Loading...
2004 Conservation Commission MinutesNorthampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting January 8, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, January 8, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Matt Nowak, Reuven Goldstein, John Body, Susan Carbin and Wendy Sweetser. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson. Maronn opened the meeting at 5:30 P.M. There was a discussion with Bob Jeffway, Jr. who is looking to purchase Beaver Brook Estates to construct 3 single-family homes, designed to keep away from all wetlands and wetland buffers. Bill Canon presented the preliminary project. They will go before the Planning Board tonight for Site Plan Approval for a 1,300-foot common driveway with access off Grove Avenue. In this plan, 37 acres will be conserved by a permanent Conservation Restriction. Goldstein asked about the blasting that would be required for construction, and its impact on vernal pools. Canon said they have dug test pits and there is no ledge that they’ve found along the proposed driveway, so no blasting would be required. Cuts and fill for the common driveway are minimized compared to a subdivision road. Jeffway stated that he had been in contact with Nancy Putnam of the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and that Natural Heritage considers development on the site to be a taking of endangered species and that they would have to provide compensation for the disturbance to the upland habitat. Natural Heritage found the CR on the 37 acres to be acceptable compensation. Body asked who would hold the Conservation Restriction. Jeffway said he doesn’t know yet, and he is looking for suggestions and input. 1 McPherson asked why the CR does not cover the entire 100-foot buffer of the portion of the property along Route 9 that is retained by the Hanley Trust. Canon did not know. Sweetser suggested that it was because it is a buildable lot with lots of frontage. Golstein asked the acreage of the lots. Canon said the three lot sizes are 21, 8.5, and 20 acres plus a 6 acre lot that is being retained by the Hanley Trust. Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by the Massachusetts Highway Department to determine whether the boundaries of a resource area at the MHD Facility, 155 Locust Street, Map 23B-13, are accurately delineated. The Commission discussed the fact that the site visit to check the delineation was cancelled due to snow. Body moved to continue the hearing to April 8, 2004, at 5:30 P.M. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Martha Borowski to determine whether the boundaries of a resource area on Kennedy Road, Map 10-21, are accurately delineated, and whether proposed construction of two single family houses is subject to jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. Sweetser moved to continue the hearing to April 8th at 5:40 p.m. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:00 P.M., Maronn opened the Request for Determination filed by Massachusetts Highway Department to determine whether road maintenance at North King Street from mile markers 24.2 to 25.5 are subject to the Wetland Protection Act. Tim Meyer, Mass Highway, presented the project. It will be a 1-inch asphalt overlay to prevent any additional deterioration. If they come across a low manhole or a catch basin, they will raise it to grade. Maronn asked if they will be scarifying the road. Meyer said no, that it will all be done on top of the existing road. Hearing no further comments, Reed moved to close the public hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission discussed erosion controls and decided not to require hay bales because it would involve trenching and more disturbance than the actual work. 2 Meyer added that Mass Highway voluntarily uses appropriate erosion controls if the need arises. Reed moved to issue a negative determination checking boxes 2 and 3, with no conditions. Nowak seconded. The vote was six in favor, one opposed. Body opposed not putting conditions on the determination because he feels it is the Commission’s responsibility to protect the wetlands and their buffers and doesn’t feel that we should trust an on-site engineer to do so. At 6:10 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Bruce Bleiman for the selective removal of cordwood at 16 Hampton Terrace, Map 39A-67. Work will take place within a Bordering Vegetated Wetland and within Bordering Land Subject to Flooding. Bruce Bleiman presented the application and said he submitted this as a courtesy to the Commission because DEP said the project is exempt as long as a Forest Cutting Plan is submitted and approved. Reed moved to close the hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to issue an Order of Conditions with no special conditions beyond the general DEP requirements, with a finding that the project is exempt pending an approved Forest Cutting Plan. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Goldstein and Body both noted that they felt the project is actually a vista project, as presented to the Commission this past summer at the site visit, and not a forestry project, and should therefore be subject to review and conditions by the Commission. At 6:20 P.M., Maronn opened the Notice of Intent filed by Hospital Hill Development, LLC, for the construction of two stormwater detention basins and outlet structures at the Village at Hospital Hill, Maps 31C-17, 38A-86, 38A-50. Work will take place within the buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland and within Riverfront Area. Gerry Preble, of Biels and Thomas, presented Phase I of the project, which is the subject of this Notice of Intent, and includes the entire South campus and parts of the North campus. Some of the detention ponds are designed to accept runoff from future residential development as well. He stated that the Commission had previously asked them to relocate the ponds outside the wetland buffers and they did so. Preble explained that the standard design calculation for the outfalls, which fall within the buffer zone, is based on rip rap, but they reduced it by 20% because it is going to be hitting vertically placed stones. Reed asked how they will keep the soil around the stones stable initially. 3 Preble responded that the stones will be dug in by hand and thus most of the existing vegetation is maintained. Preble mentioned that Susan Gillan of DEP had asked them to demonstrate that they meet the 80% TSS removal requirement. He explained the calculations: on the north and south campus, they are meeting the 80% TSS; the only areas that don’t meet the 80% are the estate lots and the initial entrance on the north campus. He explained that if they add a sedimentation pond, then they will meet the 80% in the final phase. And in fact the system was designed to take some of the runoff that currently is picked up by the Route 66 storm drain system. Preble said that they included an operation and maintenance plan that includes the streets being swept four times per year, but that once the DPW takes over the streets, it is out of their hands how often the streets are actually swept and whether the TSS removal would remain at the same level. Hearing no further comments, Sweetser moved to close the public hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Sweetser left at 6:50pm Mason recused himself from the next hearing. At 6:50, Reed opened the Notice of Intent filed by Park Homes, Inc., for the construction of a 14- unit Town House, parking improvements and stormwater management system on Hockanum Road, Map 32C-331. Work will take place within the buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland and within Riverfront Area. Heather Stavros from Pioneer Environmental presented the application. The project is a redevelopment of a previously developed Riverfront Area. Goldstein requested a site visit. McPherson stated that she has viewed the site and spoke to the fact that this is not pristine Riverfront Area. It had been used as a junkyard and the wetland and river are actually across the street. Bill Gruber spoke about the debris on the property and passed around photographs of the existing condition. Reed noted that because this is a degraded site, this project would be an improvement. The Commission generally agreed that a site visit would not be necessary. Mark McClusky, a representative from Huntley Associates, commented on the storm water management plan. He indicated that they would not be tying into the City’s storm drain system. 4 McPherson asked who owned the property across the street and if the applicant has received permission to put the outfall of the storm water system there. McClusky responded that it is City property and that it seems likely they will be allowed to discharge there. Gruber reported that the total impervious surface has been reduced from the original plan. McPherson suggested they pull back the discharge pipe as far as possible based on actual elevations and requested they submit plans with elevations and the actual distance possible so the Commission could condition the actual number of feet away from the resource area work would be allowed. She also said that the Commission would expect that there would be some sort of restoration done on City property for the privilege of discharging there, such as removing invasives from the entire easement. Body commented that this is exactly the type of project the Commission likes to see, infill and an improvement of Riverfront Area. Hearing no further comment, Goldstein moved to close the public hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:30 P.M., Marron returned and opened a discussion of Preliminary Subdivision Plan by Sovereign Builders for property located at Westhampton Road, Map 48-15. Chuck Dauchy presented the revised plans. Todd Cellura pointed out that on the new plans, all work and lot lines have been moved out of the 100 ft wetland buffer. Reed spoke to a hydrologic connection between the vernal pools. Dauchey commented that there was certainly no surface hydrological connection, and as far as a groundwater connection goes, no one knows which way the groundwater moves through the site, that there might be a connection but he felt that they were isolated pools. He indicated that the species present are spotted salamanders and do not travel between the pools. Body commented that they do however live in the uplands, where all the development is planned. Reed stated his concerns about the housing distance from the vernal pools. He asked if the project could be moved further from the pools. McPherson commented that the proposed cul-de-sac was already longer than allowed under zoning and would require a waiver. 5 Body commented on the fact that the amount housing seemed excessive for the amount of wetlands on site. He would rather see the cul-de-sac waiver be denied by the Planning Board. Maronn asked if they could stop the cul-de-sac at 800 ft and put in a shared drive for three lots, which would have less of an impact. Linda Marchesani, an abutter, asked how impact on the water table is assessed and whether this level of development would have an impact on her well. Dauchy commented that there would not be an impact because any new wells will be balance by the septic systems---what comes out goes back in. McPherson read a letter of concerns from City Counselor Marianne LaBarge. David Stevens, an abutter, spoke about getting the vernal pool that is half on his property and half on the site certified, which is in the works. The Commission decided to write recommendations to the Planning Board at the next meeting. In other business, the Commission unanimously ratified an Enforcement Order and fine for John Cooper, and an Emergency Certification for Smith College for repairs to a broken sewer line. At 8:00 P.M., the meeting was moved to Council Chambers for a joint presentation with the Planning Board by the Greater Mill River Coalition. Respectfully submitted, Wendy Sweetser and Susan Carbin 6 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting January 22, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, January 22, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Matt Nowak, Reuven Goldstein, John Body, Susan Carbin and Wendy Sweetser. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson. At 5:31 P.M., Maronn opened the meeting. Hockanum Road Town House Order of Conditions Maronn recused himself and Reed facilitated the discussion. On the revised plan, the pipe is longer causing the outlet control to be 15 feet closer to the wetland, with riprap extending into the wetland. The Commission had requested at the last meeting that the developer pull the pipe farther away from the wetland. It is unclear on the plans why the pipe was moved closer to the wetland; slope and length of pipe may be at issue. Because the public hearing was closed at the last meeting, and there is a newly proposed alteration of a BVW, the Commission discussed re- opening the hearing, including re-advertising the hearing and notifying the abutters. The Commission advised the project engineer, Mark McClusky of Huntley Associates, to provide diagrams and cross-sections of the outlet pipe including slopes and size of pipes. The Commission again requested that the outlet control structure be pulled back as far as possible from the wetland. Sweetser moved to re-open the public hearing. Carbin seconded. The vote was unanimous. The hearing will be re-opened February 12th at 6:20. Coca-Cola RDA McPherson presented a brief summary of the plan as the project engineer, Mark McCluskey of Huntley Associates, was not present. The proposed work consists of parking lot improvements, which were outside of the 100-foot buffer and the Commission’s jurisdiction, and widening of the perimeter road, to be done within the existing disturbed area. 1 Hearing no further comments, Reed moved to close the hearing. Sweetser seconded. The vote was unanimous. Staff recommendations with conditions were moved by Reed. Carbin seconded. The vote was unanimous. At 6:10 P.M., Carbin moved to go into executive session, by role call vote, all members voted to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing land acquisition. At 6:25 P.M., Sweetser moved to come out of executive session, a roll call vote showed that all member approved to come out of executive session. The Commission discussed only land acquisition. McPherson gave some information on up-coming workshops. McPherson read from a letter from Karl Davies’ widow offering his forest files for a price. Maronn will follow-up on the files. McPherson also circulated a letter by Joanne Montgomery to the Board of Health about beavers on Winter Street. Body and Carbin volunteered to contact the new director of the Board of Health, Earnie Mattheius to begin a conversation around working together on beaver issues. The Commission discussed the Subdivision plans by Sovereign Builders for property on Westhampton Road. McPherson presented the up-dated development design. Body spoke on the conservation values of the upland habitat associated with the vernal pools. McPherson then read her recommendations to the Commission for comments to the Planning Board. Body and Goldstein recommended that information be included about upland habitat. Body moved to write up staff recommendations in letter format, including additional information on upland habitat, and submit the letter, signed by each member of the Commission, to each member of the Planning Board. Carbin seconded. The vote was unanimous In other business, Reed moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance for Cottman Transmission. Carbin seconded. The vote was unanimous. There will be a meeting to address invasives in the Oxbow, Feb.3rd. Maronn volunteered to be the point person for the Commission. McPherson left the meeting at 700 P.M. Body presented information on naming the blue trail in the Sawmill Hill after Carl Davies and the trail in the Mineral Hills after the LaPalme family. 2 Hospital Hill Order of Conditions The Commission looked at staff recommendations for Order of Conditions. Nowak motioned to approve the staff recommendations for the project. A discussion on the frequency of inspections of stormwater BMPs ensued. The commission decided to approve the staff recommendations, including detention basins inspected 1 time per year and forebays and outlet control structures 2 times per year and after significant rainstorms, with maintenance by someone qualified based on the inspection reports. Sweetser seconded. The vote was unanimous. Minutes of Oct 23, 2003, Carbin moved to approve as written, Nowak seconded, the vote was unanimous. Minutes of Nov. 13, 2003, Carbin moved to approve as written, Sweetser seconded, the vote was unanimous. Minutes, Jan. 8, 2003, changes were: Page 4: Reed noted that because this is a degraded site, this project would be improved. Page6: Maroon asked if they could stop the cul-de-sac 800 feet…. Carbin moved to accept with changes, Sweetser seconded, the vote was unanimous. Carbin requested that the Commission approve writing a letter to supporting the grant application by the Citizen Tree Committee for trees and other plantings for Sheldon Field. Reed moved to write a letter, Carbin seconded, the vote was unanimous. At 7:15 P.M., Nowak moved to close the meeting. Sweetser seconded. The Commission unanimously agreed. Respectfully submitted, John Body 3 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Executive Session January 22, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, January 22, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Matt Nowak, Reuven Goldstein, John Body, Susan Carbin and Wendy Sweetser. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden. At 6:10 P.M., Carbin moved to go into executive session, by role call vote, all members voted to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing land acquisition. Wayne Feiden presented a parcel up for sale, a piece of property in the Meadows, owned by Warren Underwood. About 35-40 acres are in Northampton. He has offered a fair price for the property and is flexible on how to preserve it ($125,000 for 35 acres of farmland). Feiden recommended to sell the parcel to a farmer with an APR, while preserving the floodplain forest, and selling the land in Easthampton to the Easthampton land trust. Feiden asked the Commission to approve an option for one year. Body moved to sign the option for one year, approve $10,000 for the project up front, and sell the 5 acres in Easthampton to the Poscumicut Land Trust. Sweetser seconded, the vote was unanimous. At 6:25 P.M., Sweetser moved to come out of executive session, a roll call vote showed that all member approved to come out of executive session. The Commission discussed only land acquisition. Conservation Commission Minutes for 2/05/04 Members present: Matt Nowak, Wendy Sweetser, Mike Reed, John Body, and Rueven Goldstein. Staff: Planning Director, Wayne Feiden Reed opened the meeting at 5:45 pm. Wayne Feiden, Director of Planning and Development presented the rail trail project. The trail will extend from the Round House parking lost to Earl Street. The path is relatively simple, it is the old railroad bed. The ties and rails have been removed. The plan would be to excavate into the bed of cinders, take out the cinders then put gravel in its place, and about 3 inches of asphalt. Some seeding will be needed to stabilize the area next to the asphalt. Access will be at Rt 10, Earle and Grove, the National Felt Plant at Vet’s field, and the Round House parking lot. These will be the only access points for construction, with no other distruption. All drainage will be sheet flow. Mostly, the water will flow down the sides. The asphalt pad will have an almost imperceptible 2% grade. The Commission then went through each page of the map presentation. A couple of the culverts are in good shape and the bridge over the Mill River is adequate. Sheet 42: Only one area of the original bed is eroded away and one flag was placed on the trail. Wetland Flags 39 and 38 were connected by a wetland line when they don’t really connect. They are on different sides of the bed and the bed at that point is 8 foot above grade. At Earle and Grave, there will be a 4 way stop. Reed stated that this is where excavation may matter and impact wetlands. Some day the bridge over the Mill River will need major work but currently it won’t need much work. There will be a new deck with guard rails. Body stating concerns over the materials used since much of the pressure treated wood bought currently has toxins that could leach into the priority habitat of the Mill River at this point. Behind the Felt Building, there is a low point which is wet. The southerly half of the vernal pool will be owned by the Conservation Commission. The bike path will be way above the vernal pool. There is an opportunity for funding. Currently 5 projects are applying for the funds. Tris Metcalf, 142 Main Street: It is good that there is progress on the bike path. Would like to do a study of the 1st 1000 feet, which could instead be used as a connector for a traffic link; as you enter Round House and go up towards West Street. The bike bath entrance at the Round House could overload the parking in this area, as people bike out of the city. This stretch should be used as a connector for vehicular traffic coming from the Hospital Hill development. Chris Shanky: very supportive of the bike path and its connections. Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The plan was approved with the stipulation that subsequent modification of the plan must be approved by the Commission. Sweetser moved to issue a negative determination with conditions as discussed. Goldstein seconded. The vote was unanimous. Submitted by John Body Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting February 12, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Matt Nowak, Reuven Goldstein, John Body and Susan Carbin. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson. At 5:40 P.M., Maronn opened the meeting. F.W. Webb hearing Eric Forish, of Forish Construction, presented the application on behalf of F.W. Webb. Forish showed plans to Commission and pointed out key features. Maronn asked about meeting zoning set-backs. Forish replied that all zoning requirements are met. Forish mentioned that the wetland line may be further away from the work area than depicted, but that it is not reflected or necessarily salient to the Commission’s final decision. Forish described drainage management details, including the drainage easement. As long as the property owner agrees to allow access to the drainpipe, the DPW has no concerns about putting parking within the easement. Maronn pointed out the elevation label typos related to the infiltrator device. Forish said that this will be corrected. Forish next described the roof drain drywells to be installed on the west side of the building. Body asked for clarifications about the stormwater flow through the drains and to the wetlands in this area. 1 Forish noted that the amount of pavement for driving will be reduced since one of the building additions will be on existing driveway, and most of the roof runoff will be directed to drywells for infiltration. Reed asked if amount of stormwater will increase significantly. Forish said the increase was minimal. Body asked about the general experiences and acceptability of the infiltrator. Both Maronn and Nowak spoke favorably about them. Hearing no further comments, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other business McPherson explained that at the request of Tom Miranda, discussion of beaver issues at the Plantations will be rescheduled to the next public hearing on February 26, when Ruth Callahan of Integrated Wildlife Management will discuss their recommendations for long-term beaver management. Maronn and Carbin were informed that their terms on the Commission were expiring. They both said they wanted to be reappointed. McPherson mentioned the past practice of each Commissioner being a steward for the projects that we have written Conditions for, to ensure continued compliance. The Commission discussed current projects and who would be responsible for each. McPherson will draft up a list of those discussed and any others. McPherson mentioned that Natural Heritage has not yet started its review of the Beaver Brook proposed common driveway plan. The Commission generally agreed that McPherson will write a letter to NHESP regarding the proposed Conservation Restriction, that it should, at minimum cover all wetlands and buffer zones, and other specifics pertinent to the proposed Conservation Restriction, vernal pools and habitat, including restricting the amount of clearing allowed in upland habitat. Access, easements, and possible lawsuits were generally discussed. F.W. Webb Order of Conditions McPherson wrote conditions as the Commission went through the Standard Order. Nowak moved to write conditions as discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 2 Discussion with Jim Harrity and Alec MacLeod about a proposed future development on Haydenville Rd. They described the plan and wetland flagging details and explained that the river high-water line was revised because of recent beaver activity. MacLeod mentioned that the second stream further back on the property is shown as a perennial stream on the USGS maps, but that he had some doubts about that. McPherson said that for the purposes of the Rivers Protection Act, streams are presumed perennial if they are shown as such on the USGS map, and there are specific things that have to be shown to overcome this presumption. MacLeod stated that he had recently discussed the ideas with DEP. He mentioned the alternatives analysis that would be required and that it would likely involve a Limited Project status. The number of wetland crossings required was discussed. McPherson questioned the length of the road, which does not connect to another road and said that the zoning ordinance maximum cul-de-sac length is 850 feet. Harrity described possible waiver of road length and turnaround requirements, open space to be set aside, the dilapidated houses to be taken down and related property clean up, and potential passive and active recreational opportunities, and that the site was going to be a smart growth development. McPherson explained Smart Growth to the Commission and its non-applicability to this property, since the property is on the outskirts of the City, in an area identified for low density and open space. She also mentioned some uncertainties about the accuracy of the wetland line. Maronn identified the River Protection Act requirements as being even more daunting, especially if the project involves four wetland crossings to create a loop road. Body spoke against the scale of the project as being much too large for the wooded and rural nature of this part of town, disruptive for the habitat, and that wetland impacts would be too great. Alec admitted, based on his discussions with David Foulis of the DEP, that permitting this project is feasible, strictly speaking, but very challenging. McPherson stated that since the lots were in existence before the Rivers Protection Act, there are grandfathered options for developing these lots. Nowak asked about the topography of the site. Alec said that the relief was generally slight, with a few steeper areas. He also pointed out that he could not identify the channel of the smaller, easternmost stream identified on the USGS topo map, mentioning that when he observed it, there was a foot of snow on the ground. 3 Body mentioned the likely problems with developing the site from beavers moving into the vicinity. He added that there will be ongoing beaver issues given the nature of the stream. Hockanum Road Townhouse hearing Pete Levesque, of Pioneer Environmental, explained the variables affecting the location and elevation of the proposed outfall pipe. Levesque also explained the DPW requirements for pipe placement based on the existing sewer line. The applicant is proposing to install a leaching galey which will provide greater infiltration and allow the flared end section of pipe to be pulled further away from the resource area than originally proposed. Levesque explained how the leaching galley functions. Reed questioned the cleaning of the basin in the leaching galley. Levesque stated that they have already achieved the 80% total suspended solids removal by time it reaches the basin. But every 5 to 10 years the basin may need to be cleaned out. Mark Daniels, 20 Valley Street, expressed his concerns for animals in the area and concerns for further development in the area. Body mentioned that the smaller animals mentioned by Mr. Daniels will probably increase in population. Daniels is concerned that this parcel is the last wooded lot in the area. He expressed his concerns about future planning within the city. Body explained that this is the kind of smart growth development the Commission had discussed earlier since it is infill and not degrading pristine area. Darryl LaFleur, 244 South Street, has concern for vernal pool habitat and questioned whether the site was ever evaluated for vernal pools. Nowak explained that the site does not contain typical vernal pool topography or habitat. LaFleur also expressed concern for parking and contamination caused by vehicles. Marylin Richards, Ward 3 City Council, mentioned that she has received many calls regarding the project. At 7:02 P.M. Goldstein leaves. Hearing no further comments, Carbin moved to close the hearing. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 4 Miscellaneous Body inquired about the Commission’s involvement in planning for the next Open Space Plan. He also inquired about Commission’s role in the City’s decisions re Ch. 61 filings and mentioned that a prioritized list is something that could be included in the Open Space plan. Finally, he inquired about Forest Cutting Plans, especially as they relate to vernal pool protection. The Commission generally agreed that McPherson should discuss with Wayne Feiden the process of starting work on the Open Space Plan and report back to the Commission at the next meeting. Body moved to name the main trail at the Mineral Hills Conservation Area “The Armand and Rosel LaPalme Trail,” and the blue trail at the Sawmill Hills “The Carl Davies Memorial Trail.” The Commission unanimously approved. Body asked about the status of the Enforcement Order against Fitzgerald (clear cutting a wetland and buffer for cows to graze). McPherson said that it was just before she started working for the Commission, but she’ll look into it. Body showed the latest map of the City that the Wildlife Committee has prepared, and pointed out their key concerns about the proposed developments at and in the vicinity of Hampshire Park. Extension Order of Conditions for the Downtown Bike Path Mason moved to extend the OOC . The Commission unanimously approved. Order of Conditions for Hockanum Road McPherson went over proposed conditions. Body moved to accept staff recommendations. The Commission unanimously approved. The Commission unanimously agreed to close the meeting at 7:43 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael Reed 5 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting February 26, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, February 26, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mike Reed, Matt Nowak, John Body, Wendy Sweetser, and Susan Carbin. Associate member: Joanne Montgomery Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson. At 5:37 P.M. Reed opened the hearing MassHighway RDA for herbicide application Daniel Kurpaska, MassHighway, spoke about the application of herbicides along interstate 91. Reed asked if the Yearly Operating Plan (YOP) plan has changed from previously approved plans. Kurpaska stated that a “more sensitive” approach is being done to take into consideration environmental resource areas. He stated that the herbicides being used are listed in the YOP. Different herbicides will be used depending upon species in a particular area. All herbicides being used are EPA approved. Primary areas to be focused on are areas where the guardrails are being overgrown. Mongomery asked how vegetation was controlled in the past. Kurpaska stated that removal hasn’t been done in about 5 years. He added that due to the steep bank along I-91 corridor, mechanical means of removal is not feasible. It may also be a safety issue. Body said that there are other alternatives such as shutting down a lane on the highway in order to remove the vegetation by means other than herbicides. McPherson asked whether DEP has a policy on the application of herbicides within the Riverfront resource area. 1 2 Kurpaska stated that there are existing regulations regarding the application of herbicides under Rights of Way Management. Kurpaska stated that the Oxbow along with several culverted streams are considered no-spray zones. Also, the areas along the Highway will be flagged with different colors to designate no- spray zones. Concern was expressed by the Commission that the no-spray zones are only on bridges over open water, where there is no vegetation anyway, and does not encompass the entire resource area including Riverfront, Bank and Buffer Zone to Bank. Body discussed the possibility of continuing the hearing so the Commission can become better educated on the application of herbicides within resource areas. Reed stated he would like to hear what the DEP has to say about it. Nowak questioned the extent of the spraying beyond the edge of pavement. Kurpaska stated it would be immediately underneath the guard rail and shouldn’t extend more than a few feet. McPherson stated that in a phone conversation with Conservation Commission Chair Maronn, Maronn expressed his concern about spraying very close to the Oxbow and paved drainage channels along Rt. 91. Kurpaska stated that the timing of the application of herbicides will take into consideration the weather such as wind and rain, so as to not get washed down any drainage channels. He said MassHighway could look into the exact locations of any drainage channels along Rt. 91. The Commission generally agreed it would like to see more information on: The location of catch basins and paved drainage swales The time herbicides will stay on pavement Concentrations of herbicides used over time. Hearing no further comment, Body moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission discussed the Determination. Body move to check box 3. Sweetser seconded. Body, Sweetser, and Carbin voted to issue a positive Determination checking box 3. Nowak voted nay, stating that he would like to request further information from MassHighway and base the determination on the new information, and once enough information has been presented, write an OOC. HAP, Inc. Construction of 12 new Affordable Rental Units, 135 – 137 West Street Karen Leveille explained the existing site conditions and the proposed construction as shown on the plans. New construction would tear down existing dilapidated structures and remove existing pavement within the Riverfront Area. All large trees on site will be retained. Leveille explained the proposed resource area and buffer disturbances. All proposed buildings are outside the 100-year flood plain. But a parking area is within the 100-year flood plain. Tom Jenkins of Bay State Environmental explained the stormwater infiltration system. There will be no direct discharge to river, only infiltration of the entire site. He also explained different pervious and impervious surfaces per Montgomery’s request. Body asked Leveille about rare species adjacent to the site. Leveille stated they are still waiting to hear from Natural Heritage. McPherson stated she believed the Estimated Habitat had to do with mollusks in the Mill River. Sweetser asked Leveille about vegetation along the river. Leveille stated the area will be seeded and vegetation will be allowed to grow back. Carbin asked whether the area labeled “Smith Parking” is part of the plan. Jenkins said no, it is existing paved parking, owned and used by Smith College, and it will continue to be used by Smith for parking. Hearing no further comment, Body moved to continue the hearing until March 25 at 5:30 P.M., pending comments from Natural Heritage. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion with Ruth Callahan of Integrated Wildlife Control and Lepine-Wzorek Associates about long-term beaver management at the Plantations Callahan stated that there is currently no beaver activity at the site. She stated that this is not great habitat for beavers since most trees have flooded and died leaving only evergreen trees remaining. Little food left at the site. Callahan recommends a trapezoidal fence around the culvert to keep the beavers out. Body mentioned past ideas discussed concerning the long-term management of the beavers and what Alec MacLeod had presented to the Commission in order to get the OOC. Callahan explained that a Clemson Leveler, which is only 8 inches wide, is not appropriate for this site because there is too much water volume. She explained why the fence is appropriate. 3 McPherson asked what the diameter of the overflow culvert is. Mr. Wzorek stated he thought it was either 3 or 4 feet in diameter. Body questioned the long-term maintenance of the trapezoidal fence. Callahan said very little maintenance is required: 4 times a year, and after debris-producing storms, a few minutes at a time to remove debris. Reed said he would prefer to see the river function naturally without the addition of huge boulders. McPherson questioned Attorney Tom Miranda as to whether the OOC can be amended based on recommendations from Ruth Callahan, or if there was another way to go about changing the original OOC because of the pending lawsuit. Attorney Miranda explained that it would be best if the court ordered the Homeowners Association to install and maintain the fence. Commission generally agreed in principle to the proposal as presented by Ruth Callahan, the particulars to be worked out through the attorneys and staff. Other Business: The Commission discussed sending a letter to Northampton Police Dept. asking that Chesterfield Road be closed on the nights of the spring mass migration of salamanders. Body moved to accept the letter as amended. Nowak seconded. The vote was unanimous. McPherson updated the Commission on the Beaver Brook Nominee Trust Property, regarding a letter recently received from the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. The Commission voted unanimously to issue a Certificate of Compliance for property on Turkey Hill Road. The Commission discussed starting the open space plan before July 1, the proposed start date from Wayne Feiden. The Commission discussed the Minutes of January 22, 2004; January 22, 2004 Executive Session; and February 12, 2004. Sweetser moved to accept the minutes of January 22 as written and February 12 as amended. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:25 P.M. Nowak moved to adjourn. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Matt Nowak 4 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting March 11, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, March 11, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, John Body, Wendy Sweetser, Reuven Goldstein and Susan Carbin. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden. At 5:30 P.M., Maronn opened the meeting. There were no new permit applications so the Commission held a work session. The minutes from February 26, 2004, were unanimously approved with additions and changes to page 3. The commission discussed an Enforcement Order at Turkey Hill Road and the actions recommended by staff to comply with Orders of Conditions. The Commission unanimously ratified the enforcement order and approved a fine of $100. Body stated he did a site visit at the O’Brien’s property. He reviewed the hydrology of the site and recalled that at the hearing last summer he believed that the 2 wetlands were hydrologically connected even though the applicant and consultant stated they were not. Body stated that at the site visit, he found a culvert under the driveway, which essentially connected the 2 wetlands. Reed questioned whether it was placed there to avoid flooding and pooling during the wettest spring season. Body questioned whether the culvert was shown on the original or approved plans or discussed during the public hearing. Maronn suggested the Commission review final approved plan, conditions, criteria of the revised plan and minutes. Body suggested that to avoid this type of situation in the future, the Commission meet with the Planning Board regarding the approval of flag lots. He suggested that there should be another step in the flag lot special approval process where the Commission has the opportunity to comment on wetlands issues prior to the Planning Board’s decision in order to give the Planning Board an important piece of information. Maronn suggested that the Commission review the zoning regulations and special permitting process. Feiden confirmed that flag lots do require special approval and are not always granted. He stated that the Planning Board has not wanted to get involved in wetlands issues and that they are not experts regarding wetlands. McPherson stated that the role of the Commission in the flag lot process could be similar to its role in preliminary subdivision approval, making recommendations about the adequacy of a proposed building lot based on wetland values. Then with this information, the Planning Board could make a more informed decision about whether to approve a flag lot or not. Feiden stated that there is a need for improvements to the local wetlands ordinance. The Commission discussed procedures, loopholes in the Act, the decision-making process, shortcuts caused by political pressures that all interfere with the ability of the Commission to protect important resource values. Feiden stated that he is doing a site visit tomorrow at the O’Briens since it was decided during the permit process that McPherson would not go on their site. Carbin stated that she did not recall the Commission voting for that. Body stated that he would never vote for McPherson to not do site visits to enforce an Order of Conditions. He stated that the Commission depends on her for this type of work. Maronn reminded Feiden that McPherson is the Commission’s agent and that this is part of her job. There was a discussion of Councilor LaBarge’s involvement in this enforcement. Body stated that the Commission should not be influenced by politics within the City because its goal is the protection of wetlands, not making City Councilors happy. He felt the Commission and Feiden should better support McPherson in that goal. Feiden said that to minimize political conflict, he would do the site visit and clearly review current condition of construction, silt fence condition and site degradation. He stated that he would submit a report to the Commission. McPherson stated that the Commission should think about having more working sessions. At 6:30 P.M., McPherson left the meeting. Doug McDonald from DPW discussed proper way to install and inspect silt fences, and discussed NPDES phase 2 (EPA) permitting. He discussed the change of authority from EPA to the City regarding storm water at construction sites where disturbance is 1 acre or more, requiring a filling with the EPA. He stated that the authority will eventually be passed the DPW. McDonald stated that his responsibility for seeing that construction site run off is properly managed complements the work the Conservation Commission does for compliance. He said that there needs to be open communication between the DPW and the ConsCom. McDonald described some of the projects he is currently working on, including a storm drain stenciling project, mapping the City’s entire storm drain system, forming an advisory committee, inspection of outfalls, pushing to get Smith College students involved in some of these projects, looking at health of water bodies, and looking for volunteers involved in community clean-up along mill river. Maronn brought up the issue of subdivisions. McDonald said that the DPW is setting up standards for post-construction run-off: writing an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance, developing clear maintenance schedules regarding city parking areas, catch basins, and the like; establishing a fee for storm water management construction and post construction. He stated that findings are being shared between McDonald (DPW) and McPherson. McDonald suggested that a 1-page discussion on erosion and sediment controls, the effective installation of silt fencing and sediment containment systems should be provided to individuals when building permits are issued. He provided the Commission with handouts and referred the Commission to “Field Manual on Sediment and Erosion Control” – Best Management Practices by Jerald S. Fifield. He stated that sediment control and silt fences should be checked after every storm or every 2 weeks. For pre-construction, McDonald showed the Commission silt fence installation guidelines with “metal stacks,” including limit of work area clearly delineated. Commission members decided who would be responsible for checking in on which active ConsCom permits. At 8:00 P.M. the Commission unanimously agreed to close the meeting and adjourn. Respectfully Submitted, Reuven Goldstein Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting April 8, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, April 8, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Matt Nowak, John Body, Wendy Sweetser, Reuven Goldstein and Susan Carbin. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden. At 5:30 pm Maronn opened the meeting. Sweetser moved to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of discussion land acquisition. The Commission voted unanimously by roll call vote to enter into Executive Session. At 6:00 pm, the Commission came out of Executive Session, where the Commission discussed only land acquisition. At 6:00 pm, Feiden spoke about his findings and the Enforcement Order for the O’Briens. He requested that the Commission ratify the Enforcement Order. Sweetser moved to ratify the Enforcement Order against the O’Briens. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body moved to have the O’Briens submit the final plans to the Commission, not the agent, for final approval. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 6:10 pm Feiden spoke about the Open Space Plan. Body and Goldstein volunteered to serve as Commission representatives to the Open Space Committee. Carbin moved to appoint. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 1 2 At 6:20 pm Maronn opened an RDA by Mass Highway for a wetland boundary determination. The Commission discussed the site visit and said the wetland flags were accurate. Reed moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission unanimously voted to issue a positive determination box 2 6:25 pm Maronn opened an RDA for property on Kennedy Road. Alec McCloud presented. Body felt that the intermittant stream near lot 1 had a continuous channel and should be mapped. Mark McClusky, Huntley Associates, wanted to know if it is possible to have all Commission members at a site visit. Maronn said that’s not always possible but noted that there were more Commissioners at this visit than usual. The Commission voted to request that the centerline of the stream be flagged, surveyed and mapped. Body moved to continue the hearing. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 6:55 pm Reed opened a continuation of NOI filed by HAP, Inc. Carolyn Leveille, HAP, presented the project. McPherson read concerns from Natural Heritage as to endangered species in the Mill River and DEP concerns as to riverfront mitigation. She presented the response to DEP including details on the mitigation. The Commission felt that all DEP concerns were addressed. McPherson asked the Commission if it wanted to leave the “undisturbed area” as meadow, which would be mowed once or twice each year, or let it go natural. There was some discussion, then Reed said the Commission would decide that while writing the Order of Conditions. Hearing no further comments, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Maronn seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:20 pm Maronn opened the RDA filed by the DPW to pump water from a lecachate plant lagoon into a catch basin. Paulette Kuzdeba from DPW presented. DPW would like to pump out lagoons and discharge into a catch basin. Maronn ask what was in the leachate. Kuzdeba indicated it was just rain water as these basins have never actually been used. Body asked if the water had been tested. Kuzdeba said it had. Hearing no further comment, Nowak moved to close. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7:30 pm Maronn opened an RDA filed by the DPW to excavate and repair some pipes leading to a clarifier at the wastewater treatment plant. Maronn expressed his concern that after a heavy storm there would be runoff into a catch basin. Kuzdeba indicated the work area is impounded by the dike and route 5. Also the catch basins in the area will be plugged and pumped into the clarifier. Hearing no further comment, Nowak moved to close. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved staffed recommendations. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7:45 pm Maronn opened an RDA filed by the DPW to repave Chesterfield Rd. Kuzdeba explained that the project will be to remove and replace paving. Body asked if there would be any changes to the shoulders. Kuzdeba said no. Body said he is concerned because the young salamanders leave the pools between June and August. He requested that paving be done between May 31 and June 30, or after September 1. Kuzdeba said she would look into the possibility. Hearing no further comment, Maronn moved to close. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Nowak moved staff recommendations with additions about the timing of the paving around the salamander migration if at all possible. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 3 4 Other business: Body moved staff conditions for the HAP project, the meadow to be allowed to revegtate naturally. Reed seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reed moved to accept minutes of 3/11/04 as writted. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body moved to approve the Emergency Certification. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Nowak moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Executive Session April 8, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held an Executive Session on Thursday, April 8, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, MA. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, Mike Reed, Matt Nowak, John Body, Wendy Sweetser, Reuven Goldstein and Susan Carbin. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson, Planning Director Wayne Feiden. At 5:30 P.M. Maronn opened the meeting. Sweetser moved to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of discussion land acquisition. The Commission voted unanimously by roll call vote to enter into Executive Session. Wayne Feiden discussed acquiring a parcel adjacent to Sheldon Field. Nowak spoke against removing the parcel from agricultural use. Feiden indicated that the City, through the Recreation Department, will be purchasing the property. He believes that if the Commission contributes funds for acquisition, we could get a Conservation Restriction on the parcel. Sweetser asked how much the Commission would be contributing. Feiden said $1000. Sweetser moved to use Commission funds to contribute to the purchase the parcel with a CR. Carbin seconded. Goldstein, Sweetser, Body and Carbin voted yes. Nowak and Reed voted no. Nowak stated that he felt the land should be kept in active agricultural use and Commission monies could be better spent. Reed agreed. At 6:00 P.M., Sweetser moved to come out of Executive Session. The Commission voted unanimously by roll call vote to come out of Executive Session. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting April 22, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, John Body, Wendy Sweetser, and Reuven Goldstein. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson. Meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by chair Mason Maronn. Ken Kipen and Denise Pavo of the Hilltown Anti-Herbicide Coalition gave a presentation about their interactions with MassHighway about herbicide spraying. In 1999, with the help of Toxics Action, an official statewide moratorium on pesticide spraying was issued. The Protection of Families and Children Act forces all state departments to examine their use of chemicals and prohibits them to increase their use. The Pesticide Bureau under the EOEA established the 10 ft. no-spray zone around wetlands. Herbicides are by design toxic. Twelve are approved for roadside spraying by the Pesticide Bureau through a risk/benefit analysis. Five have the same active ingredient as Round Up. The problem starts at the EPA, with very little testing on them (done by Monsanto), and none on the inhalation exposure hazard. They were found to be non-carcinogenic because the one animal study done was found to be flawed. By law, only the active ingredient needs to be tested, not the “inert” ingredients. The bottom line is that very little information about the consequences of these chemicals, alone or combined with others, is known. Body volunteered to write a letter to the other Conservation Commissions along Route 91 explaining the hazards. 6:30 p.m. Notice of Intent for Christine and Michael Cahillane, 337 Bridge Street Steve Riberdy of Environmental Consultants presented the project. The structure in the back of the property is in the flood plain. The applicants plan to demolish the existing house, build a new single family house set back a bit to meet current zoning, the porch and deck will be well 1 2 above floodplain. There will be a net reduction of 1000 square feet of the house. There is a net gain of floodwater storage. Maronn inquired about the flood storage calculations. Did he use the total volume of the entire structure or the wall volume? Riberdy said he was not sure, he would ask the engineer who prepared the calculations. The Commission decided to wait until the next meeting to see the calculations prepared the traditional way. Raymond Capers, current owner of the property, said that he has looked extensively into rehabbing the property. They have found that the expenses to rehabilitate it will be far more than to demolish it and build another. He asked the Commission if continuing the hearing is an imposed hardship by delaying the project? Maronn replied that the Commission always examines flood storage issues and since DEP seems to not have any substantial comments, we just need to make sure we have the calculations on record at this stage. Body moved to continue the hearing until May 13 at 5:30 p.m. Goldstein seconded. Unanimous. 7:00 p.m. Continuation of Request for Determination, Martha Borawski, Kennedy Road Alec MacLeod presented the application. He re-visited the site and flagged the isolated wetlands and the centerline of the stream. He said he did not flag it on the neighbor’s property to the north. McPherson said that between Q and R flags, she disagreed with the flagging. There is flow between the areas that actually goes between Q5 and R1. She said she did not think there should be flags at Q6 and Q7. Body said that it is clear that if you dropped some dye in at one point, in a matter of minutes, it would be in Clark Brook. MacLeod said he didn’t disagree with that, but that it is only a stream if it is an above ground channel, and parts of this go underground. Goldstein said that he saw the stream and it was a continuous stream with natural culverts. Sweetser added that it was not groundwater that the Commission saw flowing. McPherson said that there is a definite flow channel with a sandy bottom. Body said this is a tributary of our water supply and that is why we are examining the definition of stream. Lionel Gorman, a potential owner of one of the properties, said that we should look at the soil and topographic conditions to see if dye put in one area appears in another. Maronn said that if this is defined as a Class I water, then a 200 foot buffer would be required. Bill Brandt, husband of property owner, said he is planning on giving 17 acres to the City, but he won’t. He said we should vote with our head and not our heart, and that this area is far enough from the water supply area that a goose on the reservoir would cause more damage than a septic system. McPherson read from the MACC handbook’s section on streams. McCloud said that technically speaking there are mini-streams that disappear and reappear. Gorman suggested that the Commission might seek legal advice as to the definition of stream. Brandt said he wanted the Commission to make a decision tonight. Hearing no further comment, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Goldstein seconded. Unanimous. Sweetser moved to issue a positive determination checking box 4. Body seconded. Unanimous. Body moved positive box 6 for flags J1 through J8 and flags F1 through F11. Sweetser seconded. Unanimous. Body moved positive box 5. Goldstein seconded. Unanimous. Body moved to check a positive Box 2A confirming the boundary of the BVW are accurate. Sweetser seconded. Unanimous. Body moved to check positive box 2B because the flagging of the stream is incomplete and therefore is not showing the continuous stream or tributary flowing in Clark Brook, a designated outstanding resource water. Sweetser seconded. Unanimous. OTHER BUSINESS O’Brien’s Goldstein moved that the new plans be resubmitted to Natural Heritage for additional comments on the newly proposed culvert under the driveway and the newly required plunge pool. The Commission was uncomfortable with the fact that the plans from April 15 do not correspond to Wayne’s notes about the plunge pool, and that there is no plant list and schedule, as the Commission required in the OOC. The Commission decided to hold off on their approval of the 3 4 plans until all requirements were adequately addressed and Natural Heritage had a chance to comment. Body moved $25 from Education and Outreach fun go to Molly Hale for a walk she led at the Girl Scouts Reservation. Goldstein seconded. Unanimous. At 8:30 p.m. Goldstein moved to close the hearing. Body seconded. Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, Wendy Sweetser Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting May 13, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, May 13, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: John Body, Wendy Sweetser, Susan Carbin and Matt Nowak. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden.. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by acting chair John Body. Notice of Intent – Cahillane, 337 Bridge Street Steve Riberdy from Baystate Environmental presented revised plans with new flood storage calculations that did not include the foundation. Flood storage is a little less than originally proposed. Sweetser stated that it met the requirements of the Act. The Commission agreed. Hearing no further comment, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Sweetser seconded. Unanimous. Carbin moved staff recommendations for the Order of Conditions. Sweetser seconded. Unanimous. Minutes April 8, removing the executive session minutes. Carbin moved to accept. Sweetser seconded. Unanimous April 8 Executive Session. Carbin moved to accept. Nowak seconded. Unanimous. 1 Certificate of Compliance for Keith Davis The Commission unanimously agreed to issue a Certificate of Compliance based on McPherson’s report of her site visit to the Davis residence. 6:10 p.m. Discussion with Wayne Feiden, Planning Director Feiden updated the Commission on the O’Brien’s Enforcement Order. He explained that they would like to use C2 coir and straw mat instead of Landlok TRM since it is less expensive. He said there is no way to know how much water is flowing between the wetlands and Landlok is the safer alternative for stabilizing the slope of the swale since it would last forever. Body stated he would like to err on the side of protecting the environment. Nowak stated that the advantage of the C2 mat is that it does degrade so you don’t have an unnatural fabric in the soil forever. McPherson said she was concerned about what kind of plants were actually going to grow in the swale since it is a shady site. Feiden stated if it were not an Enforcement Order, and the hydrology of the site was presented as part of the Notice of Intent, he’d have no problem with the C2 mat, but in this case, with so many unknowns, he felt the Landlok was a better alternative, which is why he specified a permanent stabilizer in the Enforcement Order . The majority of the Commission felt more comfortable with a permanent stabilizer rather than the C2 mat proposed by the O’Briens. Feiden discussed the Cons Com budget, noting that staff is more busy than ever monitoring construction projects that have been permitted or not, but much less money coming in this year than last, mainly because of a greater number of RDAs instead of NOIs. He said that the end of FY04 account balance is $5,000. Feiden suggested that fee increases be put into the wetland ordinance revision, noting that the DPW is going to levy big fees for stormwater reviews and enforcements, about $2000 per acre of disturbed land, so city council will be looking at any wetland fee increases within the context of already increased fees on homeowners. Feiden talked about staff time and that there are a lot of special projects coming up, some that have been put on hold for the last year, so McPherson will have a lot less time for staffing the Commission. Sweetser asked if the bottom line is finding more funding. Feiden said yes, and also how we spend our time and prioritizing. Some things are not going to get done. Clearly the wetlands ordinance is part of the solution. 2 Body suggested that this summer, when the Commission goes down to 1 meeting each month, we make a point of monitoring Conservation Areas. Feiden asked for a motion to allocate wetlands funds to continue funding McPherson for 1 day per week for the next year. Sweetser moved. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7:47 p.m. Request for Determination - Riley, Riverbank Road Michael Chudzik, from the Trail Performance Center, presented the application. His company would be installing the dock system. Sweetser asked if it’s removable Chudzik said yes, they will tow it across to Sportsman’s Marina. Body pointed out that this will have much less impact on the bank and hillside since it won’t be dragged in and out every year. Carbin asked how the dock is attached. Chudzik said by cables, if it’s ok to the Commission. He said the cables could be attached to trees, but he usually uses 1 ½ inch cables attached to concrete posts driven into the ground, usually about 3-4 feet deep. Those come out in the winter too. McPherson asked why they come out. Chudzik explained that trees can catch on them during the spring thaw, and in case the bank erodes further back before the next boating season. Carbin asked how they are removed. Chudzik said just loosed them and tug them out. Carbin asked why the river doesn’t do the same thing. Chudzik stated that they hold, the posts are 4 ft deep. Body asked how far away from the shore the dock is. Chudzik said 6-8 feet away. Very little of the ramp actually touches the shore. Down the river in the meadows, there are a lot of docks crudely attached to the shore. This has much less impact. Body said only question is what is better, posts or trees. Carbin and Sweetser thought posts, to avoid damage to the trees. 3 Nowak suggested a safety line to trees in addition to the posts, so that in the event of a flood the dock would be more secure. The Commission agreed. Hearing no further comment, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to check negative box 2 with condition that the dock be attached by posts plus safety tethers to trees. Nowak seconded. Emergency certification for diesel spill on Route 91 Based on the recommendations of McPherson, Nowak moved to issue and Emergency Certification. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7:10 Amended OOC for the Plantations / Lepine-Wzorek Associated Body read the judgment to the Commission. Sweetser moved to amend the Order of Conditions to reflect the agreed upon long-term beaver management plan in the judgment. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body discussed a meeting he attended on land use in the City where the Planning Board had two representatives. He believes the Conservation Commission should become more involved in issues of land use. He distributed a copy of a letter he wrote all city councilors, including some information on sustainable development and cost of community services. There was a discussion of a wetland violation on Old Wilson Road. The Commission agreed to write a letter to the DPW to explain how the lack of erosion controls affect the City’s wetlands, not just the roads, and that there must be better communication between the DPW and the Commission so that in the future, protecting the road surface from run-off does not negatively impact nearby wetlands. Body suggested the Commission talk about procedures at the next working session. Nowak moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 4 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting May 27, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, May 27, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, John Body, Reuven Goldstein, Susan Carbin and Matt Nowak. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden.. The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Maronn. By roll call vote, the Commission unanimously entered into Executive Session. At 5:50 p.m. Carbin moved to come out of Exective Session. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. The sole purpose of the Executive Session was to discuss land acquisition. Feiden submitted a planting plan from the O’Briens for the Commission’s Approval. The Commission generally approved the plan, contingent upon receiving the name of a wetland scientist who will oversee the work within the buffer zone. Body suggested to Feiden and the Commission that there be some mechanism in place for the Commission to weigh in on the potential purchase of land as it comes out of Chapter 61. Feiden said he thought it would be worthwhile for the Commission to form a subcommittee for this purpose. He added that he notifies the Commission of the big parcels, but not the smaller building lots which are very expensive. He offered to notify the Commission by email whenever land comes out of Chapter 61. Maronn said it would be a good idea to send out a letter to all participants in Chapter 61 stating the financial advantages of selling to the City. 1 The Commission discussed the process of public hearings. Body suggested that the Commission members discuss more amongst themselves rather than debate back and forth with applicants. Reference was made to the Kennedy Road determination of two meetings ago. He stated that once the Commission gathers the information needed, the Commissioners should state that the Commission would like to spend some time deliberating amongst themselves. If any questions arise, they could be directed to specific members of the audience. The Commission generally agreed that it is a good idea to hold a tighter line during public hearings. Feiden suggested stating plainly to an applicant something along the lines of “This is your last chance, do you have any new information to present that addresses this issue?” as a way of keeping the meeting under control. Body brought up an incident where someone questioned him going on a property to check silt fences. He explained that the Commission has the right to go on a property as soon as an application is filed. The Commission requested that McPherson make up official cards for each Commissioner to show during site inspections. The Commission discussed Wetlands Ordinance Revisions The fee structure was discussed, with the Commissioners feeling that the costs for individual homeowners should not increase dramatically, but that there should be more innovative ways to raise fees for developers, commensurate with the scale of the project. McPherson pointed out that the current Ordinance allows the Commission to charge a fee for each lot that is created within the buffer zone, when there are no fees paid to DEP. Body suggested that this is a reasonable fee on top of regular DEP fees, and that this might be another way to discourage developers from putting lots near wetlands. The Commission generally agreed that McPherson should pursue the possibility of a new local application for an on-site inspection to generally determine if there are any wetlands or buffers. This would not take the place of an RDA, but would be a first step in the application process, to allow homeowners to determine if they need to hire a consultant. Fees would be similar to an RDA but turn-around time would be faster. At 6:37 Nowak arrived. McPherson handed out draft Regulations for Hiring Consultants and stated that the language was taken directly from MGL Chapter 44 Section 53G. 2 The Commission discussed the hiring of consultants briefly and decided to review the draft and vote on it at the next meeting. 6:47 Discussion of Preliminary Subdivision Plan for property on Westhampton Road There was a discussion of the detention basin, which is shown partially within the 100’ buffer. The Commission would like to see it completely out of the buffer, if possible. Richard Kirby, LEC Environmental Consultants, said it is probably possible. He stated he would welcome the Commission’s thoughts and comments so they could incorporate them into the final design. Maronn suggested limiting cleared lawn area on the 2 large lots, especially within the buffer. There was a discussion about clearing, in general. Even outside the buffer zone, if there is excessive clearing, the hydrology of a wetland will be altered. Body suggested a joint hearing with the Planning Board to discuss how connectivity of roads means that ecological connectivity is diminished. Todd Cellura questioned the appropriateness of the Commission making recommendations outside its jurisdiction. Maronn explained that these are comments and recommendations to the Planning Board, and that this is the only time we are able to go outside of the legal jurisdiction. Body stated that protection of wildlife is part of the Commission’s mandate. City Councilor Marianne LaBarge stated that she is concerned about the wetlands and the extended future road. Kirby requested a copy of the recommendations before the June 10th Planning Board meeting. Maronn replied that it is uncertain whether the Commission would write recommendation at this meeting or wait until the June 10th meeting. 7:05 Northampton Area Pediatrics RDA Mark Reed presented the application. The Commission expressed no concerns about the project. Body moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body moved to issue a Negative Determination checking box 3, with the condition that all construction debris be removed from the site. 3 7:10 Comcast RDA Alec MacLeod presented the application. The Commission had no questions and felt the project is straightforward. Carbin moved to close the hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read staff recommendations, and commented that the silt fence should be “entrenched,” not “trenched.” Body moved to issue Negative Determination box 3, with conditions in staff report. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission decided that Maronn would periodically check in on the project. Dave Thompson from Coler & Colantonio brought the Commission up to date on the Rock Ridge Nursing Home project. Carbin stated that she and McPherson had visited the site and that there was considerable grading within the buffer that was not shown on the plan. This was to cover an approved drainage pipe leading to the level lip spreader. Thomas stated that if the Commission wanted, they could remove the pipe and install a riprap lines swale to the spreader. Both McPherson and Carbin expressed concern that this would actually be more disturbance within the buffer. Carbin suggested that, while one side of the mound fit in with the existing landscape, the other side had a very steep slope. Thomas said they could grade that side to reduce any chance of erosion. The Commission agreed to this and requested that shrubs be planted on the disturbed area, in addition to seeding, in order to better stabilize the area. The Commission decided to table the minutes until the next meeting. The Commission discussed Tom Miranda’s letter regarding the Amended Order of Conditions for the Plantation. Miranda suggested that the Commission state on the Order that there are no findings or special conditions relating to the local Ordinance. 4 The Commission unanimously agreed that McPherson should consult with Lou Moore about the appropriate boxes to check and whether any of the conditions are pursuant to the local Ordinance. Request for Certificate of Compliance – 54 Easthampton Road McPherson reported on a site visit. She mentioned that there was a portion of the wetland restoration without herbaceous vegetation, but that the immediate surrounding area outside the limit of work also did not have any herbaceous vegetation. The Commission discussed the remediation project. Body moved to issue a partial certificate of compliance. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission discussed the Boston & Maine Railroad yearly operating plan, which calls for spraying herbicides, including Oust, within 10 feet of a BVW. Maronn stated that the railroads have been doing this for years, and they place markers on the railroad ties showing what areas are no spray zones and limited spray zones. The Commission expressed grave concerns about spraying in the vicinity of the Oxbow. Body volunteered to contact Ken Kippen from the HC-AC about the planned spraying and if there was anything the Commission could do about it. Body moved to ratify the Enforcement Order to Dick Finn and Tim Zeilinski. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. They are to report to the Commission at the next meeting, June 10th at 5:30 p.m. The Commission agreed to discuss at the next meeting the summer schedule. Body requested time at the July meeting to present the Wildlife Committee DVD and wildlife survey report. The Commission agreed to put together a presentation on the value of connected habitat and how the Planning Board’s push to connect all roads can undermine ecological connectivity. Then they will approach the Planning Board about a joint hearing on the topic. At 8:20, Body moved to adjourn. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 5 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Executive Session May 27, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, May 27, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, John Body, Reuven Goldstein and Susan Carbin. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden.. The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Maronn. By roll call vote, the Commission unanimously entered into Executive Session. Feiden passed out a map of the 5.7-acre Morin property, near but not contiguous to the Fitzgerald Lake Conservation Area. Broad Brook forms the easterly boundary of the property. The property owners agreed verbally to sell the property to the City. Feiden stated that the Broad Brook Coalition would contribute the lion’s share of the cost ($4,600) and the Commission would contribute $1,000. Goldstein moved to use $1,000 of Commission funds to help purchase the property. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 5:50, Carbin moved to come out of Exective Session. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. The sole purpose of the Executive Session was to discuss land acquisition. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting June 10, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, June 10, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, John Body, Reuven Goldstein, Susan Carbin, and Wendy Sweetser. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson, and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden. At 5:30 p.m., Maronn noted a quorum and opened the meeting. The Commission discussed the preliminary Subdivision plan by Sovereign Builders for property on Westhampton Road. The Commission was in favor of limiting the amount of clearing on all lots, a maximum of 40% on the smaller lots, 25% of lot 4, and 15% on the 2 large lots, # 7 and 8. The Commission was pleased at the proposed location of the house on lot 4, at the farthest point from the wetland, as it preserves valuable habitat. Body suggested that there should be no trails through the wetlands, as it is important habitat. The Commission agreed that there should be public access trails through the property, but did not see the reasoning behind directly impacting wetlands with a trail. Any trails should be located outside the resource areas on site. Carbin moved to send staff recommendations plus those items discussed above to the Planning Board. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Richard Finn appeared before the Commission regarding a wetland violation on Route 66. Carbin asked for an update on what was going on with DEP. Maronn noted that some silt fencing was installed. 1 Finn said that they are following DEP instructions, and have installed silt fencing and hay bales. He stated that they have hired a wetland specialist, Dan Nitsche of Baystate Environmental, who delineated some of the wetlands this afternoon. Carbin asked if there was any restoration proposed yet. McPherson said that the first step is to assess the extent of the wetland and the damage that was done. Finn stated that they are looking into the potential of the property, given the fact that the lots would not perc when they were tested a number of years ago by Peter MacErlain. Finn stated that what happened was unfortunate, that there are definite areas of wetlands, including many sensitive areas on the 16 acre parcel abutting the parcel with the violation. Maronn asked who did the clearing. Finn stated that it was done under Tim Zielinski’s direction, but that no more work was going on there, other than monitoring the silt fences. Maronn commented that by this time, the Zielinskis, the property owners, should know wetlands. McPherson mentioned that the last time she was at the site, the erosion in the center of the site was worse. Finn said that he will monitor the site daily. Maronn stated that Dan Nietzche should be informed of the increased erosion and should deal with the situation. McPherson stated that a wetland specialist, not just Mr. Finn, needs to inspect the site regularly, at minimum after each rainstorm. The Commission agreed and asked to be kept updated on the site and DEP requirements. At 6:10, Sweetser arrived. McPherson explained the airport land swap, where they would put a Conservation Restriction on nearly 4 acres of land adjacent to the Connecticut River, with public access to the River, in exchange for a reduction in their open space zoning requirements, in order to be able to expand. Sweetser said that she was in favor of a permanent restriction and access to the River. Maronn suggested that the Commission could hold the CR. 2 Carbin moved to recommend staff’s recommended statement of support for the proposal to the PB with Maronn’s suggestion that the Commisison would be willing to hold the CR. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 6:15 p.m. NOI for boardwalk at the Ice Pond, and bike path to Rocky Hill CoHousing. McPherson presented the application for the Office of Planning & Development The proposal is for an aluminum boardwalk system. Width will be reduced to 6 ft. at the wetland crossing, from the 8-ft bikepath width. Sweetser asked about the decking material. She suggested ipe. McPherson will look into it. Goldstein suggested a sign to “walk bikes across ramps”. Carbin asked about the possible looping of a water line from the Ice Pond and would this still allow for only one wetland crossing. McPherson will check with Wayne on the status of this pipe. Maronn suggested on slopes greater than 3 to 1, erosion control blankets are used. McPherson said that would not be a problem. All the slopes were designed at 2 to 1 to pull the limit of work line in as tight as possible, but it did make for some steep areas. The Commission continued the hearing to July 24 at 8 pm. At 6:37 p.m. Ian Merrill, representing Camp Ramah New England, requested permission to camp on Elwell Island for one night this summer. He noted that they received permission last year for a longer stay with more campers. Body moved to give Camp Ramah permission to camp on Elwell Island on the night of July 7. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Merrill stated he had a copy of Commission regulations, but would appreciate another copy this year. Maronn requested some photographs of the event for the Commission website. The Commission thought this was a great idea. 6:45 Other Business Minutes: Carbin moved to accept the minutes of 4/22/04. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 3 Sweetser moved to accept the minutes of 5/13/2004. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Carbin moved to accept the Executive Session minutes of 5/27/2004. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body moved to accept the minutes of 5/27/2004. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Reuven mentioned that his name is misspelled on emails he receives from Wayne and that it bothers him. McPherson said she would take care of it. Summer schedule: Carbin moved to set the summer schedule for July 8 and August 12. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. McPherson explained the changes to the Rock Ridge sidewalk, which was moved, saving several large trees. Body moved to approve the change as minor, not requiring an amendment to the permit. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. O’Brien Enforcement Order: Body rolled his eyes and said “Those wetlands were connected.” The Commission reluctantly approved the choice of consultant, Keith Morris, and expressed concern about the location on site that the plants will be dug from. This will have to be monitored by Wayne and Commission members so that there is no further damage to the wetlands or buffer zones on site. At 7:05 Feiden arrived. The Commission unanimously agreed to require that all species that are to be dug from on-site and moved to the disturbed buffer zone be tagged and approved by the Commission prior to the commencement of the replanting. Carbin moved to accept Regulations for Hiring Consultants under MGL chapter 44 section 53G and append to the rules and procedures bylaw. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission discussed the Monitor Report form. 4 Maronn suggested that McPherson also work up a monitor form for Commissioners visiting permit sites. McPherson thanked Maronn for giving her even more work. Feiden suggested that there be a disclaimer at the end of the report stating that this does not mean that all encroachment has been identified. Body suggested we try the form out on the APR with baseline information. Sweetser said that she would run the form by the TTOR land manager for comments. Feiden suggested that this be an appendix in the Open Space, and others can also do monitoring. Feiden mentioned that once monitoring begins, he has concerns about the northerly section of Roberts Hill. Commission discussed electing a Chair and Vice Chair, and expressed concern that the mayor has not yet appointed a seventh commissioner. Body noted that the Ordinance states that the Commission shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair at the first meeting of each year. Body volunteered to be Vice Chair and Maronn stated that he would be wiling to continue on as Chair. Sweetser moved the slate. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn welcomed Body to the executive position. Body asked if there was an executive bathroom. The Commission discussed DEP proposed changes to the Wetlands Regulations. McPherson stated that she liked the idea of using the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation form more frequently, but had concerns that there would be no permitting required if activities were out of the 50’ wetland buffer. There could be a lot of potential damage to resource areas if too much land clearing occurs within the 50-100’buffer. The Commission decided they would email comments amongst members over the next week to close in on comments from the Commission to DEP. Body moved to approve the draft letter to MACC and other Conservation Commissions about the Northampton Conservation Commission decision regarding the spraying of herbicides along Route 91. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 5 Maronn suggested that when it is sent to MACC, Body should ask if it can be placed in the newsletter so all Commission in Massachusetts would see it. The Commission agreed. The Commission decided that John should add to the letter a section addressing this issue as it related to herbicide use along railroad right-of-ways. Feiden explained that the deadline for self-help grants is approaching and asked if the Commission had any suggestions for purchases. On his list are the Molitoris property, the Turkey Hill quarry, and a property near Frank Fournier in the riparian zone. The time window is small because we need Council approval to get appraisals. Body suggested that it might be important to establish a local, private land trust, to work with BBC, Arcadia, and the Planning Department. Maronn suggested sending letters to abbuting communities to see where their open space goals are, and if we can set up some multi-town coalition. Body suggested that the Commission sponsor a meeting with neighboring towns to start a more regional approach to open space protection. At 7:55 p.m. Sweetser moved to close the meeting. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson and Susan Carbin 6 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting June 24, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, June 24, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, John Body, Reuven Goldstein, Susan Carbin, and Matt Nowak Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson At 5:35 p.m., Maronn noted a quorum and opened the meeting. O’Brien Enforcement Order Maronn recognized Jeff and Susan O’Brien and asked if the reason they are before the Commission is to discuss flagging the buffer zone? Susan O’Brien asked why they have to flag the buffer if they have already said they would not remove plants from the buffer. Body asked how they would know where the 100’ buffer is. The O’Briens described the location of the wetlands, between the house and the road. McPherson added that there are no wetlands behind the house. Maronn asked if plants could be taken from behind the house. Susan O’Brien said there is not much area behind the house and no mountain laurel back there. Goldstein asked what kind of plants were removed to construct the driveway. Jeff O’Brien replied mountain laurel, red maple and witch hazel, but it’s hard to find mountain laurel. 1 2 McPherson noted that it is also hard to transplant and recommended some local nurseries that carry mountain laurel. She suggested that they wait until the fall for sales on plants. The O’Briens described the areas where they planned to remove plants in addition to what they plan to purchase from nurseries. They explained that the majority of plants will be purchased. The Commission generally agreed with their plans and saw no need to require them to flag the 100’ buffer. Discussion of Wetlands Ordinance Revisions At 5:50 p.m., the Commission discussed vernal pools and revisions to the local wetlands ordinance. The Commission asked Body to contact the Sudbury Conservation Commission to come to a future meeting to look at the City’s topography maps and show the Commission how to recognize potential vernal pools. The Commission asked McPherson to get two copies of each topography map, one for a working copy to identify potential vernal pools, and one to produce a final copy. The new potential vernal pools maps could then be distributed to the building department and the DPW. Body moved to accept the Northampton Conservation Commission Policy on Vernal Pool Habitat as presented by staff. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed 4-1, with Nowak dissenting. Nowak stated that he objects to the open-endedness of the process, which could potentially lead to up to five years of discussion on whether or not a ponding area is a vernal pool. However, he agreed with the purpose and intent of the policy. Maronn suggested the Commission generate a list of vernal pool consultants. Some vernal pool specialists that were recommended were Molly Hale, Keith Davis, Fred Morrison, and Brandon Abbott. The Commission began discussion of the fee schedule. Goldstein recommended that all terms in the fee schedule be included in the definition section. Body asked for a motion to give a mandate to McPherson to continue work on revision the Wetlands Ordinance. Goldstein moved. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Smith College RDA At 6:40 p.m., Gary Hartwell, Smith College Physical Plant, presented the application. A high water event caused a section of the flashboards at the Paradise Pond dam to bend and partially release. To straighten it out, the steel pipes have to be heated and the water level lowered another foot to do this. The failed flashboards have already caused the pond level to drop 6 inches. Maronn asked if bending would weaken the posts. Hartwell said yes, but they were designed to fail at 3.9 feet above the dam, and this just means they will fail a little earlier. Body asked what the usual flow is. Hartwell said it goes as low as 5 cfs, but it was as high as several thousand cfs during Hurricane Floyd. He stated that during the partial drawdown, the flow would not be more than 10% more than the flow coming in. He said it could be done in just one day. They would time the work around predicted rain to refill the pond, which would only take a few hours. Body asked about future plans for dredging Paradise Pond. Tom Jenkins, of Baystate Environmental, said that he was going to be putting together a long- term maintenance plan for the pond and dam. Nowak asked it there will be increased turbidity with the drawdown. Hartwell stated that there is some sediment behind the gate, but they regularly open the gate so there isn’t too much. Body asked about the Mill River shoal removal process downstream and if sediment released from the dam would impact the rare species? Hartwell said no, it would dissipate long before it got there. Hartwell explained the other part of the RDA, the construction of a sidewalk across the roadway from the dam. The Commission generally agreed that it sounded pretty simple. Hearing no further comment, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read staff recommendations. 3 Jenkins recommended that the discharge during refilling be maintained at 30 cfs, which is 3 cfs above the minimum, so that while its raining, downstream will see no increase in flow rate until the pond is filled. The Commision agreed to this. Body moved to issue a negative determination checking box 3 for the sidewalk project. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body moved to issue a negative determination checking box 2 for work on the flashboards with recommendations as amended. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Cooley Dickinson parking garage NOI At 7:10 p.m., Dave Picard, VHB, presented the application. The parking garage will be constructed almost entirely within the footprint of an existing parking lot, a small portion being within the 100-foot buffer. There will be a net decrease of 3,600 sq ft in impervious cover with the removal of the helicopter pad. All runoff will be captured and treated before being discharged into the sewer system. All disturbed areas will be seeded with a wildlife conservation mix. Maronn asked if there are going to be erosion control blankets on the slope. John Furman, project manager with VHB, explained that all slopes are kept to 3:1 to prevent erosion. Body asked how much water that is currently feeding the wetland will be diverted. Picard explained that they are only taking out a small portion of the entire watershed for the wetland. Furman explained the drainage system as it currently exists. Most runoff already goes to catch basins and then into a retention basin. During a 10-yr storm, about 8 cfs will be diverted from the wetland and put into the retention basin. Nowak asked how long they anticipated the project would be under construction. A representative from VHB explained that the project from start to finish should take about 7 months. McPherson asked if he could state his name for the record. He replied “Steve Killian” McPherson asked if it was like the beer. 4 There was a common laughter amongst all those in Hearing Room 18, as it was understood that everyone would rather be having a Killians at this moment. Furman explained that there is also some future work planned, but that it is not included in the NOI. He stated that they do not anticipate any future impacts to this wetland from any future work. David Cramer, former Mayor, asked if there would be any impact on the other side of the wetland, on his property. Furman said it would take a really big storm to make it all the way to his property. Body asked Cramer what feeds the wetland on his property. Cramer said he doesn’t know, but his property has been getting wetter over the past few years each spring. Hearing no further comment, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn kibitzed with the former Mayor for a while. 7:30 Jennifer Fish, Service Forester with the DCR. Fish passed out informational brochures and explained that the Commission receives forest cutting plans any time someone removes 25 thousand board feet or 50 cords at a time. If it is less than that and within a wetland or buffer zone, the property owner can choose to file an NOI with the Commission instead of a forest cutting plan. McPherson asked what was required if someone were changing the land use, such as from forest to meadow. Fish explained that they would have to provide proof within a year that it was a meadow without a cutting plan, but that they would still have to file with the Commission if there are wetlands involved. Body asked what the process is to make sure that timber is harvested in a way that doesn’t harm wetlands. Fish explained what she looks for at site visits, and makes sure that BMPs are used for temporary stream crossings, and that the bridge must be removed within one year. Body asked about vernal pools. 5 Fish explained that only certified vernal pools count and 50% of basal area can be cut up to 50 feet from certified vernal pool, no roads within 100 feet, and no ruts over 6 inches within 200 feet. Goldstein commented that this is considerably less stringent than our local ordinance. Fish offered to send a copy of the vernal pool guidelines to the Commission. Body explained the new map the Commission is trying to do showing all potential vernal pools. Maronn suggested it be sent to the district forester when complete. Body asked if the Commission sent Fish the map, if she would be able to use it, even though not all the vernal pools would be certified. Fish said that if she had a map with potential vernal pools, she would make sure that vernal pool guidelines were followed, even if they were not yet certified. There was a discussion that many people might try to end-run the wetlands permitting process by using cutting plans to change the land and get ready for development. Fish said she comes across this a couple times each year, but generally people file for either long term management of the forest or to get some money off their land. Carbin asks if there is anyone watching the forest cutters, if foresters are required to oversee cutters. Fish replied that the forester generally does, and she checks in, too, especially if there are sensitive areas on site, but for private jobs, it is not required. She said there are generally no problems on land where the trees have been marked by the forester. Maronn asked about the profit from a harvest per acre. Fish explained that there are too many variables, and it runs the gamut from a losing proposition to thousands of dollars. Body asked Fish to walk the Commission through a Forest Cutting Plan. There was a discussion about regulations surrounding Forest Cutting Plans, including the location of slash, regeneration, clear-cuts for wildlife, the 10-day timeline for reviewing plans. Goldstein suggested that because the standards are lower than our own, the Commission should look at forest cutting sites for additional resource areas that are not noted on the plans, especially vernal pools. He suggested that there should be some change at the state level to give the Commission some authority under the Forest Cutting Practices Act. 6 McPherson commented that Goldstein is so naïve, but that is what she likes about him. OPD Bike Path NOI At 8:20 p.m., Carbin moved to continue the hearing to July 8 at 6:30 pm. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes Carbin commented that the minutes are getting much funnier and more pleasurable to read, and, in fact, she races to read them first when the packet arrives. The Commission agreed. Carbin moved to accept the minutes of June 10. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Extension Order of Conditions for the Turkey Hill Quarry Maronn asked for a motion to extend the Order of Conditions for 1 year, to June 24, 2005. Carbin moved, Nowak seconded, the motion passed unanimously. Order of Conditions for Cooley Dickinson Hospital Carbin moved staff recomendations. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body commented that the eagle in the meadows has a young juvenile. Maronn noted that all juveniles are young. Goldstein rued the fact that he got rid of his crossbow. The Commission asked McPherson to make comments on their behalf regarding proposed DEP changes 8:45 Carbin moved to adjourn. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 7 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting July 8, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, July 8, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, Matt Nowak, Reuven Goldstein, and Wendy Sweetser Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson At 5:34 p.m., Maronn noted a quorum and opened the meeting. McPherson explained a wetland violation at 140 Coles Meadow Road involving the placement of fill within 25 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland and intermittent stream. Maronn asked Matt Murphy, Murphy Building, if there are any erosion controls at the bottom of the filled slope. Murphy provided photos to the Commission and said he had hydroseeded the fill a couple days ago. Joyce Lak, 130 Coles Meadow Road, showed photos to the Commission. She said that the level of fill comes up to within 6 inches of her 5-foot fence. She said that the area that had been filled used to be wooded. Mr. Lak explained his concern that with heavy rains, there is runoff and siltation onto his property. Maronn suggested that the Commission conduct a site visit and that at minimum, an RDA will have to be filed. He is concerned about runoff onto the Lak’s yard, in addition to erosion into the wetland. Goldstein commented that the problem is compounded by the fact that so much vegetation was removed. 1 Maronn explained to Murphy and the Laks that the Commission could not make any recommendations without seeing the site, that recommendations might involve plantings or something more drastic. The Commission decided to see the site at 9:00 this Saturday morning, July 10. At 5:55 p.m., the Commission discussed the minutes of June 24. Nowak moved to accept the minutes as written, Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Sweetser read out loud some of the funnier sections of the minutes for the Commission’s enjoyment. Emerson RDA At 6:02 p.m., Tom Emerson presented his request. McPherson commented that the wetland flagging was very generous and the wetland is actually further away from the proposed work area. Maronn commented that he didn’t have a giant problem with this application. Nowak agreed. Hearing no further comment, Maronn closed the public hearing and read staff’s recommendation. Nowak moved to issue a negative determination checking box 4. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission talked amongst themselves to kill time until the next public hearing was scheduled. McPherson stated that if anyone had to use the bathroom, now might be a good time. Sweetser commented that at this point there is not enough time. She suggested that the Commission begin thinking about Conditions for the OPD bike path, then went on to say that her office is moving to Williamsburg. Maronn commented that she wouldn’t be able to be on the Commission anymore. Sweetser stated that only her office was moving. But she might consider moving to Williamsburg to get kicked off the Commission. 2 Ostberg RDA At 6:15 p.m., Carol Ostberg presented her request to the Commission. Maronn asked if all work was outside the 50’ buffer. Ostberg said it was. Additionally, all excavation for the piers was to be done by hand. The Commission agreed that even though it was not technically an exempt project, it was certainly minor. Hearing no further comments, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read staff’s recommendation. Nowak moved to issue a negative determination checking box 2. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. OPD Bike Path NOI Continuation At 6:30 p.m. Maronn opened the hearing. The Commission decided that impact to the BVW was negligible, given the 1 ½ inch diameter of the 20 posts that will be drilled into the wetland, and would not push the total past 5,000 square feet of alteration on the Pathways site. At 6:32 p.m., hearing no further comment, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. McPherson commented that Sweetser and Nowak are on a roll. The Commission laughed heartily. The Commission went through the Standard Order of Conditions for the project, which they all support. Sweetser checked off the conditions that the Commission agreed to and will provide her copy to staff for writing the Order of Conditions. Other conditions that were discussed at previous meetings, to be included, are: posting a sign to walk bikes across the boardwalk since it has a reduced width of 6 feet, and using erosion control matting on all slopes greater than 3:1 within the buffer zone. 3 Additionally, erosion control barriers shall serve as the limit of work line within the buffer zone, and the boardwalk shall be set as high above the wetland surface as is permissible by the building code. Sweetser moved the conditions discussed. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. (Still on that roll.) At 6:45 p.m., Sweetser left the meeting. Discussion with Mary-Ellen and Tim Dachos Mary-Ellen Dachos, Birch Lane, presented plans to the Commission that were drawn up in 1993. She explained that there was an approved house site. Maronn stated that the plan had never been approved by the Commission. Dachos thought it must have been approved because there is a curb cut and a driveway put in. Maronn explained that the former owner received an Enforcement Order for doing that work without a permit. The subsequent Notice of Intent that the Commission required never made it through the process and there was no permit issued. Maronn noted that when he drove by the site, the wetland line on the plans was different, and much more of the site is actually wetlands. McPherson added that there was standing water where the proposed house from 1993 was sited. Dachos explained that they bought the land with what they thought were “approved drawings” for a house site. She said that all the wetlands on site were disturbed. She read from a letter she wrote for the Commission, a copy of which will be placed in the file. Dachos stated they would still like to build a house there within the wetland and restore other wetlands on site in exchange. She added that Chuck Dauchy could confirm that the wetlands were not pristine and previously disturbed. Maronn stated that he would like to talk with Chuck about the wetlands. McPherson stated that even previously disturbed wetlands can be fully functional. There was a discussion of whether there would be enough upland on the site to actually replicate any wetland loss from the construction of a new house within a wetland. Tim Dachos stated that he believes the development at the Oaks has something to do with the lot being more wet than it has been in the past. 4 5 Maronn stated that he would like to have Chuck Dauchy speak to the Commission about the wetlands on the site. Nowak pointed out that it wasn’t just as simple as the Commission approving a project such as this. The DEP has to approve it, and they could issue a superceding order if not everything is done by the book. McPherson added that there are more questions about the potential development of the lot than Dauchy could answer in an informal discussion, such as where is the actual wetland boundary, what is the actual square footage of wetland alteration for the construction of the house, yard and line to the leach field. She asked Maronn if he could recall the Commission approving a project like this in the last ten years, that it is important that the Dachoses know how the Commission has historically dealt with the issue of building a single family house and yard in a wetland. Maronn stated that he could not remember anything of this nature being permitted by the Commission in the last ten years. The Dachoses asked if the Commission would still work with them. Maronn stated that the first step is up to them. That the Commission at minimum needs an accurate wetland delineation. Nowak agreed that there are too many questions to be able to make any kind of determination at this point, although it will be difficult to get a project like this through the permit process. The Dachoses stated that they will take it to the next step and get the delineation done. Maronn stated that there was no guarantee that they will get a permit. It looks extremely wet and it will be very difficult to get a project built on the lot, but that the Commission trusts Dauchy and would like to see his new delineation and have him speak to the Commission informally about the situation. At 7:40 p.m., the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting August 12, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, August 12, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, Matt Nowak, Susan Carbin, and Wendy Sweetser Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson At 5:30 p.m., Maronn noted a quorum and opened the meeting. Gougeon Enforcement Order McPherson read to the Commission from an enforcement Order to Robert and April Gougeon for clearing trees within the Riverfront Area and buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. No fine was issued. Carbin moved to ratify the Gougeon EO. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Robert and April Gougeon described to the Commission the site and the area where trees were cleared. Maronn described the process of an RDA and an NOI. He talked about the Riverfront standards and perennial and intermittent streams. McPherson said the adjacent property with the stream is part of the Watershed Protection Overlay Zone, which covers perennial streams in the City. April Gougeon said that some years ago, her neighbor did some work and she said the stream was intermittent. Sweetser recommended they hire a wetlands specialist to look at and flag the wetlands on site so the Commission has something on paper to look at. Robert Gougeon asked what their chances were of actually building a house if it is in the Riverfront. 1 Maronn said that they can alter up to 10% of the Riverfront Area for house, yard, and driveway. McPherson commented that the regulations do not have the single-family house exemption for new lots created after August, 1997, so it would be important to see if the house site was in the outer riparian zone. The Graham Appeal The Commission discussed the written request from DEP regarding Joyce Miller’s appeal of the Superceding Order on the Graham’s project on Riverside Drive. The Commission asked McPherson to write a letter to DEP stating that the project was not considered under the local ordinance. The Commission looked first at the Riverfront Standards and determined that the project did not meet them. The Commission did not at that point go on to review the project under the local ordinance. There was a discussion of NCC acronym used by DEP to refer to the Commission. There was general agreement that it was cool and that the Commission should start referring to itself as the NCC. Trail Clearing at the Plantations At 6:25 p.m., Adele Popielarczyk spoke to the NCC about Parson’s Brook Conservation Area at the Plantations. She reported that the developer has just recently put in plantings on each side of the public access trails. She would like to start clearing some small brush to make the trails accessible, but she said there is a big pile of dirt that would have to be removed by the contractor. Maronn stated that Dave Lepine, the developer, said he was going to go in with some small machinery to clear the trails. The NCC was in favor of Adele doing some trail work. The NCC gave permission to remove some small trees in the middle of the public access and brush and branches along the trail, adding that she should leave the removed vegetation for animals to use. The NCC thanked Adele for coming in and being willing to start the trail clearing. Minutes Sweetser moved to accept the minutes with amendments as discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Wetlands Ordinance Revisions The NCC unanimously decided to table discussion of the local ordinance and schedule a work session instead. The date of the work session will be decided at the next meeting on Sept 9. 2 Cooley Dickinson Hospital Temporary Parking Lot NOI At 6:45pm Maronn opened the hearing. Juanita Forsythe stated that the hospital needed to put in a temporary parking lot to make up for the spaces lost during the construction of the parking garage. John Furman, VHB, described the project, and oriented the NCC to the site, which is on Smith Voc land, adjacent to the CDH campus. The area is currently disturbed, topsoil stripped, and is used by students to learn how to use earth moving equipment. All proposed work is limited to the top of a vegetated bank that surrounds the site and leads down to wetlands. The parking lot will be gravel, but the access drive will be paved, for ease of snowplowing. Furman described the drainage concept and the proposed stormwater management, including the inspection of filter fabric after every rain event. McPherson asked who would be doing the inspections and stated that it seems unlikely that someone will really inspect the system that frequently. Carbin expressed concern that it is very cumbersome for someone to remove the rocks from the filter fabric and change it when necessary. She also agreed that it is unlikely it will get the inspections required. Sweetser asked if there is the possibility of a lot of gravel washing off the surface of the lot and into the stormwater system. Furman stated that there will be fine particles that become buoyant and leave the site, but the gravel should be stable. Sweetser asked if there was a way to design the parking lot that requires less oversight. Furman said not without paving it. Maronn asked how they plan to stabilize the steep slope upgradient of basin #1. Furman said they planned to seed it. Maronn said the NCC would probably ask them to use staked erosion control matting. Sweetser asked where they would store the snow that is plowed or if they would move it off site. Furman said that it would remain on site, probably by the larger sediment basin. Sweetser asked if the people who drive the snowplows are going to know not to pile snow in the wetland buffer. 3 Furman replied that he doesn’t know the frame of mind of snowplowers, but he’s seen them take out fire hydrants. Maronn asked what is going to become of the lot after the garage is finished. Forsythe stated that it is for short term use. That the parking was to be installed by October, 2004, and the garage was to be completed in April, 2005. McPherson mentioned there are some large trees in the vicinity of the access drive. Furman stated that the large trees near the access drive would not be removed, they are outside the limit of work area. Alex Ghiselin, Ward 5 City Councilor, stated that he is very supportive of the hospital, but that this is a site with a long history. He described the wetlands and Elm Street Brook as a failed system, that there are a lot of flooding problems. Three or four times each year the brook jumps its banks. He said that the bank around the lot, particularly the downhill side, is not stable. He hopes that someone from the DPW would get involved in this, and that any time work is proposed, the entire drainage area should be looked at and improved. Forsythe said that it is out of the economic boundaries of the hospital to fix an entire history of drainage problems. Carbin stated that it should not be made worse. Furman stated that they have attempted to maintain a buffer in from the areas that are already disturbed around the parking lot. Maronn commented that there is some grading shown on some slopes, and even though they are out of the buffer zone, he hopes they are going to stabilize them. Furman offered to do a visual inspection of all the slopes. Maronn asked what is going to happen with the loam pile in the center of the site. Furman replied that it was undetermined at this point. McPherson said that she would ask the NCC to continue the hearing based on Ghiselin’s suggestion that someone from the DPW be given the opportunity to comment. She offered to contact Paulette Kuzdeba and/or Doug McDonald. There was a discussion on whether the NCC should close the hearing with the condition that any comments from DPW be addressed, or keep the hearing open pending those comments and any new information. 4 Hearing no further comments, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed with Carbin opposing. Zielinski Wetland Violation 7:35 Richard Finn updated the NCC on the wetland violation on Route 66. The delineation has been completed and the site contained more wetlands than anticipated. Out of 16 acres, there were fewer than 2 acres of dry land. He gave copies of the wetland delineation plans to the NCC. Maronn asked what the status was with DEP. Finn stated that he couldn’t report on that because David Foulis was on vacation, but he was going to meet with him next week. He said that Dan Neitzsche, Baystate Environmental, had stated that there was a lot of restoration work that had to be done, including plantings. Maronn asked about the time frame for the work to be done, and noted that the end of the planting season is approaching. Finn stated that DEP has been very slow and nothing would be done before a scheduled meeting in November. Neitzche is going out periodically to inspect silt fences and Finn will keep the NCC informed of the situation. The NCC thanked Finn for the update. The Graham Appeal Commission discussed its response to the request from DEP with Atty. Tom Miranda. CDH Order of Conditions At 8:10 p.m., the NCC discussed the Order of Conditions for the CDH temporary parking lot. Marron read staff recommendations. Additional recommendations discussed include: The three northernmost parking spaces on the east side shall be removed and the retaining wall pulled further from the wetland edge. The applicant and/or property owner shall come before the Commission no later than December 31, 2005, with a decommissioning plan for the temporary parking area and stormwater management system. 5 The applicant shall meet with representatives from the DPW stormwater staff (Paulette Kuzdeba and/or Doug McDonald), notifying the Commission of the date and time beforehand, to discuss stormwater management on site, possible impacts off site, and appropriate mitigation. The applicant shall provide notes, and updated plans resulting from the meeting with DPW to the NCC and OPD and DEP. Nowak moved to issue OOC as recommended by staff with the additional conditions discussed. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Nowak moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance for Millbank Housing. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Nowak moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance for a 1979 Order of Conditions to Pride Convenience at 54 Easthampton Road. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:45 p.m., Nowak moved to adjourn. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 6 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting September 9, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, September 9, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Paul Wetzel, Mason Maronn, John Body, Reuven Goldstein and Matt Nowak Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden At 5:30 p.m. Maronn noted a quorum and opened the meeting Councilor Marianne Labarge spoke to the Commission of a recent violation at Dunphy Drive extension. McPherson described the release of a large volume of water from a detention basin through a wetland and stated that there was an enforcement order and a $100 fine that was issued. Wally Herzog, Westhampton Road, stated that he called the police on the evening of August 24 when he saw the water come down the street. He thought a water main had broken. He stated that after the water ran off, there was a lot of silt and stones left that he had to clean off the road. Councilor Labarge stated that there have been constant complaints about the development for the past year. She felt that a $100 fine was just a slap on the wrist. Body felt that since new development in the city is on marginal land, there are going to be more and more problems. He stated that every site he has visited recently has had silt fence problems. He was not sure that increasing the fines would actually solve the problem. Goldstein stated that any change to the ordinance to increase the amount of wetland violation fines should consider the size of the project, which should dictate the fee. Body suggested we use the $100 per day of violation option more regularly. McPherson mentioned the difficulty in getting 2 Commissioners to sign each ticket and suggested that any new wetland fee violation ordinance included a provision that either the department head or agent of the Commission could sign the ticket. Feiden suggested that in this particular case, since it is a subdivision, the Commission can request that the DPW and Planning Board not reduce the letter of credit until the problems are corrected. There was a discussion of amounts to increase the fee for violations, with suggestions of $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second and $300 for a third, or $100, $300, $500. Maronn suggested that if there is a problem developer, the Commission has the right to revoke the Order of Conditions. Body moved to ratify the Enforcement Order for Sovereign Builders. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 6:10 pm Maronn noted that Sean Hoye was not present for his hearing. 6:12 MHD Sewer Connection NOI David Prickett of Tighe & Bond described the proposed project to connect the MHD facility to the existing sewer line on North King Street. The connection is to be horizontally drilled to minimize trenching and the chance of sedimentation into the wetlands on site. Body asked if the Commission had jurisdiction over the groundwater under the resource area. Maronn replied that the Commission does. Nowak asked about dirt piled in the staging area, so close to the wetland. Prickett explained that the staging area had to be parallel to the way it is drilled. Hearing no further comment, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body moved to continue the Hoye hearing since he was still not present. Goldstein seconded. There was discussion and the motion failed 1-4 with Body voting in the affirmative. 6:20 Salem NOI Karro Frost, NEE, representing Ken Salem, stated that owner Maureen O’Connor’s address was given incorrectly in the application. It is 22 Dewey Court, 1st floor, Northampton, 01060-3816. Frost described the site, with an intermittent stream and associated wetlands. She asked the Commission to make a determination that the stream is indeed intermittent. It is shown as perennial on the USGS map, but 3 years ago the Commission determined it to be intermittent. She noted that it was dry at the Commission site visit yesterday. As mitigation consistent with the NCC policy on work within the buffer zone, Frost stated that they would like to remove the Japanese Knotweed and replace it with species such as willow, silky dogwood, and other plants that are already on site. Total mitigation area would be approximately 3,000 sq ft. Body asked if they planned to increase the lawn area. Salem stated that there was plenty of existing lawn so they would not expand it. Body asked how they were going to eradicate the knotweed. Frost stated they would use Rodeo and then do intensive plantings to shade the area. Wetzel asked if anything was going to be done with the large trees. Frost stated that all the large trees would be retained. Muralee Salvatore, an abutter to the property, stated she was surprised to find that the Commission determined the stream to be intermittent. She said that the stream is always flowing and even backs up and causes flood damage. McPherson verified that part of the stream was ponding water, and part was dry, but there was no flowing water at the site visit. Salvatore asked who would be keeping this section of the stream clean. That her husband regularly removes trash and car parts from their part of the stream. Maronn stated that it’s a sad commentary, but you know you are in a wetland if you see a shopping cart or a tire. Salvatore stated that she did not oppose the proposed work, but asked what kinds of conditions the Commission will put on the applicant to do his project. Maronn described erosion and sediment control barriers to prevent silt getting into the wetland. He stated that because it is such a flat site, it is not likely that this will be a problem. Hearing no further comment, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn invited the applicant to return later when the NCC writes the Order of Conditions. 7:00 Cutlery Building NOI Alan Verson, Cutlery Building Associates, gave some background to the project and stated that while they own the property now, they are not responsible for the current state of contamination. Karro Frost, NEE, discussed the wetland issues on the property. The entire site is within Riverfront. In fact, all work is within 100 ft of the Mill River. She pointed out the area of BVW and said there is a continual flow of water through the wetland. Lyons Witten, an LSP with NEE, described the history of the site, the construction of the dam and raceway to provide waterpower to the mill, and the subsequent filling of the raceway through the 1970s. Part of the raceway furthest from the building was never filled. There are similar contaminants along the entire stretch of the raceway, but they are not homogeneous. Primarily the contamination is metals: arsenic, chromium, lead and nickel. Witten described the different remediation techniques to be used in each portion of the site, including phytoremediation in the central portion of the site. He stated, however, that if phytoremediation proves infeasible, they have an alternate plan to stabilized the contaminants. Maronn asked Witten to explain “chemical stabilization.” Witten described 2 areas with lead concentrations high enough to leach into groundwater, where cement, lime and other materials will be mixed in place with the lead contaminated soil so it will not leach. Then it’s classification changes from contaminated to impacted soil. The stabilized/treated soil in this area will then be spread out underneath the area to be paved. Other areas of high concentrations of lead will be removed and brought to the central part of the raceway for phytoremediation. Maronn asked what types of plants are best for phytoremediation. Witten said Chinese break fern, followed by a mustard plant and another. The problem that has been identified is that the Chinese fern is an annual in this area, so each year they would need to be replanted, and with only 1 year of root growth, the remediation would never go deeper than 1-1.5 feet. This may not be practical or feasible. The alternative is to stabilize the soil in place by chemically binding it. Goldstein asked how the harvesting of plants is handled. Witten stated that the green parts of the plant are bagged and sent to Virginia to a company that extracts the heavy metals, which is then very concentrated, but a small amount, and disposes of it. McPherson added probably in a river down in Virginia. Body asked if they did the alternative with the hazardous material stabilized in place, if the area would be safe for people to use for walking. Witten said it would. There would have to be a use restriction on the property, but it would be safe for walking. He added that the existing fence would remain in place until all remediation was complete. Maronn asked what work will actually take place within the wetlands. Witten replied that they will dig up an area of PCBs and remove them from the site for disposal in Buffalo. He added that they will need to access the northern portion of the levee to remove hazardous material from the levee, so they are proposing the construction of a small, temporary gravel road through the wetland, hence the need for wetland restoration. Frost stated that other than the construction of an access road, all the rest of the work will be in the buffer zone. Frost said that another issue is stormwater management since they will be adding a significant amount of pavement as remediation to prevent water moving through the hazardous materials. There will be an increase in runoff. They are proposing to add a low retaining wall to make a large catch basin out of the existing end of the raceway, where the drainage on site currently goes. Herb Mayor, with CFP Properties, which owns part of the Cutlery Building, asked about the contaminants, specifically the red soil, and if there should be concern if people are walking in there. Witten replied that arsenic shows up as red, and arsenic is usually associated with lead. The Green soil is chromium and antimony. He said there should be concern, which is why the site is fenced off and has a sign saying hazardous waste site. Frost added that the metals are on the surface, and she would be concerned about tracking contaminants into her house if she walked out there. Witten said that the debris is not homogeneous, so the worst contaminants are not everywhere, most of it is solid waste such as bottles and construction debris. Hearing no further comment and not having received a file number and comments from DEP, Body moved to continue the hearing to 9/23 at 7:20. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Thomas Grohowski, representing the Bobala’s, stated that he and representatives from the Fairgrounds would like to meet on site to try and work out the issues and present a plan to the Commission at its next meeting. The NCC scheduled them for 9/23 at 7:40 7:55 Shifflett NOI Nelson Shifflett presented his application. He uses the building next to the Former Cutlery Building for a construction business and would like to expand. He explained how he is in compliance with riverfront regulations and answered comments from DEP. McPherson confirmed that the entire footprint of proposed work is indeed degraded, based on a site visit yesterday with Wetzel. Hearing no further comments and being satisfied with Shifflett’s response to DEP, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion with Chuck Dauchy representing Mary-Ellen and Tim Dachos Dauchy showed the NCC a plan using the original wetland delineation with a new house sited in an area of wetland and buffer zone. McPherson said that the Commission, at a previous meeting, had asked for a new delineation showing current conditions, since they have clearly changed, or perhaps the original delineation didn’t show the full extent of the wetland. Dauchy said that before he spends the Dachoses money, he would like the Commission to let them know, on a policy basis, whether this is the kind of project it would consider, if all performance standards could be met. Maronn asked where the septic system would go. Dauchy said they would pump it up to the far corner of the lot. Maronn stated that he thought the extent of wetlands was far beyond what is shown on the map. Nowak concurred and added that he walked the site and didn’t think they were out of wetlands until the rear of the lot. Maronn added that the Commission and DEP does not like to see the destruction of wetlands for lawn. Dauchy stated that no one likes to see that, but this is a special case, since they paid market value for a building lot. Maronn asked if Dauchy has seen the NCC’s Policy on Work within the Buffer Zone. He did not think that this project could meet local performance standards. Maronn stated that he personally would have a hard time permitting a house being constructed in a wetland. Nowak said that it is unlikely that they would get a permit. Perhaps there is some clever solution that would fit on this site, but he doesn’t see that it is likely. Mary-Ellen Dachos stated that the Commission, in 1994 gave Prime-Lo Development an Order of Conditions for this lot, so they bought an approved building lot. Maronn stated that since 1994, the wetlands regulations have only gotten stricter, and in this case, the wetlands on the site have expanded. Body stated that an Order of Conditions is only good for 3 years. Maronn added that an approved delineation is also only good for 3 years. Mary-Ellen Dachos asked the NCC if they would consider giving a permit for a house on this lot. Maronn stated that the location of the house is not likely to get approved. He cannot say if there is another place on sight where a house might fit since there is no accurate delineation. Dauchy stated that they probably will not be able to meet the buffer zone policy of the Commission. 8:40 Discussion with Alec MacLeod regarding the Gougeon property on Spring Street MacLeod stated that he looked at the Gougeon’s property post-Enforcement Order. He explained the situation of April Gougeon’s father who is very sick with heart trouble and that they need to construct a house for him on their property as soon as possible since he is living in a second floor apartment that strains his heart. They would like to do anything they can to make the situation work. Clearly restoration work can happen under an Enforcement Order, but he is wondering if there is any way that the Commission can see to move this forward to let the house construction occur simultaneously with the restoration. There was a long discussion of the many alternatives for the father’s living arrangements that would not involve changing the wetlands regulations. For example, an attached inlaw apartment would be outside the Riverfront and wetland buffer and would not require a permit from the Commission. Body asked the Commission if the Friends of Mineral Hills could put up a kiosk like at Fitzgerald Lake at the entrance to the Conservation Area, put some boards to cross 2 wetlands, and extend an old logging road to make a loop trail. Maronn asked if there was parking. Body said there was room on the grass for 3 or 4 cars. Body added that while the Commission voted to name the trail the Armand and Rosal LaPalme Trail, they would prefer the trail have Algonquin names since this is historically Algonquin land. The Commission agreed to all of the above. Minutes Commission decided to table minutes until the next meeting. Nowak moved, Goldstein seconded, and the Commission decided unanimously to continue the Hoye RDA until 9/23 at 8:00 pm. At 9:25, Body moved to close the meeting. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting September 23, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: John Body, Paul Wetzel, Matt Nowak, Susan Carbin, and Wendy Sweetser Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden At 5:30 p.m., Body noted a quorum and opened the meeting. Minutes 8/12 Nowak moved to accept minutes of August 12 as written. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed with Body and Wetzel abstaining, having not been at the August 12 meeting. Violation at the Fairgrounds Nowak described a new violation, where the Fairgrounds pumped water out from the horse stalls last Saturday, September 18. The water, with plenty of horse waste, was pumped across Cross Path Road and into the field on the other side. The police were called, as was the Board of Health. Nowak reported that when he notified NCC chair Maronn, Maronn replied “oh no, they’re doing that again?” The Commissioners felt it was unfortunate that Maronn is not present at the meeting to elaborate. McPherson suggested that since the Fair has to do a new 5-yr maintenance plan soon, that would be a good time to get into a discussion with the Fairgrounds about all the Commission’s concerns that have come up over the past couple years. The NCC briefly discussed whether this is a jurisdictional violation, or more of a BOH issue. Nowak requested that McPherson follow-up with the BOH. 1 2 Messier RDA At 5:45 Body opened the hearing. As Mr. Messier was not present, and there was no public comment, Carbin moved to continue the hearing to October 14 at 5:30 pm. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Landfill ANRAD At 5:49 Body opened the hearing. Ned Huntley, Noho DPW, briefly introduced the application; Randy Christiansen, Dufresne- Henry, presented the application. Christiansen explained that there are more wetlands on site, in the developed areas of the landfill, and they are asking that the Commission confirm only the boundaries shown on the map at this point. He explained that the site is a former sand and gravel pit, which was excavated down to the water table. He described a pond with no jurisdictional streams coming into or going out of the pond, just overland flow and groundwater. Christiansen described the pond as isolated land subject to flooding that is not under state jurisdiction because of the size and the fact that part of the watershed is created by the storm drainage system. McPherson asked if the storm drains were going to be changed during the Rt. 66 project. Christiansen said no. McPherson added that land inundated by stormwater is jurisdictional under the local ordinance. Christiansen described another isolated wetland. Body stated that these could be vernal pools, as they have many of the characteristics. Christiansen summarized what determination they are seeking: Local jurisdiction of gravel pit pond State and Local jurisdiction of isolated wetland State and local jurisdiction of BVW and location of the flags State jurisdiction on Riverfront Body stated he attended the site visit and he has concerns about the pond, which had a lot of wetland vegetation and seemed to be functioning for habitat and flood storage. Christiansen stated that he is concerned that if it is termed a wetland under the local ordinance it will be treated like the other isolated wetland and it is indeed different. There is no topsoil and the wetland vegetation that is growing there, phragmites and autumn olive, are going to outcompete native vegetation. Wetzel stated that if the pond is actually groundwater, maybe it should be filled to a certain level so that it can still retain its stormwater detention qualities, but not have exposed groundwater aquifer that could potentially be negatively impacted by road runoff. He stated that this could be a good mitigation site, an opportunity. Body stated that if this were termed a non-jurisdictional wetland that could be used like that, it would take the Commission out of the loop and they would have no say as to how the mitigation is achieved and what wetland qualities are maintained or enhanced. Councilor Marianne LaBarge stated that she saw that manmade pond and stated that it is beautiful, and she is concerned about the looks of it as well as the species that might be there. Christiansen stated that he disagrees about the value of the pond. He asked the Commission if they have any further questions after the site visit. He said that the pond is clearly not state jurisdictional. Goldstein stated that he would like to see the site before the hearing is closed. Feiden stated that this is just a determination about whether or not it is a resource area, not about future work. The Commission can be as flexible as they want when the project comes before them. Hearing no further comment, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission set up a time with Huntley to view the pond again, on Tuesday at 9 am. Christiansen requested that McPherson notify him of the approximate time the Commission will be discussing the application at the meeting on October 14. At 6:40 pm Carbin moved to go into Executive Session to discuss land acquisition. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. At 7:00, Carbin moved to come out of Executive Session. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Body announced that the sole purpose of Executive Session was to discuss land acquisition. 7:04 Paradise Pond Apartments Karen Leveille, of HAP, presented modified plans to the Commission based on Planning Board requirements for more paving within the Riverfront. She noted that the amount of paving for parking has been reduced. She asked the Commission if it was considered a minor change or if it would require an amendment to the Order of Conditions. McPherson stated that the issue with the new proposed walkways is that there is new pavement within the Riverfront that was not previously degraded. She added that the proposed riverfront 3 mitigation with the original plan is well beyond the square footage required by the Riverfront Regulations, even considering some new paved pedestrian walkways. After discussion of Riverfront Regulations, the Commission agreed that McPherson should send a letter to Leveille stating that this is a minor change. Leveille added that by order of the Fire Department, they will also have to pave an apron and 50’ of an existing gravel drive on the west side of the site. The land is owned by Smith College, with a Conservation Easement held by the Conservation Commission. Sweetser stated that she does not have a problem with the required paving. Goldstein agreed. Sweetser moved to allow the paved apron and 50’ of paving. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Cutlery Building NOI Continued At 7:20 pm Body opened the hearing. Karro Frost, of NEE, stated that since the last hearing, they have received a file number from DEP with no comments. She asked if the Commission has any questions since last time. Body asked if there was any more info on the possibility of phytoremediation. Lyons Whitten, of NEE, stated there was not. He explained that the problem with the recommended plants is that they are annuals in this area, so that the roots only grow down 1 ½ feet and would not grow over many seasons to reach contamination 6 feet deep. He said the company they are working with claims to have found a fern hardy in New York, but until they conduct tests on it, they are not ready to claim that it is perennial here. Perhaps in the next year or two, after more testing, they would be willing to use it as a pilot. There is an alternative in the NOI in case the phytoremediation does not seem likely to work. Wetzel asked about the paving on the earthen berm along the existing gravel parking area. Whitten stated that there would have to be some regrading of the berm so the asphalt goes down properly and it could be plowed, but that they would be paving up the side of the berm to direct stormwater away from the river, to the center of the property, then into the tailrace. Wetzel asked if there was to be erosion controls along the slope down to the Mill River during the regrading process. Whitten stated that there will be silt fencing from one end of the project to the other. It is not shown on the plans, but it is written in the NOI. 4 Hearing no further comment, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission kibitzed amongst itself until 7:40. At 7:40 pm, the Commission discussed the OOC for the MassHighway sewer connection from last meeting. Body read staff recommendations. Nowak added that they should use sediment filter bags or equivalent when they pump water out of the trench. Carbin moved to issue standard orders 1-24 and Nowak’s addition. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7:45 Commission discussed the OOC for Ken Salem. 51 Woodmont Drive, from last meeting. Nowak commented that he liked staff recommendations Sweetser stated that they are always great. Carbin agreed. Sweetser moved staff recommendations. Nowak seconded. Wetzel stated that, while he also like staff’s recommendations, technically, you should be looking at coverage of area rather than individual plants when the mitigation area is monitored. The Commission agreed that this should be incorporated into the OOC. The motion with Wetzel’s comments passed unanimously. 7:52 The Commission discussed the OOC for Nelson Shifflett, from last meeting. While Nowak thought that staff recommendations were indeed good, he asked for clarification from staff about the reason behind the recommendation that the applicant wait until the soil is actually remediated as well as paved. McPherson stated that the remediation was the paving. Wetzel pointed out that the planted buffer strip of 3’ was probably not wide enough to support the growth of trees. 5 The Commission generally agreed that this is not within their jurisdiction, but that they would like to suggest to the applicant that the width of the planting bed be increased to a minimum of 6 feet. Wetzel asked why McPherson required the construction to begin after paving is completed. McPherson stated that she was not sure of the safety of construction equipment digging in and driving around on the site while there were contaminated soils just a foot under the surface. She added that once everything was paved, there would be no chance of machinery spreading the contamination. The Commission generally agreed that this was a wise thing to require, for everyone’s safety. Wetzel moved staff recommendations with addition of the planting bed suggestion noted above. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Hoye RDA At 8:05 pm Body opened the hearing. Sean Hoye presented the application. Body asked if he planned to take down any trees. Hoye stated that he wants to remove some trees in the front. They are slated to come down during the Rt. 66 project anyway. Wetzel asked how the house is heated, if there is a buried oil tank. Hoye stated that the tank is in the basement, not buried. Hearing no further comments, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body read staff recommendations. Body commented that the Commission should consider requiring that applicants remove the silt fences so they are not a long-term barrier to wildlife. Nowak moved staff recommendations with addition discussed, Sweetser seconded, the motion passed unanimously. Discussion with Todd Cellura about recent wetland violation at Dunphy Drive At 8:20 pm Body asked Cellura to explain what happened and why it happened. Cellura explained that after a few inches of rain the previous days, the detention basin was full and they attempted to release the water slowly. It ran through the wetland and onto the road. 6 People were alarmed at seeing a large volume of water on a dry day. He showed the Commission photos of the detention basin which was filled with silt, so when the water was released, it was not really functioning as a settling basin. Body stated that when he went out during the summer, the silt fences were not maintained and the ground, which was clearcut, was not stable. Cellura stated that when the pipe was opened, it was not opened completely. Body asked why it was opened then. Cellura stated that the basin was filled with water. Normally, the basin would not get that full because the outlet would be open, so there wouldn’t be that volume of water coming out all at once. He stated that there are now silt fences around the detention basin. Wetzel asked if Cellura thought the detention basin is under-engineered. Cellura stated that the site functions properly. The water is directed to the wetland as it is supposed to be. Body stated that if there was a chance that an action that is taken could impact a wetland, Cellura should call McPherson for guidance. Wetzel asked if the detention basin is going to be vegetated. Cellura stated that it is, and that the homeowner’s association is responsible for its maintenance. Wetzel asked if cattails grow, would the basin still function. Cellura said yes, and once the site is stabilized, there should not be much silting in the basin. At 8:40 pm McPherson told the Commission that next up on the agenda is Mark Reed representing the Grahams, who would like the Commission to reopen their hearing to consider their application under the local ordinance. Sweetser stated that they need to submit a new permit application and she didn’t think the Commission should waste their time tonight on this. The Commission heartily agreed. Nowak stated that for months during the original hearing, the Commission still couldn’t get basic information from the Grahams, such as the edge of vegetation accurately measured. The Commission discussed the need for some public outreach about the Commission, it’s role as a permit-granting board, when the public should apply for a permit or determination with the NCC, it’s role in open space, etc… 7 The Commission discussed asking McPherson to do a mailing to all residents of Northampton about the permit process, open space, the many ways to put land under conservation, and the need for more land acquisition funds. Wetzel so moved. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission asked McPherson to have a draft brochure for their review in the next couple months. Discussion with Mark Reed representing the Grahams At 8:55 pm Mark Reed submitted a letter to the Commission from Tom Miranda, the Graham’s attorney. He stated it is a question that is outstanding on the file that the Commission did not consider the Graham’s application under the local ordinance. He stated that they would like to either reopen the hearing or file an RDA with the NCC. Any NOI that is filed would be under the local ordinance only since DEP can only issue one file number for each project. Sweetser stated that the Commission is not comfortable reopening the hearing. Reed stated that abutters could be re-notified. Sweetser moved to require that the Graham’s file a new NOI under the local ordinance. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Hudson Certificate of Compliance Mcpherson recommended the NCC issue a COC based on her site visit. Goldstein moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 54 Easthampton Road The Commission generally agreed that a representative would have to further explain the proposed change to the OOC, beyond what was written in the letter. Sweetser moved to issue staff recommendations for Cutlery Building Order of Conditions. Nowak seconded. Wetzel added that there should be silt fencing along the entire work area. The motion plus addition passed unanimously. At 9:15 pm Nowak moved to adjourn. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 8 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Executive Session September 23, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Matt Nowak, Reuven Goldstein, John Body, Susan Carbin, Paul Wetzel and Wendy Sweetser. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden. At 6:40 pm Carbin moved to go into Executive Session to discuss land acquisition. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. The Conservation Commission met with Wayne Feiden to discuss three possible upcoming land acquisition issues: 1) Fluery Chapter 61B Release. (The property owner has since withdrawn their request to remove this land from the Chapter 61B Program). 2) Helen Stewart Coles Meadow Road limited development project- Feiden updated the Commission on the ongoing negotitions on this property. 3) Smith College conservation easement and right-of-way easement possible swap. Feiden dicussed a possible swap with the Commissin. The Commission is going to schedule a site visit and will then discuss this in more detail at a future meeting. At 7:00, Carbin moved to come out of Executive Session. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Body announced that the sole purpose of Executive Session was to discuss land acquisition. Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting October 14, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, October 14, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, John Body, Paul Wetzel, Matt Nowak, Reuven Goldstein, and Wendy Sweetser Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson At 5:35 p.m., Maronn noted a quorum and opened the meeting. Rick Storodj from Environmental Compliance Services described a proposed change to the NCC regarding a new location of a treatment trench at 54 Easthampton Road. Body made a motion to allow this as a minor change without requiring an amendment to the Order of Conditions. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Messier RDA At 5:43 pm, Maronn opened the hearing. As Mr. Messier was not present, and there was no public comment, Sweetser moved to continue the hearing indefinitely. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body made a motion for Kelly Phelan to become an associate member of the NCC. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Greene RDA Todd Rolland, builder, presented the application. He described the conversion of a garage to living space, construction of a new garage and small addition. Maronn commented that the work was very close to the house and there is a lot of lawn before the river. McPherson commented that the yard is relatively flat, so erosion should not be a big issue. Hearing no further comments, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Nowak seconded. 1 Body moved to issue a Negative Determination checking box 2. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes The NCC discussed the Minutes of September 9. Body moved to accept the Minutes as written. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The NCC discussed the Minutes of September 23. Maronn and Nowak requested that minor changes be made. Sweetser moved to accept the Minutes of September 23 with changes discussed. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The NCC discussed the Executive Session Minutes of September 23. Sweeter moved to accept the Executive Session Minutes as written. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Jasinski RDA Nowak recused himself from the hearing because of ongoing issues with his family and the Fairgrounds. At 6:00 Maronn opened the hearing. Kevin Brooks presented the application. The replacement system is filled, but not raised. There will be no loss of compensatory storage. Sweetser asked how long the work would take. Brooks replied in an ideal world, only a couple weeks. Sweetser was surprised to find that we did not live in an ideal world. Hearing no further comment, Body moved to close. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read staff recommendations. Body moved staff recommendations. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. McPherson brought up a request by the O’Brien’s to proceed with putting in the plunge pool. They had contacted Natural Heritage, as requested by the NCC, well over a month ago and have not received a response. She recommended that they be allowed to proceed. Body asked if a turtle got into a plunge pool, could it get out. He stated that Doug Kohl had done some habitat evaluation nearby and there are more turtles in the area than originally thought, or shown on Natural Heritage maps. Maronn said that the sides are shallow and there is plenty of rip rap for turtles to push off of. 2 Wetzel added that culverts are important for the migration and turtles move in and out of them all the time. Body said that as long as the turtles could migrate, then he had no problem with the plunge pool. The Commission generally agreed that the O’Briens should proceed with the plan and install the plunge pool at this time. Borawski NOI At 6:15 pm, Maronn opened the hearing. Mark Reed, Heritage Surveys, presented the application. Reed stated that they have received a DEP file number for the project. Reed explained that there is a copy of a preliminary site plan included in the application, but that after an initial meeting with Gloria McPherson and Carolyn Misch, there were revisions made to that plan to reduce impacts. There is no work being proposed within the 50’ buffer zone. He stated that it is not possible to comply with the Commission’s Policy on Work within the Buffer Zone, and they are proposing the alteration of 30% rather than 20% of the buffer zone. Reed discussed the site visit on Tuesday and the question raised by Paulette Kuzdeba, of the DPW, about the potential tributary behind the house. Reed has prepared a response to this question, a copy of which was distributed to each Commissioner. Goldstein asked about past and present farming on the parcel. Robert Borawski, the property owner, stated that he plowed where he could and in most cases plowed through the swales and wet spots. He said there is one spot way back that he can’t do anything with because of the beavers. He said there is about a half acre that is too wet. Maronn asked if the Commission has enough information to close the hearing. Wetzel asked McPherson to discuss her written comments in the meeting agenda. McPherson explained the concerns of the staff of the Office of Planning & Development and stated that the aerial photo from 2001, which shows a continuous channel across the back of the property, is not what the Commission saw on the ground at the site visit. Sweetser asked if there was a chance that the aerial photo shows darker vegetation and not a stream. Wetzel replied that the dark generally means water. Reed stated that the location of the house and septic system is on a hill of gravel, so everything would leach downward, and not out toward the wetland. Maronn asked where the channel is. 3 Reed stated that it is at the bottom of the slope, as shown on the topo map. He stated that there is no question that that section is part of a stream. There is standing water in it currently. Maronn commented that the location of the septic system is approximately 15 feet higher. He stated that he thought the septic system would work just fine and asked if the Commission needs more information. Body stated that he didn’t think the Commission was qualified to make a judgment on the functioning of a septic system. He stated that Title V regulations to stay 200’ away from a stream to a drinking water supply are in place for a reason and he does not want to take chances with the water supply. The said he had questions about what happened to the stream in the 2001 photo. Michael Gragnolati stated that when they delineated the site in April, there had been quite a bit of rain, and there was no flow. Maronn commented that there was indeed a lot of rain this spring. Body stated that it’s clear that there is some flow on the ortho photo, and apparently they needed a culvert to cross from on e field to another. Robert Borawski stated that while he doesn’t understand the markings on the photo from 2001, he can say that the fields look the same as they always have. Maronn asked Body if he needs some more information. Sweetser stated that she is concerned that there may be no one to put all the information together, and look at the bigger picture if the Commission is concerned with the definition of streams, the Board of Health is concerned with septic systems and depth of soils. Thomas Borawski stated that when he spoke to Peter McErlain a couple years ago he asked if there were any problems and McErlain had said no. Body asked the Commission if they thought Paulette might have some input that would be helpful in reaching a decision. Nowak stated that while he was not at the site visit, he is hearing from the Commission that there may be a tributary there, so he would like some more definite information. McPherson clarified that at the site visit, it was clear that there are sections where there are clearly defined banks and other sections without. This does not meet Title V criteria for a tributary. She stated that her question is that there seems to be a continuous channel the entire way on the 2001 ortho photo, so what happened since then. 4 Body stated that his concern is that if there were a stream that was plowed in, would it eventually re-channelize. He said he didn’t believe a stream could be filled in, even on agricultural land. Sweetser stated that she would like to have information from Kuzdeba about what the DPW Water Department thinks about this. Body moved to continue the hearing to October 28, 2004, at 5:30 pm. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission asked McPherson to invite Kuzdeba to the meeting. Berkshire Gas RDA At 7:04 pm, Maronn opened the hearing. Michael Daoust, Berkshire Gas, presented the application. He stated that based on conversations with McPherson, they have decided to do horizontal drilling to install the gas line. He stated that the machine will sit at the edge of the road, and there will be no open trenching. From an environmental point of view, this is very friendly, and the soil conditions in this area favor it. The whole operation should take less than one day. The Commission generally agreed that the process sounded fascinating. Daoust stated that he would be happy to notify the Commission when the work is about to begin. Nowak suggested that as water is pumped out of the staging hole, it be pumped to a sediment filter bag. The Commission agreed that this was a wise precaution. Hearing no further comment, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Maronn read staff recommendations. Body moved staff recommendations with the added condition mentioned by Nowak above. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Landfill ORAD The NCC discussed the delineation of the Riverfront Area. There was general agreement that it was accurately delineated. The NCC discussed the flags of the BVW, “Area 1.” There was general agreement that all the flags were accurate. The NCC discussed “Area 2.” There was general agreement that this isolated wetland was locally jurisdictional. 5 Body stated that this is likely a vernal pool. Wetzel agreed. There was discussion about whether this should be noted in the ORAD. Body stated that the Commission’s policy presumes vernal pool habitat for sites like this. The NCC discussed “Area 3.” Wetzel described the potential future recreation possibilities for the site and the opportunities for mitigation around “Area 3.” The NCC discussed whether it meets the criteria in the WPA for ILSF. Maronn stated that while the area holds an acre-foot of water, he’s pretty sure the average depth is not 6 inches, which is one of the criteria for ILSF. The NCC agreed that “Area 3” is a locally jurisdictional isolated wetland, but not Isolated Land Subject to Flooding under the WPA. Sweetser moved the above findings. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission set up a site visit for the upcoming ANRAD for the MassHighway facility on Locust Street for Sunday, October 24 at 9 am. The Commission discussed the need for ongoing checking of silt fences. At 7:50 pm, Sweetser moved to adjourn. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 6 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting October 28, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, October 28, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: John Body, Matt Nowak, Reuven Goldstein, and Susan Carbin. Associate Member: Kelly Phelan. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden. At 5:37 p.m., Body noted a quorum and opened the meeting. Continuation of Borawski NOI Mark Reed, Heritage Surveys, showed the NCC letters written by environmental consultant Michael Gragnolati, who delineated the wetlands on the property, and Peter McErlain, former Northampton Board of Health Agent, who looked at the property in relation to Title V requirements. They believe that there is no tributary. Reed also distributed copies of the SCS soil map for the area. He stated that fieldwork to produce the maps was performed between 1963 and 1978, and approved in 1980. Body commented that the soils map shows a stream on the property in the same location as the stream in the ortho photo from 2001. He wondered what happened between 2001 and now to make the stream disappear. Reed said that it happened before the Borawski’s purchased the land. McPherson asked if Mr. Borawski farmed the land before he bought it. Robert Borawski stated that he had begun farming the land in 2001, prior to his purchase of it in 2003. Goldstein suggested that the NCC consider getting some assistance from DEP. 1 Body agreed that he is stuck because the soil map and the ortho photo show a stream, but there is not a continuous stream now. Carbin also agreed that it might be wise to bring in DEP at this point because there are unanswered questions about the stream. Nowak stated that he was ready to act on a permit tonight. Reed stated he did not think that DEP wetlands division would act unless it was an appeal. Body stated that he thought it was really important to determine the status of the stream since it may be or may have been a tributary to the drinking water supply. Goldstein moved to continue the hearing to November 18 at 5:30 pm, to ask DEP for assistance in determining what resource areas were present on the site and what is left of them. Carbin seconded. The motion passed 3-1, with Nowak voting in the negative. Nowak stated that he believes the NCC has enough information to make a decision and does not believe there is a need to consult with DEP. Paulette Kuzdeba, Noho DPW, presented to the NCC some information about the Rt. 66 Reconstruction. She stated that the Order of Conditions is due to expire on December 5. MassHighway, the applicant, has asked if it could be extended. Carbin moved to extend the OOC for 3 years. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. MassHighwway/155 Locust Street ANRAD Nicole Sanford, Environmental Analyst with Dufresne-Henry, presented the application. They are looking for confirmation of Riverfront Area, BVW and Isolated Wetland. The City is considering purchasing or leasing a portion of the property, so they need to determine the environmental constraints, the resource areas and buffer zones under the WPA and local ordinance. They are specifically asking the NCC to verify the boundary of BVW, boundary of Riverfront Area, boundary of Isolated Wetland and whether it is jurisdictional under the local ordinance and whether the disturbed buffer zone is important to the protection of the isolated wetland, and whether there is jurisdictional bank resource along the length of the culvert. The NCC discussed the disturbed nature of the buffer zone adjacent to the isolated wetland, which is paved. The NCC discussed the culvert, which is under pavement, and generally agreed that there was no jurisdictional bank resource. 2 Carbin moved to close the hearing, Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. McCutcheon NOI Chuck Dauchy presented the application. He gave the NCC revised plans with the house moved further from the wetland, up to the 20’ front zoning setback. He noted a large oak tree that was pointed out during the site visit, which is now well out of the house construction area so it will be preserved. There is an existing gravel path that will be removed, but used for access to the wetland buffer for removal of honeysuckle first. Body asked the condition of the land between the sediment barrier and the proposed house. Dauchy stated that its mainly scruffy trees. McPherson said she remembers seeing some bittersweet. Dauchy said yes, there was a few vines, and they could remove them. Body commented that they pushed the house forward, but kept the limit of the yard at the 35’ buffer instead of moving that further from the wetland, too. Dauchy stated that Mr. McCutcheon felt he could work with a 20’ back yard, which would pull the limit of work line almost up to the 50’ buffer. Body and Carbin asked what the square footage of disturbance within the 50-100’ buffer. Dauchy stated there is 934 sq ft being converted to yard, but there is still over 600 sq ft preserved and the gravel path will be restored. Dauchy stated that this new plan adds to or restores more buffer than it alters with the house and yard. Steve Hathaway, an abutter, asked if they could have a copy of the plans. He asked the NCC to explain what the applicant is proposing to do, and what he is proposing to add to the buffer. Body explained the NCC Policy on Work within the Buffer Zone and the percentage of alteration allowed by the Commission. Body read from the Policy. Paige Bridgens, a neighbor, asked the NCC if any thought has been given to the path, which is used very frequently by neighbors and serves a vital role to the pedestrian nature of the neighborhood. Dauchy stated that the path is on private property, but it’s close enough to the City right-of-way to connect easily to the bike path when it is constructed. Bridgens stated that she did not want a connection to the bike path because the neighborhood would be used by too many people. 3 Body stated that it makes sense to connect to the bike path. Marie Hershkowitz, a neighbor, asked how many Commissioners have actually seen the site. McPherson stated that she visited the site with the applicant’s consultant and 2 Commissioners who are not present at the meeting tonight. Hershkowitz stated that she was more worried of the impact to the wetlands of another house on the street, especially after the construction of the duplex next door, as well as the fact that there is no place for a fire truck to turn around at the end of the street. Bridgens added that she has heard that the basements of the duplex are often filled with water. She asked if the groundwater will be affected. Body stated that the Commission looks mainly at surface flow and how it affects the wetlands and buffers. The neighbors, in general, expressed concern about the wildlife in the wetland on the property with a new house being constructed in the buffer. Carbin stated that, on the other hand, there will be a significant amount of wetland buffer restoration. McPherson stated that there is also a lot of yard waste that has been dumped on the property, and asked if the applicant could remove that, as well as the sinks, appliances, tires and other trash. Dauchy stated that they could do that. Bridgens stated that they were very disappointed with the response of the Commission. Body stated that he felt the wetlands will most likely be in better shape after the mitigation work is done. He stated that the applicant has presented a plan that fits with the Commission’s policy guidelines. He stated that there is a need in the City for better funding of open space. Carbin asked the people from the neighborhood to ask their City Councilors why the CPA isn’t on the ballot, as all the towns around Northampton have it. Hershkowitz asked if she would be able to see the final revised plans. McPherson stated that the Office of Planning and Development is open Monday through Thursday, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, and that all the files are open to the public. Bridgens asked about the trees on site, how many would be retained and if the oak will be protected during construction. She stated that she would like to see shade trees on the road frontage. 4 Kelly Phelan asked if the NCC could require the path to be moved onto City property. McPherson stated that the path already connects to the bike path informally and appears to be heavily used. The neighbors agreed that it sees a lot of use. Hearing no further comment, Nowak moved to close the hearing. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Jackson Street Bike Link RDA McPherson presented the application. A portion of the land is owned by MassElectric and a portion is owned by Daniel and Tracey Polachek. She stated that she and Commissioner Paul Wetzel looked at the wetland resources on site. They did not flag the wetlands because they were on private property. McPherson stated that the bike path is 60’ from where they first found hydric soils. There is also a non-continuous ditch along the former railroad bed with some FACW plants in places but she said she did not find a hydrological connection to the wetland. Body asked if work was proposed within the 50-100’ buffer. McPherson said yes. The entire bike link is about 200 linear feet, with about one-quarter of it within the 50-100’ buffer. Joyce Gare asked how many children use the path currently to walk to school? Feiden stated that the crossings at Elm Street and Prospect are high, but he is not sure how many kids use the existing trail from the bike path. Tracey Polachek added that there is a low number of kids who walk there. Daniel Polachek stated that there are many people who use it as a dumping gounnd and he is concerned that if it is paved, the garbage problem will get worse. Hearing no further comment, Carbin moved to close the hearing. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Nowak moved to issue a negative determination checking box 3, subject to the condition that the culvert size be increased. Goldstein seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Rocky Hill CoHousing Doug Kohl asked the NCC for some minor changes to the OCC for Rocky Hill CoHousing. He submitted a letter to the NCC and discussed the requests. He explained that Mark Darnold, the engineer of the project, did not think articulated concrete would be appropriate for paving part of the parking area because of the level of use and snowplowing. 5 Body stated that he would not have a problem with changing to asphalt paving if the engineer did not think it would hold up. Nowak, in fact, did not even remember putting it into the OOC, so he doesn’t have a problem taking it out. Carbin thought she remembered that Mickey Marcus had specified articulated concrete for a parking lot at a car dealership, but wondered if it might hold up in that application because it wouldn’t see continuous traffic. The Commission generally agrees that this is a minor and acceptable change that does not require an amendment of the OOC. Kohl described the other change, which is to not subject lots that are not within the buffer zone to the deed restriction saying this lot is subject to the WPA. Kohl pointed out 5 lots on a plan of the subdivision that are not part of the CoHousing that are entirely outside the 100’ buffer: lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. The Commission agreed that these lots should not have a deed restriction and that this is a minor change not requiring an amendment to the OOC. Comments to the PB on Definitive Subdivision Plans for Colonial Village The NCC noted that some of its previous comments to the Planning Board were addressed in the definitive plan. Todd Cellura read from the Planning Board requirements that the trail accommodate users of all levels. The NCC discussed the desire of the Planning Board to make an accessible trail system in very rugged terrain. The Commission noted that most slopes through the site are 8-20%, and that an 8% grade is not attainable without blasting and heavy machinery to install the trails. Nowak suggested that the trail system should have minimal impact on the land. The NCC questioned the need for anything more than a 2-3’ wide goat-path that is compacted by users as they use it. The NCC asked McPherson to write a memo to the Planning Board on its behalf incorporating the following language: Due to the rugged terrain and the importance of unfragmented wildlife habitat and corridors, it is the opinion of the NCC that any trails that are established be low impact, unpaved and no greater than 3 feet wide. They should not encourage the illegal use of ATVs and snowmobiles. Nothing that requires machinery to install the trails, blasting, or the cutting of trees should be put in. Slope should follow the natural terrain. Given the location of the land in the outlying part of the City, and the nature of the site, and since the Conservation Commission will be responsible for 6 the management of the Conservation land, The NCC strongly feels that the emphasis of the trail system should be on conservation and not active recreation, and that the trail system should not cross the wetlands. The NCC will not permit any trail other than a low impact, unpaved, walking trail up to 3’ wide within any wetland or 100’ buffer zone on site. Brookwood Marsh Body stated that there has been new beaver activity at Brookwood Marsh and asked if McPherson could set up a 3-yr maintenance contract with Beaver Solutions to maintain the beaver deceiver system at Brookwood Marsh. The NCC generally agreed that this was a good idea. Lane Construction McPherson stated that she performed a site visit at Lane Construction earlier in the day and that all work was completed in conformance with the OOC. Nowak moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Turkey Hill McPherson stated that she performed a site visit at the affordable housing at the end of Turkey Hill Road. Markers were installed along the 50’ buffer, but she would not consider them permanent since they only extended a couple inches underground. The NCC discussed what would be considered permanent: lally columns, painted yellow, 1 foot out of the ground, 2 feet buried. Goldstein moved to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes Nowak moved to accept the Minutes of October 14 with the minor grammatical change suggested by Body. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. McPherson asked the NCC if someone would look at a potential violation on Crescent St. Carbin volunteered. The Commission discussed using ANRADs more often for bigger projects that involve altering resource areas rather than just buffer zones, as a way for developers and consultants to establish the parameters for a project before the designing and engineering phases begin. At 8:30 pm Nowak moved to adjourn. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 7 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting November 18, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, November 18, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, John Body, Susan Carbin, Paul Wetzel and Wendy Sweetser. Associate Member: Kelly Phelan. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson, and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden. At 5:30 pm, Maronn opened the hearing. Continuation of Borawski NOI Carbin moved to continue the hearing to 5:30 pm December 9. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Feiden addressed the NCC on 3 issues: (1) The City closed on a property on Kennedy Road in Leeds, which is our newest conservation area. He asked if Leeds Civic Association was interested in managing and monitoring it. Carbin said she believed that the Civic Association would be interested. (2) Feiden described a 16 acre parcel in the Sawmill Hills will be closed on soon. (3) Feiden described a situation in Barret Street Marsh where Tropical Storm Floyd, in 1999, moved a stream through the marsh and it is now located under the boardwalk. The stream is undermining the boardwalk. The OPD has been putting band-aids on the boardwalk for the past few years, but every year the stream gets deeper and wider. He noted that there is more water coming into the Marsh since the Solomon Schechter Day School has been built. Feiden asked the NCC if they would give an emergency certification to fill the stream with large- ish stones, about 6 inches deep, to slow the velocity of the water. 1 Sweetser asked who would do the work. Feiden stated that they would have a truckload of stone delivered and have OPD interns do the physical work. Maronn suggested that we set up a site visit so the NCC could actually see the situation. He volunteered Wetzel, a noted wetland expert. The site visit was set for Monday, November 22, at 11:30 am. Dudenake NOI At 5:55 pm, Maronn opened the hearing. Mickey Marcus, NEE, presented the application for Mr. Dudunake, who is out of town. He described the wet meadow, which was previously disturbed, but the soils are still clearly hydric. There is no way to access the lot without filling about 500 sq ft of the corner of the wetland. Sweetser asked if they have looked at getting an easement from the neighbor to avoid the wetland. Marcus replied that the sewer stub, cable, and electric are already in place for this driveway location. It was done years ago when the subdivision was planned. Marcus described the “straw wattle” he plans to use for erosion control, instead of haybales. They do not contain any weed seeds and are good for projects where there is not high velocity water. They are trenched in and staked just like haybales. Body asked if the driveway was going to be paved. Marcus said initially it is not, but later on they will probably do so. Having not received a file number from DEP, Sweeter moved to continue the hearing to December 9 at 5:40 pm. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Northampton Airport NOI At 6:10 pm Maronn opened the hearing. Maronn determined that he had no conflict of interest for work his employer had done for the applicant in the past. Robert Bacon, the owner, introduced the application. He stated that they are proposing a large project to be staged over a long period of time. Maronn told the applicant that an OOC is good for 3 years, and a month before it expires, they need to come before the NCC to get an extension. 2 Tom Jenkins, BEC, presented the project. The applicants are proposing to expand the function of the airport by upgrading and increasing hangar space. He stated that the new T-hangars and the square hangar would have break-away panels so in the event of a flood, the water could enter and flow through the structures. The existing paved areas will be modified to accommodate the new hangars. Jenkins stated that the entire site is within the floodplain, so this project is basically an accounting exercise to make sure that no flood storage is lost. There was a discussion about creating flood storage and the requirement that it be at the same elevation. Wetzel asked about fuel storage on site. Jenkins stated that there is an existing underground storage tank, double walled, that will remain. And a new tank, also double walled, will be added. It will be raised a couple feet on stilts to put it above 125 ft. Just as the NCC was feeling good about understanding the plans, Jenkins stated that there is more… Jenkins produced a new set of plans and calculations showing two additional hangars, one already-proposed hangar increased in size, a new skydiving facility set on 4’ piers to bring it above the flood elevation, and replaced septic systems. There are some grading changes to compensate for the increase number of buildings. The new plans still show a net increase in comp storage, though less than originally proposed. Bacon mentioned that they designed the project with keeping a view to the Holyoke Range in mind, and they set the hangars off to the side. Maronn asked about the construction sequence, and if all the grading will be done first. Bacon said yes. Maronn stated that the NCC would like all comp storage to be created first in case there is a flood. Jenkins stated that most of the cut happens in the area of the T-hangars, which go in first, so that sequencing should not be a problem. Maronn asked for the sequence to be submitted to the NCC in writing. Wetzel asked how “long-range” the project is. Bacon said about 3-5 years at least. 3 Not having received a file number from DEP, Body moved to continue the hearing until December 9 at 6:00 pm. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Cooley Dickinson Hospital Parking Lot NOI At 6:53, Maronn opened the hearing. Richard Corder, the director of Guest Services at the hospital, introduced the project. He stated that they have been planning the expansion of the hospital for several years. One of the things they need to expand is parking. A parking garage was originally proposed because the site is landlocked. When they proposed temporary parking on Smith Voc land, it became a possibility for the hospital to purchase the land, so they are now seeking to construct a permanent parking lot. John Furman, VHB, presented the application. He stated that the plans that are in front of the Commission are not the plans that they ultimately want to propose. Dave Pickart, who flagged the wetlands, is not present, since it was the intention of the applicant to ask for a continuation. He stated that he is willing to walk the NCC through the project if the Commission decides. Maronn stated that all his questions are wetlands-related. He said that typically, applicants can ask for one wetland crossing to get to an upland area, but they are asking for 2 and there is another way to enter the parking area without any wetland disturbance. Furman stated that safety issues are driving the need for a second access. Wetzel asked about the previously approved parking garage, and if they were still going to build it. Corder stated no, because of financial reasons. At the time they went down the path of building the garage, they had no other options. Now there is the opportunity to purchase the Smith Voc land. Wetzel stated that he had a lot of questions about the plan, that he will wait until he can speak to the wetlands guy, but he asked if the wetland replication area is shown on the plans? Furman stated no, but pointed out the area for the NCC. Maronn requested that they put it on the next set of plans so the NCC can evaluate any impacts. Furman stated that the changes do not apply to the main lot, just the access road lot. Pending changes to the original submission, and not having received a file number from DEP, Wetzel moved to continue the hearing to December 9 at 6:15 pm. Body seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The NCC set a site visit for December 4th at 9 am. 4 Discussion about Improvements to Meadowbrook Apartments The NCC set a site visit for December 4th at 10:30 am. A representative of the organization POAH (Preservation of Affordable Housing) described their mission of looking for properties nation-wide, that are at risk of losing their affordable status, improving them, and keeping them affordable. They are very invested in this project. There are 252 units, some three-bedrooms, which is rare for affordable housing. Maronn asked if residents would be relocated during the process. Ellen Freyman, attorney for the project, stated no, that most of the rehab is exterior, and they would be able to upgrade kitchens and baths while residents stayed. A Purchase and Sale agreement has been signed and they are on a very tight time schedule. Maronn asked why they were here since the site looks built-out. Peter Wells, Berkshire Design, presented the project. He stated that improvements are going to be made within Riverfront Area, Buffer Zone to BVW, and that they will be disturbing more than 1 acre of land, so they will need a stormwater permit from DPW. Wells described the history of the site, and the permitting from the early1970s. The site currently has 8 ½ acres of impervious surfaces. Three parking areas sheet flow directly into wetlands and streams. None of the buildings meet current accessibility standards. There is earthwork in resource areas involved in upgrading for accessibility. Wells described the drainage pattern of the entire site. He pointed out the locations of the former stream running through the site, which is currently piped under ground, going into and coming out of the pond. He stated that they plan only 3 minor changes to the existing drainage system. Wells showed the NCC a plan showing the resource areas on site. Wetlands were flagged about 3 weeks ago. Some buildings and walkways are within 4-5 feet of wetlands. Wells stated that the main improvement is reconstructing the entire roadway system, by taking off the asphalt, recompacting the base, and repaving. Accessible walkways will be installed to 15 of the units, cutting up to 33 inches. The tennis courts will be removed and replaced with a playground with a pervious, wood chip base. Two additional playgrounds are also proposed. He stated that dumpsters will be screened. Body asked if there are many bear problems with the dumpsters. Wells said yes. Body said that situation can be improved with the way the dumpster screen is constructed. 5 Maronn asked if there are going to be deep sump catch basins. Wells said yes, which will make the water quality situation much better. Additionally, they will be reducing the total amount of impervious surfaces on site, so less water will be getting into the system. Wetzel asked if they were going to plant any street trees. Wells stated that there are beautiful, mature sycamores that were planted in the 1970’s that have done very well. He said that, being a landscape architect, he would still like to see more plantings, but with the budget, they need to take care of the big items first. Body suggested the possibility of grants for this and mentioned the Citizen Tree Committee as a good place to start. Wetzel suggested they look into using straw wattle for erosion control since there shouldn’t be a lot of water flow or volume on the site. McPherson mentioned the possibility of scheduling an additional hearing for this project in December in case the NCC does not receive comments from DEP by December 9th. At 7:50 pm Sweetser left. The NCC discussed an ORAD for 155 Locust Street. Body moved to accept staff recommendations. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The NCC discussed the OOC for the McCutcheon project. McPherson showed the NCC the revised plan submitted by Chuck Dauchy. It shows all the changes that the NCC requested at the previous meeting. Wetzel moved to accept staff recommendations. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The NCC discussed sending a letter to the Land Use, Economic Development, Housing Committee, and subcommittee of the City Council, requesting that there be a representative from the NCC. Body stated that the Planning Board has a liaison to the committee and that there is no representative from the NCC or the Wildlife Committee. He suggested Joanne Montgomery, associate member of the NCC, to represent the interest of those concerned about the environment and open space. The NCC unanimously agreed to have Body send a letter. 6 The NCC unanimously agreed to appoint Body and Montgomery to the Committee, if the request is approved. Minutes The NCC decided to table the minutes of October 28 until the next meeting, when a quorum of Commissioners who attended that meeting are present. Certificates of Compliance Turkey Hill Road affordable housing McPherson presented three requests for COCs. Two were old OOCs for the parcel that were never used and that have expired. Body moved to issue all three COCs, one as a complete certification and the other two for work that was never begun. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 642 North Farms Road McPherson recommended a complete certification based on a site visit that week. Carbin moved to issue a COC. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. North Farms Road Common Driveway McPherson recommended a complete certification based on a site visit that week. Carbin moved to issue a COC. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Solomon Schechter Day School McPherson recommended a complete certification based on a site visit that week. Body moved to issue a COC. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 8:27 pm, Body moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 7 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting December 9, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, December 9, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: John Body, Susan Carbin, Wendy Sweetser and Paul Wetzel. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden. At 5:40 pm, Body noted a quorum and opened the hearing. Continuation of Borawski NOI Having not heard from DEP, Carbin moved to continue the hearing to January 27, 2005, at 5:30 pm. Sweetser seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the stream on the property. Wetzel stated that he believed that the NCC shouldn’t string along the applicants when it is clear that there was a stream on the site. Body stated that he felt it was important to bring in DEP to make absolutely certain that they were interpreting the aerial photos correctly. McPherson added that another reason the NCC requested assistance from DEP is to determine whether a violation had taken place and for DEP to determine what jurisdictional resource areas were currently present on site. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion of proposal to develop land on Bridge Road Mike Liu, Berkshire Design, presented the preliminary subdivision plan. He stated that the applicant might be interested in doing this as a cluster development, rather than a subdivision. 1 Sweetser asked if that was the gorgeous hillside with the beautiful trees next to JFK. Liu said yes, but that a cluster development would retain 50% open space. Sweetser said she believes that the quality of the remaining open space would make it better suited to recreation than conservation. She also stated concerns that with this much clearing, there is also a high likelihood of erosion. Wetzel asked if the VA Hospital is nearby. Liu stated yes and they are looking to make some trail connections to that parcel. The NCC asked Feiden to pass along comments to the Planning Board that the remaining open space, after such a significant clearing of the hillside, would not be of interest to the Commission for conservation land. Dudunake NOI Mickey Marcus, NEE, briefly described the project for Commissioners who may not have been at the previous meeting. He stated that they received a file number from DEP. He showed the NCC an example of a straw wattle, proposed for erosion control. Wetzel asked if there was a buffer adjacent to the wetland. Marcus stated that the field is mown right up to the edge of the wetland. He said it is mostly goldenrod. Body asked what could be done to make sure that there was not encroachment by mowing into the wetland, now that people are going to be living there. Marcus stated that a no-mow zone might be appropriate. Wetzel asked if it was reasonable to ask them to plant 20’ out from the wetland to better demarcate the no-mow zone. Marcus agreed that a physical boundary might be necessary. Hearing no further comment, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Airport NOI Tom Jenkins, BEC, told the NCC that they received a file number from DEP. They are proposing two more changes to the NOI: replacing the billboards, and proposing infiltration chambers in low points on the site if the need arises. He stated that he has concerns that certain 2 low areas might not be able to infiltrate stormwater fast enough and the areas might skin over with silt over time, making them even less permeable. McPherson asked how many low spots there are on the site that could potentially need an infiltrator. Jenkins stated 3 or 4, but that he thinks it is unlikely they will actually need them. The NCC expressed some concerns about the vague nature of the request, as far as number and location of infiltrators and method of installation is concerned, but generally agreed that the concept was sound. Hearing no further comment, Wetzel moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. CDH Parking NOI At 6:30 pm Body opened the hearing. John Furman, VHB, introduced the members of the project team. Body asked Dave Pickert, wetland scientist for the project, to describe all the resource areas on site. Pickert described the perennial stream on the south portion of the site, the large BVWs, 2 BVW fingers, each with an intermittent stream so there is also bank resources. One of the streams is deeply incised where a crossing is proposed, with no wetlands on either side. Pickert stated that there is no way the larger parking lot could be accessed without crossing the 2 wetland fingers. He stated that this was proposed as a limited project, but that since there is less than 5,000 square feet of wetland alteration proposed, it meets performance standards for BVW. Pickert stated that after meeting with staff and hearing concerns that a lot of land, including upland buffer was being altered, they scaled the plans back considerably. In addressing the NCC Policy on Work Within the Buffer Zone: 7.7 acres of buffer zone between 0 and 50’, with 10% alteration proposed; 6.3 acres of 50-100’ buffer zone, with a proposed impact to 17% of that. Overall work will alter 13% of total buffer zone area on site. Pickert described one of the crossings proposed, closest to Hospital Road, and stated that it involves BVW. There is an existing culvert. The crossing is proposed at this existing disturbance to minimize impact. A new, adequately sized culvert is also proposed. Pickert said that by pulling further out of the buffer, there is new area opened up for potential wetland replication. They are looking at doing a 2:1 replication now. He also described some restoration and soft fabric stabilization on the west side of Hospital Road to improve the quality 3 of the existing wetland. He also offered to restore some riverfront area along Elm Street where there is currently dumping. Pickert summarized by saying that the impacts have definitely gone down, and that there is much more mitigation proposed, including accommodating existing drainage problems that have been going on for a long time. Wetzel asked to discuss the detention basins. He asked if there was any way to get an idea of what a cross section might look like. He wondered if the new basins were going to be as steep and as deep as the one across Hospital Road, or if they could be designed in such a way to look more natural, even including some planted trees around them. Furman stated that the basins are designed to accommodate oversized pipes, since the slope of the pipes are so shallow. The side slopes are 2:1, the bottom is 2 feet lower than the inlet pipe in the sediment basin so there is some storage, the outlet pipe is at the bottom of the main basin. He offered to sketch a section of basin #3. Body asked if there was any treatment of the water before it leaves the basin. Furman stated that they meet all stormwater requirements and there are deep sump catch basins before it gets into the detention basin. Kelly Phelan stated that there is an enormous amount of erosion within the wetland fingers. She asked if the proposed conditions will improve that. Wetzel added that there must be a lot of water coming down from the parking lots above. Pickert stated that the issue is probably more the soils, which are very erodable, than the volume of water. McPherson added that one of her concerns at the site visit was that there are many little stream channels through the BVW with highly erodable soils. She asked if they took that into consideration when they chose the location of the outfalls from the detention basins, since the additional concentrated flow could cause more erosion in an already stressed watershed. Pickert said there should not be a problem. Sweetser stated that she preferred the location of the new replication area. Pickert stated that it will also take some of the water that is currently running through the eroded stream channel and put it in the wetland below before it goes through the channel. Alex Ghiselin, Ward 5 City Councilor, stated that he supports this project. He described past flooding problems in the Elm Street Brook watershed. He stated that the DPW told him that this plan will improve the situation. 4 Wetzel asked if the stormwater detention basin system is designed to take water from the tennis courts and existing parking lots. Furman stated that it is. Wetzel noted that the proposed subdivision near JFK that the NCC discussed earlier will impact the watershed by stripping a wooded hillside and adding impervious surfaces. Hearing no further comment, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body stated that they will try to work on the OOC tonight. Country Lane Estates NOI Sweetser asked if anything has changed since Saturday’s site visit. Peter Wells, Berkshire Design, stated that acting on the comments from DEP, they have created 2 new maps, one showing existing degraded, the other an overlay showing new proposed degraded, including some handicap accessible ramps in areas that are currently grass adjacent to buildings. He stated that these would be submitted to DEP tomorrow. Body asked what the current and proposed degraded Riverfront Area is. Wells stated 79,993 square feet is currently degraded, and they are adding an additional 1,024 square feet of impervious surface, an increase of .8%. There is a net decrease of over 6,000 square feet of impervious surface over the entire site. Wells showed a “Mitigation Plan” to address the additional paving for handicap ramps within riverfront, which includes riverfront clean-up, native plantings along the riverfront to deter further dumping, and stormwater treatment where none currently exist. The NCC agreed that there would be a significant overall improvement on site and the mitigation goes beyond what is required in the Riverfront Regulations. Hearing no further comment, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Murphy NOI Jeff Squire, Berkshire Design, presented the project. The frontage portion of the lot is in Hatfield. The rest is in Northampton. It is an old agricultural field with a wet meadow. The back part of the site slopes up steeply and is wooded. He stated that with the limited amount of space, they are trying to do the best they can, understanding that this does not meet the standards set out in the NCC Policy on Work Within the Buffer Zone. 5 Sweetser asked where the 50’ buffer zone is, which Squire pointed out on the plan. Body asked the percentage of alteration within the 50’ buffer. Squires said 26%, or 4 ,257 square feet. They are proposing to disturb 97% of the 50-100’ buffer on site. He stated that they proposed to stop haying or mowing all of the wetland and wetland buffer on site as mitigation, with the exception of some lawn around the house. Sweetser asked if the NCC has ever permitted a project with this much disturbance. Body and Carbin stated no. Sweetser added that this plan is not very friendly to wildlife. Piper Murphy stated that they thought about building up in the woods, but it’s all ledge. Carbin asked what kind of equipment will be stored in the barn. Matt Murphy said only a trailer. McPherson asked if the driveway was to be paved or gravel. Squire said pavement. Al Rejniak, an abutter, asked if they bought the whole acreage all the way up to Laurel Park. The Murphy’s said no, just 4 acres. Hearing no further comment, Sweetser moved to close the hearing. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Wetzel asked the Murphy’s if they had purchased the property yet. Piper Murphy said the closing is tomorrow. Sweetser stated that she is glad that the NCC has the Policy in place. Body stated that there is a significant amount of buffer disturbance, both temporary and permanent, including a lot of impervious surface, and it will impact the functioning, water quality and habitat value of the wetland. Sweetser stated that the policy was adopted because it is based on protecting the functioning of wetlands. She had concerns that there would be so much more water going into the wetland quickly during a storm because of all the additional impervious that there might be some localized flooding. 6 Carbin had concerns that washing off construction equipment in the driveway would negatively impact water quality. McPherson added that the Ordinance also protects agricultural values. The NCC further discussed the wetland values of the wet meadow on site, the expected impacts of the project on the wetland, and the adequacy of the proposed mitigation. Sweetser moved to deny the permit. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The NCC discussed Country Lane Estates Sweetser moved to issue standard orders 1-24 and require an as-built plan. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The NCC decided to schedule a special working session at 6 pm on Thursday Dec 16 to discuss the Cooley Dickinson Hospital OOC. The NCC discussed the Northampton Airport NOI. There was general agreement that the new infiltrator proposal was acceptable, but there was a concern about the vagueness of the proposal regarding how many, where they would be, and when and how they would be installed. Carbin moved that the airport should come to the Commission with an RDA when and if the infiltrators are needed. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Body read staff recommendations for the OOC. Carbin moved staff recommendations. Wetzel seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The NCC discussed the Dudunake NOI. Body stated that the property is very near a major wildlife corridor that the Wildlife Committee has mapped. There are bobcat, coyotes, and foxes. The NCC agreed that the best way to protect the wetland was to increase the shrub buffer adjacent to the wetland to 20’ and install permanent markers, either boulders greater than 3’ in diameter or cement markers 1 foot out of the ground, every 20’. The NCC, on Wetzel’s recommendation, decided to require a planting of native shrubs in 1- gallon containers, the number based on 4 feet on center spacing, but planted in clumps, with a 7 seed mix containing shrub seeds on all disturbed areas of the buffer. Also, 85% coverage of buffer planting after 3 years with certification by wetland scientist. The NCC discussed requiring the applicant to reduce the final driveway width to 10’ as it crosses the wetland and within the buffer zone. Wetzel moved to issue standard orders 1-24 and the above. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes October 28 minor change: add associate member Kelly Phelan’s name to the top. Carbin moved to accept the minutes with the above change. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. November 18, same minor change as October 28. Carbin moved to accept minutes with the minor change. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business Sweetser volunteered to do an inspection for the FW Webb Certificate of Compliance for next meeting. The NCC discussed the Forest Cutting Plan for Sovereign Builders on Chesterfield Road Body stated that it is very highly sensitive habitat for vernal pool species. The NCC expressed concern about the quantity of trees to be removed. Sweetser commented that the map looks like it was drawn on the back of a napkin. Body offered to follow up on the Forest Cutting Plan. At 9:00 pm Carbin moved to adjourn. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 8 Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting December 16, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 6:00 P.M., in the Planning Department Office, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, John Body, Wendy Sweetser and Paul Wetzel. Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson. At 6:15 pm, Maronn opened the meeting. CDH Parking Lot OOC The NCC discussed the wetlands on site with Dave Pickert, environmental consultant for the project. Wetzel commented that the current scrub shrub wetland will become a forested wetland in 40 years, which is OK. He asked about the soils where the replication is proposed and if they will hold water or whether a clay liner is required at least at the lower elevations. Pickert stated that he did not think a clay liner would be required. He said they would do test pits first to make sure the groundwater levels work. He asked that the NCC condition the work so that a +/- 1 foot elevation change could be made in the field to adjust for groundwater elevations. He discussed the slope of the replication area to minimize additional grading beyond. Wetzel thought that a 2% slope would be OK. He asked about the plantings and stated that he doesn’t want to see another cattail pond, that they are too common in the area. Pickert stated that in the graded areas of the buffer zone, he would plant white pines and red maples and use a conservation seed mix. Within the replication area, he would use a wetland seed mix to hold the soils and plant shrubs and trees. The NCC discussed with Pickert the specifics about the plants, which were to be in 3-gallon buckets minimum, calculated at 8 feet on center but planted in clumps. The NCC stated that 1 2 monitoring would have to occur for 3 years to evaluate plant cover and success, invasives and hydrology. Specifics of the wetland replication were discussed, including, a 2:1 replication (floor area of the wetland), grading in the buffer zone would be minimized so that no trees would have to be cut down, replication plan with cross-sections would have to be submitted to the NCC and approved before the start of any work, wetland soils disturbed would have to be used in the replication, and an end-of-season report each year for 3 years noting planted species survival, volunteer species coverage, overall plant coverage, depth to groundwater and other indicators of hydrology, and any problems. Wetzel stated that they should plan on a lot of maintenance (such as watering as necessary) and monitoring during the first couple growing seasons. Doug McDonald, Noho DPW, had a question about the slopes of the detention basins, which appear steeper than the 4:1 slopes the DPW recommends. Pickert stated that the slopes are 2:1 but they are confident they can vegetated them to hold the soil. Maronn stated that the NCC generally requires erosion control matting on slopes greater than 3:1. McPherson stated that shrub plantings, and not just seed, would be the best way to stabilize the slope. Pickert and Maronn discussed the benefits of sprayed mulch with seed rather than the matting. Juanita Forsythe, CDH, asked about the cost. Pickert and Wetzel stated that while the initial cost is higher, it could save money in the long run by not having to redo the work. Body asked what they proposed for Riverfront restoration, as additional mitigation for wetland impacts. Pickert stated that they intend to add loam and seed with Roadside Matrix. McPherson suggested that there be plantings of native deciduous trees, such as red oaks and red maples as well. John Furman, VHB project manager, said they would also install a split rail fence to deter future dumping and put up tasteful signs saying something along the lines of “Environmental Restoration in Progress.” The NCC went through the standard orders and selected appropriate orders to include: Standard Orders 1-24; Erosion Control A and B; Post-Construction #2. Other orders discussed: wetland replication as discussed; sequencing and equipment entering the site; replication should meet inland wetland replication guidelines, wetland specialist must be on site during erosion control installation, rough grading, moving of organic soils, planting; wetland replication and planting plan, and Riverfront restoration plan to be submitted and approved prior to work beginning; maintenance for stormwater management as noted in NOI. Body moved to issue an Order of Conditions incorporating the above. Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. At 7:30 pm the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 3