10D-025 93 Arch St Planning`+..r
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Conservation Commission Members
FROM: Lawrence B. Smith, Planner
SUBJECT: Clark Erosion Problem on Arch Street
DATE: November 10, 1982
FILE
The following is a history of events with regard to the Clark's Arch Street erosion problem:
June 24, 1982 - Cecil Clark and Zip Sheehan took me on an inspection of various points
along the Mill River to inspect damage caused by the June flooding. We ended up at Arch
Street at the bank slide. We couldn't help but notice the extensive earth removal operation
taking place up on the Clark's property, and the two major points of erosion caused by it.
There was one appx. three foot deep gully (see 'c' on attached plan) and there was much
erosion and siltation running down their driveway which during times of heavy rain swept
across Arch St. and has created an erosion problem on the steep bank leading down to the
Mill River. There was a large amount of silt deposited on Arch Street. No;one was home
at the time but there was a large front -end loader parked in the area of the earth removal.
Cecil noted that they had not, to his knowledge, received an earth removal Special Permit.
June 27, 1982 - On my way back from the Robert's Hill Conservation Area, around noon, I
noticed a gentleman up in the driveway. I drove up, got out of my car, introduced myself
and explained why I was there. The gentleman refused to identify himself, explain what he
was doing on the property (with regard to the earth removal) or explain what his future
plans were for the area. He then started up his chain saw, in what I felt was a rather
intimidating manner, so I felt it prudent not to pursue this matter at that time.
July 1, 1982 - I invited Craig Givens (DEQE Regional Wetlands Office) and Pat Scanlon
USDA /Soil Conservation Service) to inspect the flood damage on the Mill River with me
to get their input. After inspecting the Arch St. Bank slumping we noticed a women,
with her children up on the property where the earth had been removed,so we went up
to talk with her. I identified myself and.the people in my party and explained why
we were there. She identified herself as Mrs. Clark and explained that they had an a
arrangement with a contractor (Mr. Buster LaValley) who was removing the fill as he
needed it, which would eventually leave them with a larger yard. As I was pointing out
the problems this was creating for the city in terms of siltation on Arch Street and
the erosion down the bank along the river, she became mildly belligerent and defensive
stating that there were many similar points of erosion all along Arch St. (I later walked
the length of Arch Street and found none that even approached the degree of severity
of theirk's) and that this problem had been going on for years. When we suggested that
she try to retain the run -off on -site she responded that she didn't want to create a
safety (drowning) problem on her property for her children. It was decided that we
would meet again on the site with 'ir:3 _ CI anc 3 1 4r. Lavalley. Mrs. Clark commented
that she would be contacting her lawyer. She also complemented me as being the first
representative from the City who had bothered to contact her directly about the situation.
On our way dovm the driveway Ms Scanlon alsr) complimented me on being able to deal with
people in such a way as to reach an amicable solution.
July 27, 1982 - Pat Scanls,,.,and I met with Mrs. Clark and Nm w dter LaValley at the site.
Mrs. Clark said that they wanted to remove all of the hill back as far as the old
rialroad -- right- of-way to which I responded that a Zoning Special Permit was most likely
required. Pat - pointed out that when the hill and vegetation were there that much of the
rain soaked into the ground and was taken up by the vegetation. When the vegetation
was removed and the earth caopacted under the wdight of the front -end loader it essentially
became an impervious cover and all of the rain water just sheeted off of the site. Mrs.
Clark again resisted the idea of retaining the run -off on -site as a safety problem.
Pat's suggestion of detaining the water on -site and draining it into the city's storm
drain system by.putting a catch basin on site with a culvert was received as being too
expensive as the Clark's didn't have a lot of money. It was decided that Pat would go
back and try to develop a plan using earth berms and swales to control the run -6ff as
a low cost -no cost alternative. Mrs.. Clark again stated that she would be contacting her
lawyer.
July 29, 1982 - Pat Scanlon dropped off to me, and met with Mrs. Clark (I was unable to
attend this meeting) to go over the Sediment and Erosion Control Reccmendatiors for
the Clark's property. This plan was to f lI the gully and create an earth berm
at erosion point 'c' to keep the water directed on -site. The driveway should be moved
two feet to the east to direct the run -off into the existing city storm drain. A stone
filled swale (waterway) should be built along the east edge of the driveway (leading to
the existing catch basin) and a shallow berm at the top of the driveway would direct run-
off from the site into this stone swale. The steep, eroded slope on the west side of the
driveway should be graded(3 /1 or at least 2/1) and seeded and a grassed swale would carry
run -off from this area down the west side of the driveway. It was noted that the eroded
bank on the west side of the driveway was almost to the abutters property line, thus
their permission would have to be received to grade the bank back. Pat's plan went into
much detail not only showing the Clark's what type of vegetation to plant, but also
how to construct the swales.
August 5, 1982 - I went before the City Council to get. their permission to request
Army Corps of Engineer assistance in correcting the damage caused by the Mill River
Flooding. one of the Councillor's suggested that the City sue the Clark's to get
them to correct the problems that they were causing. I replied that though I felt
the Clark's situation had contributed to the bank slumping on Arch Street, I did not
feel that it was the sole cause and thus the City would have trouble collecting for
damages. I also related how we were working with the Clark's,and the Soil Conservation
Service has developed a plan to help remedy the situation.
September 28, 1982 - I inspected the Mill River damage with the Corps of Engineers,
Cecil Clark and Zip Sheehan. When we were at Arch Street the Corps couldn't help
but notice the Clark's operation and they asked what was being done to reduce its
impact upon the bank slumpage problem. I replied, as I had done to the Council,
that we were working with the Clark's and that the Soil Conservation Service had
developed a plan in the Clark's price range.
November 2, 1982 - Peter McNulty and Dick Stone (DPW):, Pat Scanlon and Chester
Konieczny (SCS) and Ton Clark and I went to Arch Street to discuss constructing an asphalt
berm along the south side of Arch St. to keep the street's run -off frcm reahcing the
bank slumping along the river. We couldn't help but notice that there continued to be
significant erosion and siltation originating from the Clark's property and it was generally
recognized by all there that the City would just be throwing its money away unless the
Clark's corrected their problem. Ton Clark and I approached Mrs. Clark in her front yard
to see what progress was being made. The gully had been filled in at point 'c' and an
earth berm constructed. Most of the bank on the westerly side of the driveway had been
graded back (appx. 2/1 slope) and seeded. However, all of the run -off was now running down
the driveway and the driveway had not been moved over tvay feet nor had the stone or grassed
swalesbeen constructed nor had the berm at the tap of the driveway. Thus, all of the silt
frcm the site was still ending up in Arch Street. I informed her of what the City was
planing with regard to the berm along Arch Street and tried to impress upon her the severity
of the situation and the urgent need for the Clark's to rectify their situation.
Nov. 2, 1982 cont. - Her �Mgpcnse was that they were doing Te a little at a time, as they
were getting to it when baycould get to it. Mr. Clark worked 7 days a week and they went
to a number of events of their children. She also stated that it was
actually the city fault because they originally sold Mr. Clark's father the property.
I attempted to point out that they had a legal and moral obligation to correct the
situation and asked her what kind of timetable we could expect from them to finish the
job. She pointed out that at age 31 she was perfectly_.capable of making her own moral
judgements, that they would get the work done when they got it done, and that she found
my arrogance annoying. Tom Clark pointed out that the best solution would be to pave
the driveway to halt the sedimentation problem. Mrs. Clark responded that their mortgage
would be paid off in eight years and at that time they might take out a hone improvement loan
to pave the driveway. Mrs. Clark, once again, stated that she would be contacting her
lawyer. Having heard her say that before and still not having heard from her lawyer I
strongly suggested, actually pleaded, that she please contact her lawyer as often times
they were able to get the seriousness of the situations across to their clients when I
have failed.
Often times,for urgent problems that need to rectified quickly,I have found it easier to
work with the people on an informal basis, as opposed to the public hearing process,
Up until now this approach has worked very well as the landowners have appreciated this
flexability and have worked hard to meet the city half way. I do not find this willingness
with the Clark's.
Frustrated with this case I contacted Craig Givens (DEQE) for advice. He suggested that,
since the informal route has proved unsuccessful, we should issue -'Ahe Clark's an Order
requiring them to correct their situation on Arch Street,.and in order to do that they
must file a Notice Of Intent. Should they refuse, or fail to follow through on the
issued Order of Conditions then the City should take them to court for violating the
Wetlands Protection Act. In short, this original Order to correct the situation will
be the beginning of our documenting a case against the Clark's.
On November 9, 1982 I received a letter from Atty Leonard Jekanowski, representing the
Clark's, requesting information on the matter. On Wednesday (11/10) I met with Leonard
and essentially went over with him what you have just read here. He was impressed with
the severity of the situation and the efforts of the City to work with the Clark's to
rectify it. I gave him_;copy'.sof the Notice of Intent and E nv,ironzental Data Forms
for the Clark's, and am confident that he can impress upon then the need to correct the
problem. I believe both Atty Jekanowski and the Clark's will be in attendance at our
November 15, 1982 meeting*
TO : Mr.& Mrs. Roger Clark
93 Arch Street
Leeds, MA 01053
DAT E: November 15, 1982
SITE & ACTIVITY The removal of earth on your property at 93 Arch Street in Leeds has
caused severe erosion and siltation problems on both yours and abutting properties due to
uncontrolled storm water run -off. Said activity is considered "removing" and "altering"
property "bordering" a "river" and "land subject to flooding" as defined under Chapter 131,
Section 40, M.G.L. (The Wetlands Protection Act) and the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Qualtiy Engineer's Regulations Under The Wetland Protection Act, General
Laws Chapter 131, Section 40
The Northampton Conservation Cam ission, duly appointed under Chapter 40, Section 8C,
M.G.L., has investigated the site and activity as above described. It has determined
that the said activity is in violation of Chapter 131, Section 40, M.G.L., and accordingly
orders the following:
1. The Person in posession of the property, his agents and permittees, and all other
persons shall forthwith cease and desist from the present activity affecting the
area :subject to the Wetlands Protection Act.
2. Immediate measures must be taken to correct the serious erosion and siltation probeems
caused by the uncontrolled storm water run -off to retain said run -off on site.
3. A Notice of Intent and Environmental Data Form must be filed with the Northampton
Conservation Commission within 14 days of receipt of this Order for all work that
has taken place with regard to the above mentioned problems and any further work
contemplated, and no other work, except that which is necessary to comply with
item #2 of this Order, shall be performed until a Public Hearing has been held and
an Order of Conditions has been issued.
4. The person in possession of the property shall take all reasonable steps to prevent
unlawful activity by any trespasses on the site.
Delivery: fisted Mail
ry: by eg' Sign�d�:
Number: P 349 902 223
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950
• Community and Economic Development • Conservation
• Historic Preservation • Housing Rehabilitation
• Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals
Mr.& Mrs. Roger Clark
93 Arch Street
Leeds, MA 01053
Re: Cease & Desist Order
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Clark:
_
Enclosed please find a Cease & Desist Order approved unanimously by the
Northampton Conservation Cotmnission at thier meeting on November 15, 1982.
This constitutes the Cau i.ssion's first step in working with you, through
the formal process as authorized by the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act,
Chapter 131, Section 40, M.G.L., to correct your erosion and siltation problem
at 93 Arch Street in Leeds.
The Cannission orders that you first take immediate measures to correct
the erosion and siltation problem to retain the storm water run -off on -site.
Secondly, the Carmission orders that you file a Notice Of Intent and
Environmental Data Form, within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this
Order, explaining how you plan on permanently correcting the erosion and siltation
problem and ultimate elimination of the storm water run -off, and any future plans
which you may have with regard to earth removal on the site.
Once the Carmission receives these materials they will, within twenty -one
(21) days, hold a Public Hearing and ultimately, within another twenty -one
( 21) days, either issue an Order Of Conditions or deny the project.
I have enclosed copies of the Notice Of Intent and Environmental Data Form
for you to fill out and file with the Conmi.ssion, as well as an informational
guide. I am available should you require any assistance.
The Conservation Conmi.ssian's next meetings are scheduled for November 30,
1982 and, tentatively, December 13, 1982. In order to hold your anticipated
Public Hearing at either of these meetings we must receive your completed forms
by 9 :30 am the previous Tuesday so that the legal notice can be published the
required five days before the Hearing.
Should you have any questions or require additional information please feel
free to contact me at the above address and telephone number. Your anticipated
cooperation with regard to this matter is greatly appreciated.
cc: Atty L. Jekanowski Yours,
Building Inspector
Mater Musante
4wre B. Smi
Planne~
November 15, 1982
L
. � fl .
c_I I Y OF N(Jfl 1A UU,J1 ON
1 kVArION E-OrAfII ',ION
O rtlanbe J �,rt
Aass.nrhusetts 05rneral Xn hls (111apter 131 $ertinn 40
CE ASE & DESIS O RDER
TO: Mr.& Mrs. Roger Clark
93 Arch Street
Leeds, MA 01053
DATE November 15, 1982
SITE & ACTIVITY The removal of earth on your property at 93 Arch Street in Leeds has
caused severe erosion and siltation problems on both yours and abutting properties due to
uncontrolled storm water run -off. Said activity is considered "removing" and "altering"
property "bordering" a "river" and "land subject to flooding" as defined under Chapter 131,
Section 40, M.G.L. (The Wetlands Protection Act) and the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Qualtiy Engineer's Regulations Under The Wetland Protection Act, General
Laws Chapter 131, Section 40
f'he Northampton Conservation Commission, duly appointed under Chapter 40, Section 8C,
M.G.L., has investigated the site and activity as above described. It has determined
that the said activity is in violation of Chapter 131, Section 40, M.G.L., and accordingly
orders the following:
1. The Person in posession of the property, his agents and permi.ttees, and all other
persons shall forthwith cease and desist from the present activity affecting the
area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act.
2. Immediate measures must be taken to correct the serious erosion and siltation probeems,
caused by the uncontrolled storm water run- off,to retain said run -off on site.
3. A Notice of Intent and Environmental Data Form mus be filed with the Northampton
Conservation Commission within 14 days of receipt of this Order for all work that
has taken place with regard to the above mentioned problems and any further work
contemplated, and no other work, except that which is necessary to comply with
item #2 of this Order, shall be performed until a Public Hearing has been held and
an Order Of Conditions has been issued.
4. The person in possession of the property shall
unlawful activity by any trespasses on the sit
Delivery: by Registed Mail Si
gnq�d:
NLUmber: P 349 902 223
take all reasonable steps to prevent
r..0/
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
- -- — — MEMORANDUM
TO: Cecil Clark, Northampton Building Inspector /Zoning Enforcement Officer
FROM: Lawrence B. SmitfF, Planner, on behalf of the Northampton Conservation Cannission
SUBJECT: Request For Enforcement of Zoning Violation at 93 Arch Street, Leeds
DATE: November 16, 1982
FILE
At their meeting on November 15, 1982 the Northampton Conservation Cam - ission
voted unanimously to make a formal request to you, in writing, in conformance with
the provisions of Chapter 40A, Section 7, M.G.L., and Section 10.7 of the Northampton
Zoning Ordinance insisting that enforcement action be taken with regard to an
existing earth removal operation taking place at 93 Arch Street on the lnreadses
of Mr.& Mrs. Roger Clark in apparent violation of Artic3d! V, Section 5.2- Wholesale,
Transportation and Industrial -Item #1, and Article XZ, Section 11.1 of the Northampton
Zoning Ordinance. This Memorandum hereby constitues said formal request.
Your anticipated cooperation and prampt action with regard to this matter
is greatly appreciated.
CC: Mayor Musante
INSPECTOR
Cecil I. Clark
`r !
(ri #v of Noz#huuipton
A8568C411setts
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
212 Main Street ' Municipal Building
Northampton, Mass. 01060
Name Mr--&-Mrs, Roger Clark
Address 93 Arch Street
City Tax Map Page IOD Lot # 25 _ Zone URA
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
It has been brought to the attention of this office that you
are in violation of the Ordinances of the City of Northampton,
Section 11_1 _ , Paragraph inclusive
Specifically, _ Removal of sand & gravel
Please notify this office if corrections cannot be made
within 30 days.
Violations of this order are subject to Article 10, Section
10.8. "Penalties for violations may upon conviction, be affixed
in an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each
offense. Each day, or portion pf a Bay, that any violation is
allowed to continue shall constitute a separate offense."
Sincerely,
CECIL I. CLARK
INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS
cc: Conservation Comm.
I=
yb
i FORM 3
WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
MASSACHUSETTS G.L. C. 131 s. 40
NOTICE OF INTENT
All parts of this form and the attached Environmental Data Form shall be completed
under the pains and penalties of perjury. Incomplete filings may be rejected.
DATE: December 1, 1982
Conservation Commission of (City /TO: Northampton, Mass
1. Notice is hereby given in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts G.L.
c. 131, s. 40 that the proposed activity described herein is within the jurisdiction
of
(City /Town) Northampton (Leeds) , at 93 Arch Street
Most recent recording at the Registry of Deeds - Hampshire Book
Page . Dated April 30, 1982
Cestificate (if registered) n/a
2. The land on which the work is proposed to be done is owned by:
Roger P. Clark
NAME(s) Julianne M. Clark ADDRESS 93 Arch Street
r a p on ee s ssz.
3. The Applica 0 ge u t in t &4111 o anne 1 ark
By Their
Attorney NM ADDRESS 70 Cente Straat_
Leonard C. Jeknaowski, Esq. Northampton, Mass. 01060
TELEPHON 586 -5500
(Optional)The following person is hereby designated to represent the
applicant in matters arising hereunder :.
Name Leonard C. Jekanowski Address 70 Center Street
Telephone (413) 586 -5500 Northampton, Mass.
4. Plans describing and defining the work, included herewith and made a part hereof,
are titled and dated:
see recommendations of Pat Scanlon, soil conservationist, U.S.D.A. Conservation
Sel and plans filed with same.
S. Identical material has been submitted by certified mail as follows:
Original to Conservation Commission (Date) delivered 12/9/82
Three copies to appropriate regional office of the Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering: - Date mailed 12/9/82
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Western Regional
Office,_ - p -ublic Health Center. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, MA 01003
X'
ME
x 4 (Form 3, continued)
ti... - 2
6. Has the required $25.00 filing fee, payable to the city or town, been included
with the submission to the Conservation Commission ? _paid herew
7. Has the Environmental Data Form been completed and submitted with each copy? yes
S. Has a locus map (8si" x 11" copy of USGS topographic sheet with the site marked) been
included with each copy? y es
9.
(A)Have all•obtainable permits, variances, and approvals required by local by - law been
obtained? (applied for)
W If they have not been obtained, have they been applied for? yes
If yes, include with this Notice of Intent any information which has been submitted
with such applications which is necessary to describe the effect of the proposed
activity on the environment.
10. same information as supplied herewith
(A)Is the site of the proposed work subject to a wetland restriction order recorded
pursuant to G.L. c. 131, s. 40A, or G.L. c. 130, s. 105, by the Department of
Environmental Management? Yes No X Do not know
(E)IS the site of the proposed work in, or within 100 feet of: a coastal dune ;
coastal bank no ;_coastal beach no ; salt marsh no land under the ocean ;
a salt pond no anadromous /catadromous fish run no do not know ?
11. Signature(s) of owner(s) of the land (if by agent or option holder, written authori-
sation must be att4chcd)
12. What is the purpose of the proposed project?
The premises of the proposed project is to stabilize and correct an existing
' erosion problem at the subject property.
13. I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE FORGOING NOTICE
OF INTENT AND ACCOMPANYING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FORM ARE TRUE AND COMPLETE.
Roger 1 and Julianne M. Clark
By: December 1, 1982
Signature of A nt Date
Leonard C. Jekanwog�C1, Esq.
Their Attorney
. ' 4
-I-
WETLAND PROTECTION ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FORM
1. All parts of this form are to be filled out by the applicant or
his agent under the provisions of G.L. C. 131 S. 40.
2. Where a section is not relevant to the application in question,
the words "Not Applicable" should be entered on the appropriate
line.
OF APPLICANT
Roger P Clark and Julianne M Clark
A)D RESS OF APPLICANT
93 Arch Street, Northampton (Leed Mass achusetts
MUOICIPALITIES WHERE ACTIVITY IS PROPOSED AND NOTICE IS FILED
City of Northampton
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY INVOLVED IN one and one -half (1 -1/2) acres on
AP ?LICATION (including the dimensions hillside along Arch Street,
of any existing buildings, decks, marinas, Leeds, Massachusetts
existing cesspools)
D_SCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED grading, seeding, installation of
Oil THE SITE, including grading, dredging, stone drain and retaining
removal of vegetation, etc. wall
A. SOILS
1. United States Department of Paxton fine sandy loam
Agriculture Soil Types (show on map)
2. Permeability of soil on the site. (Dates of testing)
Information not available but high run off potential
3. Rate of percolation of water through
the soil. (Dates of testing)
s low be low a depth of two feet as per scs memo
`o.. -2-
,..�
B. SURFACE WATERS
1. Distance of site from nearest
surface water (Date of measurement)
100 feet
2. Sources of runoff water
storm water runoff
3. Rate of runoff from the site
high rate due to compaction of soil
4. Destination of runoff water
Arch Street and Mill River
S. Chemical additives to runoff
water on the site
(insignificant)
C. GROUND COVER
1. Extent of existing impervious
ground cover on the site
50%
2. Extent of proposed impervious
ground cover on the site
50%
3. Extent of existing vegetative
cover on the site
50%
4. Extent of proposed vegetative
cover on the site
50%
D. TOPOGRAPHY
1.
Maximum
existing
elevation on
site
360
feet
2.
Minimum
existing
elevation on
site
335
feet
3.
Maximum
proposed
elevation of
site
360
feet
�. -3-
�+
4. Minimum proposed elevation of site 335 feet
5. Descri of proposed change in topography
no further change only stabilizing an exising condition
E. GROUND WATER
1. Minimum depth to water table on site (at time of filing)
not determined
2 . Maximum depth to water table on site (at time of filing)
not determined
3. Seasonal maximum ground water elevation
not determined
F. WATER SUPPLY
1. The source of the water to be provided to the site
not applicable to this project
2. The expected water requirements (g.p.d.) for the site
n/a
3. The uses to which water will be put
n
G. SEWAGE DISPOSAL
1. Sewage disposal system (description
and location on the site, of system)
n/a
2. Expected content of the sewage
effluents (human waste, pesticides,
detergents, oils, heavy metals,
other chemicals)
n/a
3. Expected daily volume of sewage
n/a
H. SOLID WASTE
1. Estimated quantity of solid waste
to be developed on the site
n/a
2. Method or disposal of solid waste
n
3. Plans fr recycling of solid waste
I. BOAT YARDS, DOCKS, MARINAS
-4-
1. Capacity of marina (number of
boats, running feet)
n/a
2. Description of docks and floats
(site, dimensions)
n/a
3. Description of sewage pumpout
facilities (type of waste disposal)
n/a
4. Description of fueling facilities
and fuel storage tanks
n/a
5. Description of fuel spill prevention
measures and equipment n/a
S. IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION APPLIED FOR Will have beneficial effects since
1. Effects on plant species
erosion will be controlled and siltation
diminished
(upland and marine)
2. Effects on marine species (shellfish, finfish) beneficial effect since siltation will
be -;- shed --
3. Effects on drainage and runoff will redirect and control drainage and
w runoff
4. Effects on siltation of surface waters
will reduce or elimante same
5. Effects on groundwater quality
none
6. Effects on surface water quality will reduce siltation and erosion
MY
K. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION 1) take no action (not advisable)
2) take proposed action (recommended)
1. Describe alternatives to the3) break through knoll to redirect water towards
requested action opposite direction (feasibility undetermined)
2. Describe the benefits of the requested will stabilize and correct
action over the alternatives the erosion problems at the site
-f,, mtl
L L I A M S, B' R G
� J -_'_ � Bbl I. ,� i� � G} l n i �1�,' /�>%'� rB l � `. �1✓
fill i
nl 00 1) If
t M a, 5
e m
Res
0
4 r l %
WT 7
7f/�� 1 i ,�r�l� �� i . " ,� Z i. 4L
V--
8
�� ��� " ,� �N ��
a n fi n:ry Cl
k � Ii, \ \. ��l �� C)
5 3
LOO
MEMORIAL
�� �•.�������� lb�� PARK ARK
��\ _�
' 314
Ro
Mead At-
i� %�r;/I e
9
0 t,
t�
u
L/ I
0
C9 4 - _-�- °
01
100
FORM 4 e j
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
H E T L A N D S P R O T E C T I O N ♦ C T
G.L. C. 131, a. 40 16? //- a /
CITY /TOWN Northampton — `----------- - - -...
FILE NUMBER 246 -99
TO NAKE er P. & Juliann M. Clark
ADDRESS 93 Arch Stree
CERTIFIED MAIL NUMBER P349 902 903
PROJ ECT LOCATION:
Leeds, MA 01 053
naaress 93 Arch Street, Leeds, MA 01053
Recorded at Registry of Deeds, Hampshire County gook Dated April 30 1982
Pa
Certificate (if registered)
REGARDING:
� Wotice of Intent dated December 1 1982
and pla ns titled and dated included in report developed by the USDA Soil Conservatio
Service (Hadley Office ) entitled CLARK PROPERTY SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTRA.[
THIS ORDER IS ISSUED ON(date) January 3, 1983
RECOMMENDAT
`----------------------------- - - - - -- IONS _' "-
Pursuant to the authority of G.L. c. 131, s. 40, the
!.ounnissi °n has reviewed your Notice _ of Intent�and� plans C
identified above, and has determined that the area on which the proposed work is to be
done is significant to one or more of the interests listed in G.L. c. 131, s. 40.
The Conservation Commission hereby orders that the following conditions are
naceasary to protect said interests and all work shall be performed in strict accordance
with them and with the Notice of Intent and plans identified above except where such
plans are modified by said conditions.
---------------------------------------------
CONDITIONS —
1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes
and other - regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this order.
2. .This order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does
not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights.
3. This order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of
complying with all other applicable federal, state or local statutes, ordinances
by -laws and /or regulations. ,
4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within one (1) year from the date
of this order unless it is for a maintenance dredging project subject to Section
5(9). Tham order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more additional
one -year pertoob uprr application to the said issuing authority at least thirty f30)
days prior to the expiration date of the order or its extension.
W
01A)M OF CONDITIONS CONTIN - 2 - FILE NO.Z4t,-99
01
S. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill, containing no
trash, refuse, rubbish or debria,.including, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes,
refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing.
6. No work may be commenced until all appeal periods have elapsed from the order of the
Conservation Commission or from a final order by the Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering.
7. No work shall be undertaken until the final order, with respect to the proposed
project, has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds for the district in which the
land is located within the chain of title of the affected property. The Document
number indicating such recording shall be submitted on the form at the end of this
order to the issuer of this order prior to commencement of work.
Further, if the Order of Conditions is not recorded within 7 days
after the end of the ten day appeal period, the Conservation
Commission will impose a twenty- five dollar ($ 25.00 ) service
charge for recording by an agent of the Commission....
d. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less that two square feet or more than
three square feet bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering. Number 246 -99 2.
!. Where the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering is requested to make s
determination and to issue a superseding order, the Conservation Commission shall
be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before the Department.
10. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall forthwith request,
In writing, that a Certificate of Compliance be issued stating that the work has
been satisfactorily completed.
11. The work shall conform to the following described plans and, additional conditions;
Plans and Figures included in the report developed by the USDA Soil Conservation Servirr
(Hadley Office) entitled CLARK PROPERTY, SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
(1982)
12. All construction areas shall be restored to original conditions or better upon compleLi-
of the project, including vegetation.
13. No areas within the 100 year floodplain nor within 100 feet of a wetland area, as definek
in Chapter 131, Section 40, M.G.L., shall be permissible disposal sites, unless otherwis•.
approved by the Conservation Commission.
14. This Order Of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in contry
15. Members and agents of the Conservation Commission shall have the right to enter and inset
the premises to evaluate compliance with the Conditions and to require the submittal o' ,
data deemed necessary by the Commission that evaluation.
16. The shallow swale on the west side of the driveway shall be seeded and adequately
stabilized to prevent erosion.
17. The area (shown on Figure 4. Erosion Control Practices) from the berm at the top of the
driveway north shall be sloped towards the north (rear of the property) so that all storm
water run -off will be retained on site.
18. The su nested stone center waterway on the east side of the driveway need not be lined
with s one provided another suitably stabilized swale is constructed.
' ORD4 + , R' OF CONDITIONS CONTINUF _ 3-
FIL): N0. 246 -99
19. The steep embankment atb4ft.che southwest m rner of the proprt�ty shall be adequately
stabilized against erosion.
20. All areas shall be reseeded, as needed, in the spring to prevent erosion.
The applicant, any person aggrieved by this order, any owner of land abutting
the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the
City or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to
appeal this order to the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering provided
the request is made in writing and by certified wail to the Department within ten
(10) days from the issuance of this order.
ISSUED BY Northampton Conservation Com mission
Jan uary 3 , 1982
Date of Issuance
On this -Z/ day
appear _�a -,,, .
known tc be the person d
and acknowledged that he
of
1! before woo personally
escribee in who executed foregoing to we
executed the same as his free act and deed.
t
CIML U7,TNE SKORUPSKI
- I'A ;Y F'U3LIC
My Comial"Lon expires ,
SU-iiMhcd 29, 1983
DETACH ON DnT= LINE AND & MIT TO TFE ISSIER OF THIS QM N101t TO GDM�]rCET�7
OF ftK9
TP Northampton Con serva t i on Commi (iasuiog Authority)
TLZ"R BE ADVISED THAT THE ORDER Or CONDITIONg FM THE PRQM= AT 93 Arch Street
rILt KHMER 246 -99 � HAS BEEN WORDED 'AT THE A=ISTRY Or Deeds, Hampshire Cou
ON (DATE) .
It recorded land. the instrument number which identifies this transaction is
If.regiatered land, the document number wbicb Identifies tbia transactim iS
+ Signed:
ADD icant
L R/VER
• J F_ i � D -vim � r
A 7-
ni- --
° " 1 o o El
(�
945
sp
� •i +, 1 � FYI � `` ` - - L erg
S Po
t o
Agol
l o p
- ARNERS
� I
"N or ,
Roor,3454 PA --, 34
Form 8
019362
J
'f
V106FUef . 1 246- 99 _-
(To be provided by OECWl- _.
City/Town Northampton, --
Applicant Clark
Certificate of Compliance ° I
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40
From N ort,hampton Conservation Commission ssuing Authority
TO Roger P & Julianne M. Clark .93 Arch St., Leeds, MA 01053
(Name) (Address)
Date of Issuance July 29, 1986
This Certificate is issued for work regulated by an Order of Conditions' issued to Rager &
Julianne M. Clark dated 113/83 andissuedbythe Consv. Cc)Tnm_
1. ® It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above - referenced Order of Conditions has
been satisfactorily completed.
2. 0 It is hereby certified that only the following portions of the worts; regulated by the above- refer-
enced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily completed: (if the Certificate of Compliance
does not include the entire project, specify what portions are Included.)
3. O It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above - referenced Order of Conditions was
never commenced. The Order of Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid. No future
work subject to regulation under the Act may be commenced without filing a new Notice of Intent
and receiving a new Order of Conditions.
........................................................................................................................................................ ...............................
(Leave Space Blank)
8-1
.,..
V50 p4a 00
4. ❑ This certificate shall be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in
which the land is located. The Order was originally recorded on _ 2/18/83 (date) op
at the Registry of _pe-e s . Hamn Gh i rP C'nun ty ,
Book _.Page
Transaction #01704
5. ❑ The following conditions of the Order shall continue: (Set forth any conditions contained in the
Final Order, such as maintenance or monitoring, which are to continue for a longer period.)
Issued by Northampton Conserva Commission
Signature(s),
7
When issued by the Conservation Commision this Certificate must be signed by a majority of is members.
Onthis 7Y ti -91A dayof
personally appeare
19_T�' .____. before me
to me known to be the
person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged hefsb+e executed
Lme as his/twfree act and deed.
CHRISTINE SKORI 7PSKI
a 6 Q
NO'-,, ?zRY PiJBLIC
MY G . "1' %1iSSION EX
Notary Public sEr'EM i; x ia,
My commission expires /
Rvm3s hire ss
c ONTH) ( DAY) 1989 a t_, L o'dock and 02 ti M., Recd ent'd and
exam 'd with Hampshire Reg. of Deeds, Boo P � '�.
r-z �'
AtG REGISTER
1 14 .
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950
• Community and Economic Development
• Conservation . Historic Preservation
• Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals
Mr. & Mrs. Roger Clark
93 Arch Street
Leeds, Massachusetts
01053
Re: Order of Conditions #246 -99
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Clark:
February 7, 1986
On November 15, 1982 the Northampton Conservation Commission issued a
Cease & Desist Order regarding your earth removal operation at 93 Arch Street
in Leeds requiring 1) that you take immediate measures to correct the sil-
tation and erosion problem created by your project, and 2) that you file for
an Order of Conditions with a plan to permanently correct the situation.
On January 3, 1983 the Commission issued you an Order of Conditions rela-
tive to the permanent correction of your problem. On November 14, 1983 you
requested an extension of your Order of Conditions because you had not yet
secured the required Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The
Commission voted unanimously to extend your permit for one year, until January
3, 1985.
In reviewing your file we have found that you have neither requested an-
other extension of your permit, nor have your requested a Certificate of Compliance
indicating that you have completed all of the required improvements. Seeing as
your January 3, 1985 completion deadline has long since expired the Commission
would like to know what the status of your project is.
Please respond to the Commission in a timely manner so that they may close
out your file. Their next meeting is scheduled for February 24, 1986. Should
you have any questions please contact me at the above address and telephone number.
Yours,
L wrence B. Smith, Senior Planner
on behalf of the
Northampton Conservation Commission
cc: Atty L. Jekanowski
Building Inspector
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ted Tewhill, Northampton Building Inspector /Zoning Enforcement Officer
Jos
FROM: Lawrence B. Smith, Senior Planner, on behalf of the Northampton Conservation
Commission
SUBJECT: Earth Removal at 93 Arch Street
DATE: May 28, 1986
FILE:
Back on November 16, 1982 (see attached Memo) the Northampton Conservation
Commission requested that enforement action be taken with regard to an existing earth
removal operation taking place at 93 Arch Street in Leeds on the premises of Mr. &
Mrs. Roger Clark in apparent violation of Article V. Section 5.2- Wholesale, Transportation
and Industrial - #I, and Article XI, Section 11.1 of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance.
Cecil I. Clark, the Building Inspector at the time, issued a Notice of Violation
to the Clark's on November 18, 1982 (see attached copy).
The Conservation Commission would like to know what actions, if any, were taken
by the Clark's to remedy the violation, and /or what further actions were taken by the
Building Inspector's Office. To the Commission's knowledge, the Clark's never applied
for the required Special Permits to legitimize the materials that they removed illegally,
and we also understand that they continued to illegally remove the earth well after.Mr.
Clark's 11/18/82 Notice of Violation was issued to them.
j 7 j
M
INSPECTOR
Edward J. Tewhill
Crx of ''ort4aturpton
J[8ssac4msette
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS
212 Main Street ' Municipal Building
Northampton, Mass. 01060
-I
To: Lawrence B. Smith, Senior Planner - Northampton Conservation Commission
From: Edward J. Tewhill, Building Inspector /Zoning Enforcement Officer
Date: June 2, 1986
Subject: Removal of earth at 93 Arch St. - Tax Map 10D - Lot #25
Reference your memorandum dated May 28, 1986, please be advised of the following
action performed by the Building Department in an attempt to remedy the violation:
1. November 18, 1982 - Building Department cited Mr. & Mrs. Roger Clark
for violation and was advised to abbate the violation within thirty
(30) days.
a. No evidence on record that a follow - up was instigated or that
violation was abbated.
2. April 19, 1983 - Edward LaValley, applicant on behalf of Mr. &
Mrs. Roger Clark, owner of property was incorrectly issued a
Zoning Permit to remove five hundred (500) cubic yards of gravel
and sand.
3. June 21, 1983 - Verbally advised Mrs. Clark and Edward LaValley to
cease and desist the operation of removing the sand and gravel and
the permit issued June 19, 1983, #172 is now invalid. At that time
Edward LaValley was advised on behalf of Mr. Clark to apply at the
Building Department for the applications for the Special Permit process.
- Telephoned Atty. Leonard Jekanowski, Clark';s lawyer, and advised the
Clark's the situation pertaining to the Special Permit process.
a. No action on behalf of the Clarks
4. February 13, 1986 - Received a letter from the Officer of Planning
& Development, dated February 7, 1986, asking the Clarks to respond
to the Commission so the file may be closed in a timely manner, prior
to a Commission meeting scheduled for February 24, 1986.
5. No other correspondence has been received by the Building Department.
M