restrictions. Reed stated that all of the houses are proposed outside the 100’ buffer zone or 200’ riverfront area. Misch asked Reed about the calculations for the wetland replication
in regards to the disturbance created by the aprons at the end of each culvert. Reed explained the calculations. 4
Montgomery asked about the hydrology study more particularly the total calculations of impervious surfaces. Reed explained the hydrology study and how the impervious surfaces are calculated.
He further explained the types of soils located on the site. Montgomery stated that she would like to see the total amount of impervious area for the project. Maronn asked what kind
of infiltration would be done. Reed explained that the applicant is proposing that the bottom of the basins be excavated out and compacted gravel would be placed to allow infiltration
within the basins themselves. Reed explained the infiltration on the lots. Doe asked what the detention basins would look like throughout the year. Reed explained what the basins would
look like and stated that the homeowner’s association would maintain the drainage structures. Misch stated that the maintenance would be part of the subdivision approval process. She
wanted to clarify that Reed would submit the figures of the total impervious surface and the total anticipated figures for the whole project. Montgomery asked if most or all of the area
would be clear-cut. Reed stated that the only areas that would be cut would be for the roadway and what is needed for house construction. Montgomery asked if he had a figure for the
number of acres that would be clear-cut. Reed said that he would have to do the calculations for that. Misch asked Reed to explain the planned wetland replication and the types of species
that would be planted. Reed directed the Commission to the Notice of Intent. He explained each step regarding the replication process. Misch asked how much area would be have a wetland
grass mix as opposed to wooded wetland materials. Reed stated that over time the woody wetland material would grow. He added that with similar projects, the material came back within
2 to 5 years. He discussed several sites, as shown in the pictures submitted, that were constructed similar to this proposed project. 5
Maronn stated that the Commission would like to set up a site visit so that they may better understand the area. Body asked if the increase in the water would eventually erode the culvert.
Reed stated that they did calculate the velocity through the pipe and the pipe could handle the demand. He directed the Commission to page 34 of the Notice of Intent that explains the
detail of the crossing. There was some discussion regarding the soil testing. Public Comment Dan Keith, 68 Leonard Street stated that he was happy to see that the vernal pool near his
house was shown on the plans. He said that not all of the wetland areas drain towards Rte. 9 and that he did have some concerns about the vernal pool near his house. He asked if the
Notice of Intent was submitted to Natural Heritage. Mark Reed confirmed that the Notice of Intent was submitted to Natural Heritage. Keith said that the construction of lot 46 would
entail some digging into the buffer zone and this digging would cause damage. He suggested additional additional signage and asked if it would be possible to construct a rock wall to
indicate the work limit line. Misch stated that a stonewall might create a barrier to migrating species. Keith discussed other concerns that he had including the soil samples and the
fact that the site is quite rocky. He also discussed the possibility of runoff entering the detention areas. Chip Montgomery, 74 Grove Avenue referred to a letter dated October 16, 2001
regarding the acquisition of land. He wanted to emphasize that this area is much larger than what has been previously discussed. Misch explained that the parcel was taken by eminent
domain because back taxes were owed and the City could not find an owner through the required 50-year search for owners. At the time of the taking, the City was not aware that a federal
government agency had taken possession of the property more than 50-years ago. She explained that because of this, the City’s acquisition was deemed void because the City cannot take
land from a a federal federal government body. She stated that Beaver Brook Nominee Trust acquired the property directly from FDIC. Lastly, she explained that it is not the policy of
the City to take property from someone who was paying taxes or if the property was under development. 6
Mike Reed said that most of the concerns of the Commission would be addressed if some of the lots were combined and if they were made smaller. He stated that he would like the applicant
to consider his suggestions. Linda Butler, 74 Grove Avenue asked if the public would be notified about the site visit. Maronn said that the public would be allowed to attend the site
visit only if the owner allows the public to be on the property. Butler also asked where the outflow of detention basins A & B would go. Mark Reed described how each basin would operate.
There was more discussion regarding the discharge for detention basin A. Reed responded to questions according to the plans submitted. Natalie Canby, 44 Grove Avenue stated that she
is unaware of any ditches near the bike path. She stated that she is aware of one drain that is near the last house on Grove Avenue. Amy Bookbinder, 88 Grove Avenue said that the ditches
are on her property and that her property does in fact get flooded. Maronn stated that the Commission would look at her property during the site visit. Linda Butler asked if the detention
basin is 50 feet away from Amy Bookbinder’s house or her property line. Mark Reed stated that it is 50 feet away from Amy’s house. Misch explained that the detention basin is contained
entirely on a separate private property and the outfall is away from that property boundary. She explained that the requirement is that it does not encroach on any other property boundary.
There was discussion regarding the detention basin and if there is a distance requirement. Sandy Glynn, 24 Upland Road commented that she did not see anything in the Notice of Intent
that addressed the rare species and habitat. She stated several concerns regarding the many potential adverse effects of the resource area based on the scope of this project. She questioned
the standard that the applicant was going to have to meet. Maronn said that the whole Notice of Intent was sent to Natural Heritage for review. 7
Glynn discussed other concerns that she had regarding future effects to the resource areas. She explained that although there are no known effects to the resource area now, there would
be some problems in the future. Maronn explained the jurisdiction that the Conservation Commission would have for this project. Deb Jacobs, 82 Grove Avenue wanted to emphasize that the
wetland and the vernal pools expand and contract depending on the weather. She also discussed concerns with lots 46 and 51 & 54 regarding the buffer zone. She asked where the water from
the culde-sac would drain. Mark Reed showed how the water would drain towards and discharge back to detention basin D. Jacobs stated that in the past she had spoken with Wayne Feiden
regarding detention basin A and the current runoff that goes onto the railroad bed. She stated that she believes something needs to be done. Mark Reed stated that the proposed roadway
has been designed to accommodate all drainage and it would be discharged into detention basin A. There was discussion regarding the current drainage conditions. Mark Reed clarified that
during the soil testing, he did not encounter any ledge in the 16 test holes that were performed. He stated that they are not anticipating any need for blasting based on these test results.
Dan Keith discussed the logging operations that had been done in the past. He showed the Commission the area that had been logged and requested that the area be restored. He suggested
that something be added in the conditions that would address this area and his concerns. Montgomery stated that because of the concerns regarding wildlife habitat, she would like to
have a wildlife habitat evaluation field data form completed. She is hopeful that by completing this form, many of the questions and concerns that the public has brought up, would be
addressed. Also, she stated that she is concerned about the size of the houses and the garages. Reed moved to continue to November 8th at 5:30 P.M. Doe seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The applicant and the Commission confirmed the site visit for November 4th at 1:00 P.M. 8
At 7:50 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by William Gruber for the removal of one small and one large debris pile and the replication of an isolated
wetland for the creation of two residential lots for property located on Grove Street, also known as Map 37 & 38A, Parcels 57 & 54. Work will take place within the buffer zone of a Bordering
Vegetated Wetland and in the buffer zone of an isolated wetland. Alan Doe left. Ray Levesque was present with William Gruber to explain the application. He went over the highlights of
the application showing the Commission the existing condition of the land and the area where the debris piles are located. He explained that the proposal is for lots 3, 4 and parcel
5 to remove the pile of debris and fill the isolated wetland. He showed where the wetland would be replaced. He directed the Commission to the narrative section of the Notice of Intent.
He explained the reasons why he believes the wetland should be replicated according to the regulations. Levesque pointed out a pipe (shown on the plans) to the Commission that would
be eliminated during the reconstruction of Rte. 66. He stated that with the removal of this pipe, this wetland would no longer receive water and it would not be known as an intermittent
stream. Montgomery asked if there was a definitive plan for this removal of pipe. Ned Huntley, City of Northampton confirmed that the removal of the pipe is slated for phase 2 of the
reconstruction plans. He updated the Commission as to the status of the project. Levesque explained how the water would drain off of the site. He also discussed the possibility of grading
the rear portion of the homes so that the proposed homes would have a yard and any water coming off of the hill could be intercepted. Levesque stated that overall the idea of the project
is to put the same soil conditions back but with better vegetation. Montgomery asked if there is a wetland under the rubble pile. Levesque stated that it may have been a wetland but
he is unsure because the pile has been there for some time and also because of the trees growing out of it, possibly it has been there for 15 to 20 years. He said that the proposal is
to dig up this pile and allow it to be a wetland. Montgomery asked why some of the trees wouldn’t be left there. Levesque stated that they are trying to create a back yard for the proposed
homes. 9
Montgomery asked if the potential homeowners wanted to keep the trees would that be an option? Levesque stated that it could be an option for the potential homeowner. Montgomery suggested
leaving the trees so that there would be a buffer for the traffic on Rte. 66. Misch asked about the drainpipe extending into the wetland because she was unsure if it was calculated into
the needed replication. Levesque stated that it was not calculated because they did not feel that there would be much disturbance. Misch asked if there would be enough drainage to create
any kind of erosion. Levesque stated that the drainage would be just foundation drainage and that it would be a minimal drainage. Paulette Kuzdeba-Hurley from DPW stated that she received
a call regarding a drain line that is not marked which may run through this property. She suggested that he verify the pipe. William Gruber said that he believes the pipe is located
on the adjacent lot. He showed the Commission where the drainpipe is located. Misch asked if there was a need for maintenance along the swale in the future and what would happen to the
roofline drains. She stated that she did not see any easement language proposed. Levesque showed where the proposed easement is on the plans and discussed why it was located where it
was. Misch asked what would happen to lot 5 after the other lots are sold. She suggested that lot 5 be merged with lot 4 so that there is never an issue as to whether or not it can be
developed. Jane Hillman, 212 Grove Street asked if the plans take into consideration the new plans for Rte. 66. Levesque said that they did take the reconstruction into consideration
but that they have not drawn up the new plans as of yet. He showed a lot line that would change slightly. Hillman suggested that Levesque leave as many trees as possible along Rte. 66.
10
Mary Murray, 200 Grove Street wanted to thank Mr. Levesque for removing all of the debris. She commented that during a storm, the water runs quite a bit. She also suggested leaving as
many trees as possible. Misch read the comments from DPW. Reed moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:30 P.M., Maronn opened the Public Hearing
on a Request for Determination filed by the Northampton Department of Public Works to confirm whether the installation of a new sewer pump station, 4” force main pipe and a new gas line
will have an impact on any wetland resources for property located at 74 Barrett Street, also known as Map 24B, Parcel 73. Paulette Kuzdeba-Hurley from DPW presented the application.
She explained the proposed work and responded to questions from the Commission. She stated that the closest that any work would be to the wetlands is approximately 5 feet. She said that
haybales would be installed throughout this area. There was discussion regarding future plans. Maronn stated that he did not see a problem with this project. Reed moved to close the
public hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to issue a Negative Determination Box 3. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission
discussed the minutes of June 7, 2001. Carbin moved to accept the minutes. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION (FOR MINUTES REFER TO NON-PUBLIC FILE)
At 9:05 P.M., Maronn announced that they would be entering Executive Session. Maronn, Reed Montgomery 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. 11
12 When members emerged from Executive Session, Maronn again announced the reason. Misch explained to the Commission that the second meeting in November falls on Thanksgiving. She asked
the members if they would like to meet the week after Thanksgiving because of the backlog of work that they have. Members agreed to hold a meeting on the November 29th. Certificate of
Compliance for Brookwood Marsh Wetland Restoration. Montgomery moved to approve the Certificate of Compliance. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch updated the Commission
regarding the recent Enforcement Order for the Oxbow. Misch discussed the Enforcement Order for Riverside Drive. She explained that a site inspection indicated that the temporary barrier
that had been set up for the driveway is now gone and people are parking their cars and storing materials in the Conservation area. Misch updated the Commission on Dunphy Drive and also
on the Wzorek beaver dam project. Misch discussed the re-appointments for both chair and vice vice chair. It was agreed that the Commission would discuss this issue as well as the discussion
of fines at the next meeting. Reed moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Executive Session October 25, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, October 25, 2001 at 9:05 P.M. in
Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were members: Chair C. Mason Maronn, Joanne Montgomery, Mike Reed, Susan Carbin and John Body. At 9:07
P.M., Maronn opened the meeting. Maronn announced that they would be entering Executive Session for the purpose of discussing land acquisition. Maronn, Reed, Montgomery, Body and Carbin
all agreeing affirmatively to enter an Executive Session by roll-call vote. Misch explained that Wayne Feiden annually applies for self-help grant money for land acquisition for conservation
areas. Misch said that there is an additional grant opportunity available and Wayne is requesting that the Commission approve three different parcels of land. Misch explained that there
are two possibilities in the Saw Mill Hills area but the lot lines are not quite clear as of of yet. The third parcel is located adjacent from the Fitzgerald Lake conservation area.
Misch explained that Feiden would like the Commission to grant approval so that he can pursue whatever property is more feasible for him to go after. Montgomery asked if Feiden was going
to pursue one or several pieces of property. Misch explained that it depends on whatever amount of money is available in order to maximize as much land as possible. Reed moved to approve
that Feiden apply for the self-help grant money in order pursue the parcels of land discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 9:22 P.M., Maronn , Montgomery, Reed,
Body and Carbin all agreed affirmatively by roll-call vote to end the Executive Session.
Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting November 8, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, November 8, 2001 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 5:45 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.
Based upon a request by the Applicant,
Reed moved to continue the hearing to November 29, 2001. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:46 P.M., Maronn stated that there was a continuation scheduled for the Public
Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Mark Bernstein and Susan Carbin but due to a lack of quorum, the hearing could not be opened. It was agreed that the hearing should be continued
to November 29th at 6:30. Other Business Because of a lack of quorum, the members present agreed to hold the discussion of fines and chair voting to the next scheduled meeting. Misch
stated that she would list these issues on the November 29th agenda. Misch updated the Commission regarding the Fairgrounds.
Misch informed the Commission that an Enforcement Order had been issued to the Northampton Airport because fill was brought into the floodplains for a grass drag snowmobile-racing event
that was recently held at the Airport. Misch added that there is still a Certificate of Compliance outstanding for the resurfacing work that was done on the runway. Misch informed the
Commission of a request by Mass Highway to extend the Order of Conditions for the work being done on the Calvin Coolidge Bridge. Reed moved to approve the extension. Carbin seconded.
The motion passed unanimously. Misch informed the Commission of a land acquisition proposal for property located near the oxbow. Misch explained that there is a grant for $10,000 that
may be available but Wayne Feiden needs a vote from the Commission in order to go forward. There was some discussion as to where the property is located. Reed moved to recommend the
land acquisition. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch updated the Commission on the Appeal of the Order of Conditions for the Wzorek property. Order of Conditions for
Grove Street Carbin moved to issue the orders as discussed and described in the staff report. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch updated the Commission regarding
the Forest Cutting Plan for River Road. Misch read a follow-up letter regarding the water chestnut project. At 6:12 P.M., Maronn stated that there was a continuation scheduled for the
Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Frank Fournier but due to a lack of quorum, the hearing could not be opened. It was agreed that the hearing should be continued
to November 29th at 5:30. The Commission had an informal discussion with Mark Bernstein regarding the Notice of Intent he filed. 2
3 Carbin moved to adjourn. Fournier seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to reconvene the meeting in order to discuss the Northampton Athletic Club. Carbin seconded. The
motion passed unanimously. The Commission had an informal discussion regarding the future plans of the Northampton Athletic Club. Carbin moved to adjourn. Fournier seconded. The motion
passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:46 P.M.
The Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting November 29, 2001 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, November 29, 2001 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, Joanne Montgomery, Jim Kaplan and
John Body. Staff: Senior Planner Carolyn Misch and Board Secretary Angela Dion. At 5:31 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. Maronn stated that the hearing tonight was going to be continued because there are several issues that have been raised since the last hearing
from Natural Heritage. Mark Reed said that he had been in contact with Natural Heritage since they sent a letter to the Commission. He updated the Commission as to the status of the
discussions. Reed added that Mr. Hanley requested some information from Natural Heritage and they are also in the process of trying to schedule a site visit. Reed stated that because
the wetland crossing was such a big issue with Natural Heritage, Mr. Hanley is now discussing different options. Misch suggested that the hearing be continued for several weeks in order
to give the applicant enough time to address the new concerns. Kaplan moved to continue the hearing to February 14, 2001 at 5:30 P.M. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
At 5:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Request for Determination filed by Frank Fournier to confirm a wetland delineation for property
located at Easthampton Road, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 44, Parcel 40. Christian Boysen of Land Solutions introduced himself to the Commission. He explained that the application
before the Commission is for confirmation of a wetland delineation. Reed asked if anyone had looked at the line. Both Maronn and Misch said that they had looked at the line. Maronn said
that he did not have any concerns with the delineation. Montgomery asked if there is currently water on the site. Boysen said that there is standing water but in the summer, the area
is quite dry. Reed moved to close the hearing. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read the recommendations listed in the staff report. Reed moved to issue a positive
determination checking box 2A. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Frank Fournier arrived. At 5:53 P.M., Maronn opened the Discussion on a Request by Todd G. Cellura for
Approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plans including two flag lots & common driveway under the 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 Dunphy Drive, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 36, Parcel 87 and Map 43, Parcel 5 & 6. Christian Boysen
of Land Solutions was present to explain the proposal as described in the application. He explained that the applicant would like to extend Dunphy Drive and add a cul-de-sac with a shared
driveway. Boysen explained the proposed drainage and stated that a leaching basin and retention basin would be installed to handle the runoff from the cul-de-sac. Montgomery asked if
the wetlands are functional wetlands. Boysen stated that that the wetlands are either low or flat and that he was unsure why the area was wet at all. 2
Kaplan said that he and Reed had been out to the site and that the area did not seem to be very wet. Vivian Meyer, 127 Dunphy Drive had some comments that were not wetland related. Maronn
stated that the comments must be related to the wetlands. Leonard Rifkin, 127 Dunphy Drive stated that there is a pool of water located on the site. He explained that the pool is present
all spring and most of the summer. He discussed concerns about the wetland areas. Maronn stated that just because water is located on the site does not mean that it is a wetland. He
explained that there is certain requirements necessary in order for an area to be determined a wetland. Montgomery asked if the Commission could visit the site again. Maronn explained
that this project is still in the planning stage and that there is still a permitting process that must be completed. Diane Brawn, 53 Pencasal Drive discussed concerns regarding protecting
the wetlands. She stated that she is saddened that this area is getting developed. Misch encouraged Brawn to attend the Planning Board meeting so that she may raise her concerns to the
Board. Maronn asked if there were any other comments. There were none. Misch discussed the recommendations with the Commission as stated in the staff report. Kaplan moved to send the
recommendations to the Planning Board. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:40 P.M., Maronn opened the Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent filed by Mark
Bernstein and Susan Carbin to stabilize and repair a steep and eroded section of bank behind a single-family home to prevent potential collapse for property located at 18 Mulberry Street,
Leeds, also known as Northampton Assessor’s Map 10B, Parcel 58. Resource areas affected include Land Under Water, Bank and Riverfront Area. Carbin left the hearing room. Misch explained
that the reason why the hearing was continued. She explained that DEP believes the project is a temporary fix and they would like to have a more permanent 3
measure to be pursued diligently. Misch suggested that the Commission move the project forward so that some type of stabilization can be put in place. Reed questioned the location where
the stone would be removed. Bernstein explained the proposed plans to the Commission. He stated that certain grants might be available in the future and an engineer could assist with
a more permanent solution. Reed asked about the use of heavy equipment and what the elevation would be. Bernstein explained that the elevation would be between one and three feet from
the water level. Misch explained in greater detail the proposed measures that Bernstein is seeking. She added that this proposal is an amendment to the previous Notice of Intent that
was filed. Reed stated that the determination of the elevation should be based on the flood level. Montgomery asked why this proposal is not consider a permanent solution. Bernstein
explained that he was in the process of conveying this property to the Conservation Commission; however, however, the City was reluctant to take property without some assurance that
they will not be taking on additional liability and responsibility for repairing damage caused by others. Reed moved to close the hearing. Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
At 6:55 P.M., Maronn opened the 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. Paulet Kuzdeba-Hurley and Ned Huntley, DPW was present to explain the application. Kuzdeba stated
that she had a long conversation with DEP regarding the comments that they sent. She explained to the Commission that DEP has a new policy that is in the draft stage regarding this type
of application. She went through each of the comments from DEP with the Commission and responded to questions. 4
Misch stated that DEP is going to contact Mass Heritage and ask them to review this application and submit comments. Misch suggested that an executive summary be added to the front of
the Notice of Intent. Reed asked about bridgework, sandblasting and repainting. Kuzdeba explained that DPW does not perform any sandblasting and that type of work would be done under
a state contract. Reed stated that he was concerned about stump removals as explained on page 13 of the Notice of Intent. Kuzbeda explained that there would not be a need to remove any
stumps unless they were in the way of a structure. Because of the number of concerns from DEP and that the Commission would need to hear from Mass Heritage, it was agreed that the hearing
should be continued. Montgomery stated that she had concerns regarding mulching. She asked if they were aware of any invasive materials in the mulch. Reed asked about grading the roads
in the flood plain areas. He asked how compensatory storage would be addressed for this section. Kuzdeba explained that they would not be bringing fill into the floodplain. Reed moved
to continue the hearing to January 10, 2002 at 5:30 P.M. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Certificate of Compliance –Westhampton Road Misch reminded the Commission what
the project was about. She stated that she went out to the site and everything appears to be stable. Kaplan moved to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Reed seconded. The motion passed
unanimously. Minutes Montgomery moved to table the minutes of June 21, 2001 to the next meeting. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Voting 5
The Commission discussed the voting. Kaplan nominated Maronn for the position of chair. Maronn accepted Montgomery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Montgomery nominated Reed
for Vice Chair. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. It was agreed that the discussion of fines would be addressed at the next meeting. Misch discussed the public land portion
of the proposed site for Beaver Brook. She stated that the past actions of the City were determined to be void. She asked members of the Commission if they would like to make a public
statement regarding making the land part of the open space if and when the project moves forward. Certificate of Compliance for North Farms Road Misch updated the Commission regarding
the location of the site. She explained that this certificate would apply to just one lot. Misch stated that she went out to the site and everything looks fine. Reed moved to issue the
Certificate of Compliance. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Extension Order for the Coolidge Bridge Misch explained that Mass Highway is requesting a three-year extension
to complete the work. Carbin moved to grant the extension. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Misch discussed a grant application for brownfields assessment demonstration
pilot to examine the historic Mill River corridor through Northampton. She explained that the project is a restoration of the Mill River area and an addition of a walkway with green
space. Misch updated the Commission on the appeal of the Order of Conditions for the Wzorek beaver dam project. Misch discussed a friendly taking of land in the Saw Mill Hills area.
6
7 Order of Conditions-Bernstein Misch read the recommendations in the staff report. The Commission made suggestions regarding the recommendations and changes were made. Reed moved to
issue the conditions with the recommendations and changes discussed. Kaplan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
At 8:41 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.