Minutes approved 9/7/06
Page 1 of 8 Minutes 8/17/06
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
78 Main Street, Hudson, MA 01749
(978) 568-9625
Paul Byrne, Chairman W. Minot Wood, Vice Chairman Mike Berry, Member
David Esteves, Member Misty-Anne Marold, Member Joseph Rodrigues, Member
Judith Sabourin, Member
Minutes
August 17, 2006, 7:00 P.M.
1.0 Preliminaries
1.1. Paul Byrne opened the meeting at 7:00 P.M.
1.2. Roll Call: Chairman Paul Byrne, Misty-Anne Marold, Terrence Joyce, Joe Rodrigues and Minot Wood.
1.3. Additions or deletions to the agenda
2.0 General Business
2.1 Minutes
2.1.1 June 1, 2006 - Paul Byrne made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
2.1.2 June 15, 2006 - Paul Byrne made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
2.1.3 July 20, 2006 - Paul Byrne made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
2.1.4 August 3, 2006 – Tabled.
3.0 Correspondence
4.0 Vote/Issue Permits
5.0 Conservation Agent Report
5.1 Review changes for 125 Causeway St. DEP 190-475 - The plan changes are requested to eliminate the proposed retaining wall situated on the property line and also eliminate the associated 4 feet of fill and grading.
Proctor advised the Commission that the Wetlands Protection Act regulations and policies include procedures for filing an Amended Order of Conditions. This process requires a public hearing, notice to abutters and legal advertisement. Proctor said it is at the Commission’s discretion to determine whether these changes are subject to the public process.
Proctor explained that she obtained assistance from DPW engineer Max Kamel to review the first plan revisions. Proctor and Kamel visited the site together and were concerned that proposed grades changes would have impacts on neighbor’s property and requested that changes specifying a swale to direct water away from the abutter with an additional engineer note on the plan stating that drainage will not affect the abutter’s property. Proctor expressed particular concern due to the fact that at the public hearing on June 1st, the abutters at 123 Causeway St. were concerned about the effects of the wall and drainage. Proctor was unable to reach the abutters by phone so sent a letter informing them of this meeting and informing them that a final determination would not
be made until we received their feedback. Chris Lawson spoke to the abutters and reported that they are in favor of the plan change presented this evening.
The plan presented was revised again and includes the addition of a small swale 3” deep and the addition of a plan note.
Owner, Carl Leeber was present for the discussion. He stated that the abutter did not like the idea of the retaining wall and stated that they are happy with the plan change.
The Conservation Commissioners evaluated the plan. Minot Wood stated that the engineer note on the plan says “All runoff from site to be contained and not allowed to run off onto adjacent parcels”. He asked if this is the intention because water naturally flows toward the perennial stream along the opposite property boundary. Leeber acknowledge that the intention of the note is to address 123 Causeway St. only and he will have his engineer change the note on the plan.
Proctor asked the Commission to look at the newly revised plan to see if the grading changes and swale will address the drainage concerns and if so recommend that Commission allow the change with the condition that the abutter is in agreement with the change so that enforcement does not become a problem in the future.
Paul Byrne made a motion to accept the plan as revisions as a minor change with the following conditions:
1) The Commission receives a note from the abutters at 123 Causeway St. stating that they are in agreement with the plan change.
2) A revision to the engineer note on the plan to state that no runoff will affect the abutting neighbors at 123 Causeway St.
The motion was seconded by Joe Rodrigues with all in favor.
5.2 Resignation – Proctor informed the Commission that Mike Berry sent an email stating that he would be resigning because he doesn’t feel that he has enough time to study to become an effective Conservation Commissioner.
6.0 Conservation Commission Members Report
7.0 General Business
7.1 Associate Conservation Commissioner Marty Moran – Discussion DCR Recreational Trails Grant at Danforth Lot.
Marty Moran said he would like to apply for a recreational trail grant from Mass. Department of Conservation Restriction. He said that the grant amount ranges $2,000. - $50,000. with a 20% - 80% match. Marty asked if the Commission would support a proposal to repair the existing trail along the railroad bed which would include adding gravel and installing drainage improvements. The Commission has visited the site on several different occasions this year to address the trail erosion. Marty said the grant proposal must include a cost estimate. Joe and Minot said they would help Marty with the proposal. The deadline is October 3rd.
Jen Burke, Town Planner said that she spoke to Marty about the grant and recommended that he speak to Michelle Ciccolo, Assistant Administrator/Director of Community Development about the project so that we can make sure the town isn’t competing for grants.
8.0 Hearings and Appointments
8.1 ANRAD (DEP #190- )
Applicant: LPM Holding Company, Inc.
Owner: Watson Ventures LLC
Project Description: resource area delineation only
Present: Atty. Richard Frias & Stacy Carpenter Wetlands Scientist from Hancock Associates.
Receipts for abutter’s notices were submitted.
The proposal includes a riverfront area exemption Historic Riverfront Mill Complex.
Misty-Anne Marold said the commission needs an opinion from DEP on this matter of exemption. Misty-Anne Marold noted that she has reviewed other projects with the exemption and finds the argument for this project unique.
Attorney Frias submitted case law.
Proctor will call DEP for an opinion regarding the policy on Riverfront Area.
Some members of the Conservation Commission will visit the site individually.
Site visit was scheduled for Saturday August 19 at 8:00 A.M.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue the hearing to September 7, 2006, seconded by Joe Rodrigues with all in favor.
8.3 Notice of Intent (DEP 190-483) Need proof of abutter notification
Applicant: Richard Wiel
Location: 6 Lakeside Ave.
Project Description: construction of a replacement septic system and associated piping & structures.
Received written request to continue to Sept. 7th to address abutter re-notification.
Abutters across the waterway were not notified in the original notice.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue the meeting to Sept. 7th, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
8.4 Notice of Intent (DEP 190- 484) Need proof of abutter notification.
Applicant: Richard Wiel
Location: 8 Lakeside Ave.
Project Description: construction of a replacement septic system and associated piping & structures.
Received written request to continue to Sept. 7th to address abutter re-notification.
Abutters across the waterway were not notified in the original notice.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue the meeting to Sept. 7th, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
8.5 Continuance Hearing - Notice of Intent (DEP 190-471)
Applicant: Neil Fossile
Location: Lots 1 & 2 Causeway St.
The proposed driveway width is 20 ft. The distance from the high water of the river to the top of the bridge is 5 ft. Misty-Anne Marold noted that this distance between water and bridge is called the “openness ratio” and is an Army Corp. of Engineer guideline. She asked Tom DiPersio to submit this information.
The Commission has reviewed the wildlife habitat assessment that was submitted at the last meeting. The Commission requested documentation to support the qualifications of Judith B. Schmitz who signed the Wildlife Habitat Assessment. The regulations specify certain qualifications.
Misty-Anne Marold noted that she has seen snapping turtles in the area.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue the hearing to September 7, 2006, seconded by Joe Rodrigues with all in favor.
8.6 Continuance meeting - Request for Determination (HUD #327)
Applicant: John McGuigan
Location: 258 Central St.
Project Description: “after-the-fact filing” for placement of 45 yards of fill within the
100 ft. Buffer Zone of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands.
Mr. McGuigan appeared before the Commission and stated they are in the process of developing the plan as requested by the Commission and therefore requested the hearing be continued.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue the hearing to September 7, 2006, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
8.7 Continuance Notice of Intent (DEP 190-0478)
Applicant: Hudson Public Schools
Location: 69 Brigham St.
Project Description: construct a single story storage shed behind the existing High School.
Peter Pistorino is working with the engineers to submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance for the Order of Conditions on the new High School.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue the hearing to September 7, 2006, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
8.8 Notice of Intent (awaiting DEP number)
Project Name: Highland Commons
Applicant: Town of Hudson
Location: Coolidge St.
Project Description: Construction of a 338,019 s.f. shopping center and a 130,000 s.f 222 room hotel and associated infrastructure at Highland Commons on 78 acres of land.
Attorney Tamm stated that they decided to re-file the Notice of Intent for procedural reasons. He noted that there was insufficient quorum and wanted no confusion, therefore they have withdrawn the original Notice of Intent without prejudice. The newly submitted NOI and project plans have been updated to include information on many of the issues raised by the Commission, the Commission’s agent and SEA Consultants, Inc.
Proof of abutter notification for the new filing was submitted as well as the filing fees. Legal notice was also posted in the Hudson Sun.
Crouch stated that he spoke to Marielle Stone from DEP and she said that DEP will reassign the original DEP number and waive the filing fees. Byrnes said that Proctor viewed the DEP website this evening and the number was not up on the website.
Gene Crouch, VHB noted that there was a productive site walk and good input from past hearings. He noted that SEA performed the initial peer review on behalf of the Conservation Commission and has done further evaluation based on the filing.
Paul Byrne asked Kirsten Ryan from SEA whether she has reviewed the new submittal which includes revised plans. Kirsten Ryan said that the documents were received by her office yesterday; however she was out in the field. She explained that today she only had a chance to glance at the new submittal. She noted that she reviewed the revised Wildlife Habitat Assessment and noted the corrections have been made. Paul Byrne said that he will ask for a continuance based on the fact that the Commission’s consultant has not had adequate time to review the filing and because DEP has not notified the Commission of the issuance of the DEP filing number.
Gene Crouch, VHB provide a site description. The site is 78 acres in size predominately mature second growth forest consisting of pine and mixed hardwoods. Topography is predominately steep where elevations vary by approx. 175 vertical feet. A water supply tower for the Town of Hudson is located on the top of Potash Hill.
An Order of Resource Area Delineation was issued by the Hudson Conservation Commission on August 25, 2005. Several wetland areas on the site are associated with Hog Brook, perennial stream. Extensive marsh and forested wetlands (Wetland H1) are associated with Hog Brook. An intermittent stream within this wetland extension flows northerly from Berlin to Hudson and Hog Brook. Two isolated wetlands created by groundwater seeps are on the west side of (Wetland H1) alongside an existing gravel road. The isolated wetlands do not qualify as Isolated Lands Subject to Flooding. Wetland resource areas on site are defined as: Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, Bank, Land under Water Bodies and Waterways, Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, and Riverfront Area.
Crouch noted that the FEMA Map graphically illustrates the limit of the floodplain, but does not identify an elevation since the limit of detailed mapping is about 3,700 ft. down stream of the site. The FEMA Map floodplain is associated with Hog Brook and illustrates the floodplain as crossing over Coolidge St. Crouch said it is unlikely that flooding over the road occurs since the lowest point of the road surface is approx. 25 feet above the channel elevation. Misty-Anne Marold stated that the Floodplain is not truly as indicated on the FEMA Map.
Crouch explained the proposed project is construction of Highland Commons a new regional shopping center. The development includes 338,019 s.f. of retail development in six buildings and 130,000 s.f. hotel. There are two main access roads and a connector road approx 1430 parking spaces and a stormwater management system with three detentions Ponds with sediment fore bays, utilities and a wastewater treatment plant with leach fields. There are also several maintenance access drives, retaining walls and a bridge to span wetlands, designated snow storage areas and relocation of the existing water tower and cellular communication tower. The project will be constructed in two phases. The first phase consist of the eastern portion of the house with the construction of the retail
buildings, 1100 parking spaces and Highland Commons Drive East access road. Phase II of the project consists of the western portion of the site consists of the hotel, 330 parking spaces, construction of Highland Commons Drive West, Highland Commons Drive Connector, the connector bridge over Wetland H1.
During Phase II, the Highland Commons Drive Connector will be constructed to link the east and west sides of the site. This will require a crossing of Wetland H1 is considered a limited project 310 CMR 10.53 (3) (e).
Impacts to the Wetland Resource Areas: Bank 69 linear feet, BVW 5,164 s.f. The bridge will completely span Wetland H1 vegetated wetland and stream complex. The piers for the bridge will be a minimum of 30 and 50 ft outside the wetland boundary. The bridge will be approx. 65 ft. above the wetland surface. There will be no direct crossing, or physical impact to the wetland area. Utilities will be built into the bridge structure and will not cross under the wetland. Clearing will be limited to trimming back taller trees to allow the bridge structure to be constructed. The vegetation community will remain intact. There will be minimum shadow impact. The Connector road and bridge are aligned east-west similar to the movement of the sun across
the sky. Light from the sun, which comes from the south, will shine in under the bridge allowing vegetation in the wetland beneath the bridge to continue to flourish.
Work within Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
A small portion of the eastern site access drive is within the Bordering Land Subject to flooding. The work area consists of approx. 1500 s.f between elevation 307 and 324 feet.
The low point in Coolidge St. is at elevation 317 and if flood waters were to reach this elevation, the roadway would act as a weir, with flood waters flowing over the road. Although it is highly unlikely the eastern access drive is within BLSF, compensatory flood storage will be provided by using open rock fill for the access road embankment. Rock fill will create approx. 40% open void space that would have direct unrestricted access to the floodplain. As floodwaters rise, it would flow into the voids between the rock fill and provide compensatory flood storage.
Work within Riverfront Area
The work within the RFA associated with access to the site, stormwater management, site development and wastewater management. Crouch stated that there are seven riverfront area encroachments. He noted that the project now is under 9% of Riverfront
Area alteration.
Total RFA on site 643,992 s.f.
Stormwater facilities, filling and grading 31,267 s.f
Other activities filling /grading 26,471 s.f. (TOTAL 57,738 s.f. or 8.96%)
(Inner Riparian Zone 100 ft = 6,791 s.f.; Outer Riparian Zone 100-200 ft = 50,947 s.f)
Crouch said that the new plan incorporates changes from the comments made by SEA Consultants and changes suggested during the site walk.
Work within 100 ft. of Bordering Vegetated Wetland
There are a number of activities within the 100 ft. Buffer Zone to Wetland H1. Activities include filling, grading, construction of retaining walls, stormwater management fore bays and detention ponds, stormwater management outfalls, a maintenance access road, roadway construction, bridge construction and parking facilities.
Project Alternatives
The project alternatives included an investigation of possible development sites other than the project site and various alternative project layouts at the project site.
Mitigation Measures
Gene explained the stormwater management and wastewater treatment plan. He noted that the wastewater plant is designed for 80,000 gallons per day; 40,000 gallons are from the retail section of the site. He said that a significant amount of stormwater is infiltrated and contributing to the base flow of the brook which is a good thing especially during the dry season.
Retention Basin and level tip spreader described.
Bill explained the revisions based on the Commission comments.
Deep drop manhole was detailed.
Erosion control plan includes a stockpile provision.
Clarified who will hold the responsibility for erosion control.
Gene Crouch said that they have submitted a better plan as a result of the input from the Commission.
Misty-Anne Marold asked if there is an opportunity to restore the area of the Town easement for the water tower. Crouch explained that the easement currently has a 16” water line and a rip rap channel for emergency. Crouch noted this was a good suggestion.
and said the applicants are prepared to restore the area when and if the town directs them. The tower will be removed and the water line will be discontinued in this location.
Catch basin detail needs to be corrected in the final plan set (3.2). Section (3.1) will also be modified. Snow storage was discussed. The Commission asked if they are confident that there is enough area. Bill said that they are in compliance with the town bylaw which requires 5% non paved areas. Most retailers will need the snow pushed into a pile Discussed re-mulching area after each season and the requirement to scrape down the area and resurface.
Bill is very comfortable with the snow storage. Noting that this has been an ongoing source of discussion.
Discussion construction entrance will be trap rock with 6” stone as requested.
Sand Filters to treat stormwater.
Dirt glue will be sprayed down and rolled in used for dust control. Water truck will be on site all the time. It is a site truck.
As go through each new phase of erosion control.
Phase I relocating water tank.
Condition contractor will come up with the erosion control plans in each phase.
Planting plan proposed at each phase.
No invasive plants.
Water Tank discussed.
Sewage pump station.
Emergency storage pump tanks – back up generators bound by state regs and DEP Review.
Wildlife habitat addressed to satisfaction.
Con stormwater standards still be met no changes.
Same outlet structure 2” pipe.
Treatment on road to continue to shed water on the slope. Outside the stormwater management policies.
Curb detail is a mix. Concrete in front of the stores, cap cod berms and storage areas. Continue to September 7th.
Gene spoke with Marielle Stone from DEP who said they will re-assign the same DEP number.
The EIR will be filed.
The ENF hearing was in Hudson Town Hall a couple of months ago. It was noted that the Conservation Commission could send a comment letter to the Environmental Secretary when the Order of Conditions is issued.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue the hearing to September 7, 2006, seconded by Joe Rodrigues with all in favor.
8.9 Lee Thompson – Fort Meadow Commission - The Fort Meadow Commission is requesting to drawdown the lake during September 25 – October 15. They will monitor the drawdown to show the effectiveness.
Paul Byrne made a motion to approve the drawdown under DEP # 212-949 provided the Order of Conditions have not expired, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
9.0 Adjournment – Minot Wood made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM, seconded Paul Byrne with all in favor.
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Katrina Proctor
Conservation Agent
| 
