Minutes of Meeting
December 20, 2012
To: Town Clerk
cc: Members
File
Present: R. Ballantyne, A. Tolland, J. Fournier, J. Livingstone, R. Willis, M. Allen, P. Stolfa, Associate Member, Michele Grenier, Conservation Agent
Absent: M. DePoto, A. Riordan, Associate Member
There was a motion to accept the meeting minutes of November 15th, 2012 with 4 corrections. The motion was seconded and accepted with a vote of 5-0-1; 5 Yes, 0 No, 1 Abstention.
There was a motion to accept the meeting minutes of November 29th, 2012 with 1 revision as discussed. The motion was seconded and accepted with a vote of 5-0-1; 5 Yes, 0 No, 1 Abstention.
Ms. Michele Grenier’s Agent’s Report has been appended to the minutes.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Certificate of Compliance: 16 Evergreen Drive
Michele Grenier, Conservation Agent, informed the Commission that she has visited the site and reviewed the plan. The site is in compliance and the as-built plan complies with the Orders of Conditions and the approved plan.
There was a motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 16 Evergreen Drive. The motion was seconded and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Discussion: 96 Populatic Street
Michele Grenier, Conservation Agent, informed the Commission members that the applicant, Thomas O’Connor, is present at tonight’s meeting with Richard Goodreau, Engineer of United Consultants, and they would like to discuss the alteration to the flood zone that was not approved under the Orders of Conditions.
Mr. Goodreau submitted a letter to the Commission outlining the alteration and this has been added to the Conservation file. He gave the Commission an overview of this alteration. There are 10 items outlined in this letter that varied from the approved plan. There will be a request for an Amendment to the Orders of Conditions forthcoming of which the flood plain issue will be the main issue.
Mr. Goodreau requested a minor modification addressing the changes that were made including the patio. What would the Commission request as a filing?
The Commission Chair outlined the items in Mr. Goodreau’s letter addressing these issues and this letter has been added to the Conservation file.
Some additional work was performed that was not permitted and some additional mitigation than what was originally proposed may be required to compensate for this additional work that was done.
The Commission members informed the applicant that they should come in to a meeting and ask permission from the Commission first before they undertake any additional work not shown on the plan.
The Commission informed the applicant, Thomas O’Connor, and Mr. Goodreau that they are required to file for an Amendment Request to the Orders of Conditions with mitigation.
Public Hearing - Notice of Intent- 23 Hutchinson Street – Franklin TV - CE159-1040
Mr. Ken Norman and Mr. Peter Fasiano, the applicants representing Franklin TV, and Mr. Donald Nielsen, Engineer of Guerriere & Halnon, both appeared before the Commission for construction of an addition to an existing concrete building.
Mr. Nielsen submitted proposed plans for the project for the construction of 1200 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the existing building. This is riverfront area with a stream to the rear of the site. It is a stream channel and there is no BVW associated with it.
There are 16 existing parking spaces with drainage moved forward from the riverfront. This will be sufficient parking for this facility. The alteration in the outer riparian zone will be minimal. Some planting for habitat purposes was suggested by Mr. Nielsen for remediation in the riverfront.
A Commission member questioned if there will be trees needed to be taken down for this work.
Some suggestions were made as to what trees should be planted for remediation for the trees taken down.
The Commission will conduct a site walk on Sunday, December 30th at 9 a.m.
There was a motion to continue the hearing for 23 Hutchinson Street until the January 10th meeting. The motion was seconded and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Continued - Public Hearing – Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation – Cook’s Farm - 636 & 664 East Central Street – CE159-1039
Mr. Ron Roux, the applicant, Mr. Donald Nielsen, Engineer of Guerriere & Halnon, Ms. Judy Schmitz, PWS, Mr. Art Allen, representative of Eco-Tec and Attorney Richard Cornetta all appeared before the Commission for confirmation of the delineated areas, the riverfront area and bordering vegetated wetlands.
The Chair stated that since the last meeting, we have received a letter from Art Allen of Eco-Tec, the Commission’s consultant, reporting his findings from his recent site walk. This letter has been added to the Conservation file. The Chair stated that, according to Mr. Allen’s report, the wetland in question on the site is not a pond, it is a river and therefore has riverfront area associated with it.
Mr. Roux stated that he has prepared and submitted a written response to Mr. Allen’s report and it was added to the Conservation file. Mr. Roux provided the Commission with a detailed overview of his response.
Attorney Richard Cornetta presented a Written Affidavit from Ralph Cook, owner of the property, who could not be present at tonight’s hearing. This Affidavit was read into the record by Attorney Cornetta and added to the Conservation file.
Michele Grenier, Conservation Agent, stated that Mr. Cook came into the office and she spoke to him on the telephone and stated that the stream is perennial and that he grew apples on the site.
Mr. Richard P. Cook, an abutter of 606 East Central Street, stated that this has always been a watershed area; i.e., swampland..
Mr. Roux stated that a good portion of the 15 acre site falls under the Rivers Protection Act.
Mr. Art Allen of Eco-Tec, the Conservation Commission’s review consultant, stated that there are 2 main issues:
- If the stream is found to be intermittent, it doesn’t matter how we cross it by the ponds
- If the stream is found to be perennial, the pond issue becomes critical and the Commission would need to consider history prior to the withdrawal issues. We need to look into the pond issue in more detail.
A Commission member sated that the issue of the drawdown of the wells is a major issue. Has either consultant looked into this matter? Mr. Allen stated that this matter is outside of his area of expertise.
Mr. Roux stated that the stream on the site is noted as an intermittent stream before the well was put in.
A Commission member informed Mr. Roux that the stream is noted as a perennial stream on the USGS map.
A Commission member stated that in the letter submitted from Design Build Group, the applicant, there is a quote in the third paragraph stating “everyone seems to agree that the brook as it currently stands is an intermittent stream”. This Commission member stated that he strongly disagrees with that statement. The fact is this is third time the Commission has considered whether this is a perennial or intermittent stream. The previous two times the Commission has determined that this was a perennial stream. With respect to the affidavit, he questioned if the affidavit states times and dates of the observations of the no-flow.
How deep is the pond was questioned? It is from 6-9 ft. in depth. The observation from the adjacent golf course was that he has never seen the stream not running upstream of the well.
Mr. Roux questioned Mr. Allen if, based on the evidence, would he deem that the stream is intermittent today? Mr. Allen said based on the evidence, he would deem that the stream is artificially intermittent and based on the regulations, it forces the Commission to consider the stream to be perennial in its natural state. His report suggests that there is riverbank rather than ponds.
The Commission Chair questioned Judy Schmitz if she conducted any flow tests on the stream. She stated that she did not as they are not required in the regulations. She does not agree with Mr. Allen on his observations on the flow in the pond.
Mr. Allen stated that, based on the facts, that the stream in named to be perennial on the USGS map, it is presumed to be perennial unless other documentation is presented and accepted.
The burden is on the applicant to prove that the stream is intermittent as the presumption is that it is a perennial stream.
There are other tests that can be done to define the ponds.
Mr. Nielsen will focus on the ponds and provide more information on the flow and character of the pond.
The Commission requested that Mr. Roux come up with a scope of work or plan as to what his consultants are doing to prove that it is a pond as opposed to a river, provide information to the Commission and provide it to Mr. Allen. When tests are performed, Mr. Allen should be present on the site to witness it and work together to come up with a conclusion on the nature of the pond.
There was a motion to continue the hearing for the Anrad for Cook’s Farm until the January 10th, 2013 meeting. The motion was seconded and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Signed Certificate of Compliance
Certificate of Compliance – 16 Evergreen Drive – Rocco - CE159-1016
There was a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathleen Celorier
Conservation Secretary
| 
