Minutes Approved on 11/2/06
Minutes September 21, 2006 Page 1 of 8
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
September 21, 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, Vice Chairman Minot Wood, and Commissioners David Esteves, Terrence Joyce, Misty-Anne Marold and Joe Rodrigues. Also in attendance Conservation Agent Katrina Proctor.
1.3. Additions or deletions to the agenda
2.0 General Business
2.1 Minutes
2.1.1 September 7, 2006 – Tabled.
2.2 Vouchers – None.
2.3 Lauren Heights (see also Agent Report item 5.2)
Mike O’Malley reported that he hired wetland specialist, David Burke, to serves as his consultant and wetlands mitigation expert for the property affected off Juniper Road. Burke’s report is expected in 2 weeks. O’Malley said he obtained permission from the property owner Mary Louriero and plans to call the other property owners the DeOliveras. Proctor will provide O’Malley with the name and address of the DeOliveras.
Byrne stated that at the last meeting the Commission said that no work on site is allowed except for dealing with storm water, erosion control and mitigation and the Commission believes there are earthmoving activities going on at the septic system. O’Malley said that loaming and seeding the septic system is mitigation. O’Malley continued that he has completed the work in the original Enforcement Order. He said that the granite curbing was ordered 2 days ago and it has taken time to survey and prepare for this curbing. Byrne said that the mitigation plan discussed with Todd Lobo and Kevin O’Malley at the last Commission meeting has not been completed. O’Malley asked that the meeting be continued in 2 weeks so that he could have his attorney
present.
The Commission updated Mike O’Malley on the items that were discussed at the last meeting. Several others were added during this discussion. The itemized list follows:
· Berm along both sides of the roadway – on Hannigan Engineering Mitigation Plan.
· Disconnect (isolate) catch basin 1-3 and manhole #4.
· Enlarge Basin A. – Completed.
· Clean catch basins within the development and on Hickory Lane – Completed. (O’Malley said that Truaxx cleaned all the catch basins and he will send in the receipt. Proctor said that she would have DPW inspect.
· Drop catch basin (elevation) on 7 & 8 and put a dirt berm between them.
· Place silt socks in all of the catch basins correctly.
· Clean out the large detention basin
· Install and maintain larger berm at the construction entrance.
· Removed the hay bales from behind Catch basins 9 & 10 and place them so that water can run into them.
· Add additional stone to create a 20’ stone apron.
· The Commission will allow loam and seeding the side slopes of the septic system which O’Malley stated is critical (see Parcel A on the drawing submitted)
· No loam and seed on any lots until the berm is installed and all conditions are met and agreed to by the Commission and/or the Conservation Agent.
· Only a native seed mix will be allowed for loaming and seeding. O’Malley will submit his intended seed mix for review.
· Re-grading of lots is not allowed. The developer must go to the Planning Board for modification to the grading plan.
· Relocate hay bales for the berm.
· Install a swale on the north side of the berm.
· Earthen berm of sufficient height shall be installed on the cul-de-sac until the granite is in place. (all other berms referenced as temporary or permanent shall be made of asphalt)
· An NOI is required for restoration of the property off Juniper Rd.
The Commission confirmed that at this time no more work is allowed on the shared septic system. Reaffirming that anything beyond loaming and seeding the side slopes is not allowed.
Esteves stated that a lot of material is being moved without the Commission’s approval and without compliance with the Enforcement Order. Esteves continued stating his objection to the fact that over the last two weeks the items discussed did not get done.
Joyce and Marold both stated that they feel that progress is being made but all of the erosion control must be done.
Per O’Malley’s request the Commission agreed to issue a letter stating that Commission will not allow finalizing the finish grading on the septic system.
Paul Byrne made a motion that after all of the required erosion controls are complete as agreed by the Commission or the Conservation Agent, the commission will allow work on the septic system. The motion was seconded by Dave Esteves with all in favor.
Discussion on this matter will continue on October 5th.
3.0 Correspondence – NONE
4.0 Vote/Issue Permits
4.1 Issue Order of Conditions (DEP 190-481) Highland Commons- Paul Byrne made a motion to issue the Order of Conditions, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
5.0 Conservation Agent Report
5.1 Danforth Woods update, SEA Consultants to provide recommendations and quotes for services. (Site visit Tuesday 9/26 at 4:00 PM) Proctor reported that she and Associate Commissioner Marty Moran met with Michelle Ciccolo, Director of Community Development and Selectmen Administrative Assist and Linda Ghiloni, Park Department Director to discuss the Department of Conservation & Recreation Trails Grant. Both Ciccolo and Ghiloni recommended that the Commission hold off on filing for the grant until we have the permitting in place. The proposed project is to remediate trail erosion. Rodrigues and Moran recommend raising the trail (railway bed). Moran has since organized a site visit with the Town’s consultant SEA to address the scope of work
and will determine project costs and file a Notice of Intent. Rodrigues commented that natural debris must be removed from the head of the stream.
5.2 Update Lauren Heights – NOI filed and withdraw. Proctor reported that Todd Lobo of Hannigan Engineering filed the Notice of Intent today for work at “Lauren Heights” and then later in the day Mike O’Malley hand delivered a letter withdrawing the Notice of Intent per the advice of his attorney. Proctor reported that the corrective measures proposed by Hannigan Engineering have not been completed and soil is still tracking onto the street. Proctor said that she informed the engineer Todd Lobo of the remaining issues. Esteves stated that he feels the Enforcement “stop-work” Order must remain in place and feels that no work should be allowed on the project site other than what is necessary to correct erosion and sedimentation
problems. He feels that site work is continuing which is not compliance with the outstanding Enforcement Order. Proctor said that Todd Lobo Esteves reported that the big basin has been cleaned out, (2) two temporary basins have been installed and temporary Basin A has been increased in size. Proctor asked the Commission for clarification as to whether they intended to allow grading, loaming and seeding of the septic system area. The Commission confirmed that they had allowed only the loam and seed necessary to stabilize the side slopes of the septic system. Proctor noted that the engineers have scheduled a pump test with the Board of Health. The Board directed Proctor to speak with the Planning Director and the Building Inspector to request that all work and inspections be put on hold until the stop-work order is released by the Commission
Proctor stated that she talked with Phil Nadeau from DEP about work under the Enforcement Order vs. a Notice of Intent filing. Nadeau confirmed that it is the Commission’s decision whether to allow the work under the Enforcement Order or require a NOI filing. He said that a developer may not want an Order of Conditions on the project because lots outside of the Buffer Zone would be affected by the Order. He stated that the Commission can use the Order of Conditions to get the developers attention and to provide a long term erosion control order. Nadeau stated that if the developer will not comply, we can refer the matter to DEP for their action. Rodrigues plans to visit the site again.
Byrne made a motion to write a letter to O’Malley requiring an NOI filing, seconded by Esteves with all in favor.
6.0 Conservation Commission Members Report – NONE.
7.0 General Business – NONE.
8.0 Hearings and Appointments (7:00 PM)
8.1 Request for Determination of Applicability (HUD #330)
Applicant: Edwin James Kroeker
Location: 4 Hickory Lane
Project Description: Grading to make the rear of the residential lot more useable.
Mr. Kroeker explained that he would like to grade the lot at the rear to make it more useable and wants to fill in the wetland area in the rear to make it “not wet”. He stated that there is a depression area shown on the property and detailed “a state wetland” on the MASSGIS website. He said the area at the back is at the original land level and that in the 1950’s a portion of the wetland was filled. Kroeker proposes to “smooth out” the grade. In 1972 a garage was constructed. Mr. Kroeker has owned the property since 1983. The Commission said that a site visit is necessary and required a wetland delineation. It was advised that once the wetland line is determined the applicant could decide if they want to pursue the
project and file a Notice of Intent.
Byrne made a motion to continue the hearing to October 19th, seconded by Rodrigues with all in favor.
8.2 Request for Determination of Applicability (HUD #331)
Applicant: George Contrada
Location: 123 Main St. (Hudson Motor Cars)
Project Description: replace water supply pipe between street valve and meter, install granite
planter to enhance walkway project, grade and repave parking lot as
needed.
This is an after-the-fact filing. Mr. Contra explained that the water pipe broke under the building and the Town DPW did not want to get to close to an old pipe because it was fragile therefore he replaced the pipe. Contrada also proposed to repave the area and install a planter which will add a nice feature to the Town’s new tannery brook canal walk way project. Contrada has been working with the town’s consultant Jeff Richards on the project.
There was discussion about the stormwater and opportunity to add catch basin. Oil water separator and hooded catch basins were discussed. It was determined that the area is too shallow for an oil and water separator. Some runoff drains off site to the back of the property onto Town owned parcel. The Commission is concerned about how to control the water and any potential contamination from Hudson Motor Cars. Dave noted that the plans show a perforated pipe putting contamination into the canal. Dave, Joe and Terrence will do a site visit. The Commission said that it would be okay to put the binder coat on the driveway now. Proctor will pull the plans the Plans for the Tannery brook canal project for review at the next meeting.
Byrne made a motion to continue the hearing to Oct. 5, seconded by Rodrigues with all in favor.
Byrne made a motion to have a 7 minute recess from 8:07 – 8:15 p.m., seconded by Rodrigues with all in favor. 6-0-0 Motion carried.
8.3 Applicant/Engineer has requested a continuance to October 5th.
Continuance Hearing - Notice of Intent (DEP 190-471)
Applicant: Neil Fossile
Location: Lots 1 & 2 Causeway St.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue this hearing to October 5, 2006, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
8.4 8:15 PM Continuance Request for Determination (HUD #328)
Applicant: Chris Carroll
Location: 7 John Robinson Dr.
Patrick Garner of Patrick C. Garner Company Inc. represented the applicant for this after-the-fact filing.
Paul Byrne opened the meeting and read the project description as follows: “Owner expanded an existing driveway, modified an existing swale and installed two drainage tanks (dry wells) within the swale. All described work lies approximately 75-100’ from the resource area (BVW) that exists off-site on property to the south. At the time the work was conducted, Owner was unaware of any resource area. Owner notes that the swale modification and installation of drainage tanks were conducted in response to grading modifications on the adjoining property to the south that alter historic water flow patterns. The Conservation Commission recently issued a determination on said adjoining property that, Owner further states, allowed the after-the-fact grading modification. Finally, Owner notes that the permitted grading on the adjoining property creates sever flooding on his property which he attempted to correct—at his own expense—by modifying the swale and adding the drywells.”
Byrne stated that when the Commission first started discussions with the Carroll’s it was in regard to 5 John Robinson Dr. and the Carroll’s believed there was a wetland on 5 John Robinson Dr. The Commission required the property owner to file a Request for Determination and required a wetland delineation. Although Mr. Carroll knew there was a wetland on the property, he went ahead and worked in the Buffer Zone. When the Commission told you would need to file a Request for Determination you said that you would wait for the issuance of an Enforcement Order. Byrne continued that at this point you’ve taken away soils to help determine if there was any hydrologic connection. The Commission saw no sign of excavation at the 5 John Robinson Dr. except for putting in the
pool which was provided in documentation from the pool company. Byrnes stated that RDA does not provide any facts about the tanks such as what water level you will maintain, provides no documentation to show what you’ve done or that what you have done will not harm the wetlands. Byrne ask how can you justify the work done within the Buffer Zone does not affect the wetlands?
Patrick Garner asked to present. He explained that he became involved with the project 2 ½ months ago when he agreed to help with the Enforcement Order. He had the intention of finding a solution to helping the ponding. He knows there has been some Commission site work. His firm has analyzed (4) four properties in the area and determined historical flow patterns and conclude that the solution is a multi-property solution.
Byrne stated that the Enforcement Order required a Notice of Intent; however, we have accepted the Request for Determination. Garner explained that he believed a Notice of Intent would require a detailed description and they didn’t have a constructive solution therefore have filed a Request for Determination. Garner said that he observed rain storms and the conclusion was that this is a multi-family solution.
Garner noted that at the last scheduled meeting with Conservation Commission he had to leave and was not able to attend the RDA meeting and was very concerned about where this meeting was heading. He continued that he called Paul Byrne last week and Byrne agreed to talk to the Twomey’s at 5 John Robinson Rd. to see if a multi-property solution would be possible. Conclusion remains that regardless of this effort restoring back to the original condition would be impossible. Garner recommended the Commission issue a positive RDA asking to be very specific of what the Commission is seeking. Paul Byrne stated that unfortunately too much time has gone by and the Commission we would like to look at the problem that is there. Byrne explained that what he talked to
the Twomey’s about was to see if they would allow an underground drain through their property. Twomey showed a letter from Mass. Mosquito Control which stated that a neighbor wouldn’t allow them access. Twomey also said that a neighbor has threatened to sue them if they caused any flooding.
Misty-Anne Marold said that the Commission’s role is defined in the Wetlands Protection Act. The Commission believed that clearing out the town’s ditch may help. Nothing in the Act says we should look for ways to help a homeowner. What we need to look at is how the alterations affect the wetland. Marold continued stating that some of these problems are outside of our jurisdiction.
Rodrigues said he would be in favor of installing a swale if all the neighbors get together and if they agree on this. He stated that, he is not an attorney, nor taking sides, but what he saw, as a construction person, is that whoever did the driveway went too deep from the garage to the end of the property and it should be returned to the original grade. Joe continued that the drywell was a bad move. He stated that to solve the problem you must get together, but reiterated that the driveway is too deep and the Carroll’s need an engineer to raise the driveway.
Garner said he did a topography survey to the left of the Carroll’s and to the right of the Twomey’s and there would be a positive flow toward the Twomey’s. He said that there is a simple inexpensive solution.
Byrne said that the Commission can not allow the Carroll’s to continue to pump to the catch basins on town property (i.e. John Robinson Dr.) which flows through the storm drains and then on to other properties. Garner said that over the last few months there was no need to pump. Byrne said that the RDA should focus on what you have done on the property which affects the wetlands with full disclosure and it must be shown on a plan so that the Commission can evaluate. Garner said that in speaking about a solution for the neighborhood he didn’t think there was anything not disclosed. He said that he included everything in the project description. Marold said that you must disclose the work as it relates to the Wetlands Protection act and it is up to the Commission
to make the finding.
Minot Wood stated that the Carroll’s have changed elevations and we have no prior topographical plans. The work is within 60’- 80’ from the wetlands. It would also be helpful to have elevations, sized of the tanks, volume of water that you pump and the rate of pumping, how much of the groundwater are the tanks in. The Twomey data at 5 John Robinson Rd. shows that the groundwater is 1 ft. below the surface. It is no doubt that the tanks are in groundwater. Wood said he reviewed the plan which also proposes a fence and retaining walls and this work is not described in the project description. Wood also noted that the plan was not signed. Garner said that he did not draw the plan and that it was Mr. Carroll who drew the plan. Wood said that
we need a Notice of Intent for this project.
Abutter, Sargent at 15 John Robinson Rd. said that all the neighbors want is the problem fixed.
The Commission stated that they are looking for a proposal and that there is none being offered. The Commission needs to know if the wetlands will be affected from dewatering.
Byrne made a motion to close the public hearing and request that a Notice of Intent be filed. The motion was seconded by Wood with all in favor.
Byrne asked the Twomey’s if they would allow a survey crew hired by the Carroll’s to access their property to field locate the existing wetland flags approved by the Commission as delineated by David Crossman, wetland scientist. The Twomey’s agreed as long as the site visit is arranged through the Conservation Agent Katrina Proctor and be allowed a 48 hour advance notice.
Garner requested access to survey topographical elevations. David Crossman, representative for the Twomey stated that it’s been 5 months of difficulty with the Carroll’s and therefore the answer is no.
Byrne made a motion to re-opened the meeting for discussion on the Enforcement Order issued the Carroll’s, seconded by Rodrigues with all in favor.
Byrne stated that the approval for emergency pumping should no longer be granted because pumping could dewater the wetlands.
Byrne made a motion not to allow pumps to run while under the Enforcement Order, seconded by Esteves.
Vote was taken.
Byrne voted in favor of the motion.
Joyce voted in favor of the motion.
Esteves voted in favor of the motion.
Marold voted in favor of the motion.
Rodrigues voted in opposition of the motion.
Wood voted in opposition of the motion.
Vote 4-2-0 Motion carried.
Byrne recommended that a letter be sent to all the neighbors notifying them that they have wetlands on their property and asked them to realize that they are creating problems with constructing fences
Garner stated he is not an engineer, however, he said that he is a hydrologist and wetlands scientist.
8.5 Continuance Hearing 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.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue this hearing to October 5, 2006, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
8.6 Continuance Hearing ANRAD (DEP #190-485)
Applicant: LPM Holding Company, Inc.
Owner: Watson Ventures LLC
Project Description: resource area delineation only
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue this hearing to October 5, 2006, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
8.7 Applicant/Engineer has requested a continuance to October 5th.
Continuance Hearing Notice of Intent (DEP 190-483)
Applicant: Richard Wiel
Location: 6 Lakeside Ave.
Project Description: construction of a replacement septic system and associated piping &
structures.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue this hearing to October 5, 2006, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
8.8 Applicant/Engineer has requested a continuance to October 5th.
Continuance Hearing Notice of Intent (DEP 190- 484)
Applicant: Richard Wiel
Location: 8 Lakeside Ave.
Paul Byrne made a motion to continue this hearing to October 5, 2006, seconded by Minot Wood with all in favor.
9.0 Adjournment – Byrne made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 PM, seconded by Rodrigues with all in favor.
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Katrina Proctor
Conservation Agent
| 
