Minutes of Conservation Commission

February 28, 2007

Present were: George Kingston, Chair; Jody O’Brien, Clerk; Mary Swords, Colleen Foerster and Steve Niec.

Public Hearing – 29 Fisher Avenue, Raymond Fusaro

At 7:00 p.m. The Chair, George Kingston opened the public hearing and said that Colleen Foerster was abstaining from the hearing because of her interest in it. He said DEP issued file #150-365 and are asking for mean annual high water line explanation which isn’t applicable because it was already done on the Request for Determination of Applicability. He said also they are questioning the degraded area and how the proposed improvement actually is within the riverfront area.

Clerk, Jody O’Brien read the legal notice into the record.

Present were Pete Levesque from Pioneer Environmental; Owners Paul Fusaro and son Paul Fusaro. Mr. Levesque said that the Planning Board has approved the Site Plan and the parcel is just over 12,000 square feet on the east side of Fisher Avenue. He said that the site itself has a building on it right now, a 3 bay garage for repairing cars which is 1,585 square feet and the remainder of it is dirt all the way up to the edge of the property line. He said the area within the riverfront is considered degraded and at the back of the property it drops down very steeply and there’s a swallow drainage ditch that runs along the rail trail that doesn’t connect to anything else and was flagged by Baystate Environmental for the Lowe’s project. Mr. Levesque said that it has a defined channel in it so it’s considered an intermittent stream and a bordering vegetated wetland and therefore a 100 foot buffer zone applies to it. He said the other side of the rail trail actually grades up again because the railroad was cut into and then goes down to other the side to the top of the Pecousic Brook. He said the resource areas associated with the filing are the bordering vegetated wetland, 100 foot buffer zone, the mean annual high water mark of Pecousic Brook, inner riparian zone and outer riparian zone. Mr. Levesque said that the resource areas were delineated by Baystate Environmental in May 2006, approved by the Commission and they utilized that as the standard for delineations, there are no flood plain issues and it’s not an estimated habitat. He said the proposed project is to construct a 30 x 60 commercial building, 1,800 square feet and be utilized for warehouse. He said that the site will be paved and the stormwater would be collected in a catch basin and go through a oil/ water separator through a perforated pipe where it can be infiltrated and the over follow would tie into the East Longmeadow storm drain system. He said that it has city water and sewer and as far as the performance standards with the DEP as Mr. Kingston indicated the mean annual high mark was delineated and already approved. Mr. Levesque said that he thinks when Anthony from DEP reviewed it he didn’t understand that the area within the degraded which is gravel and hard pack will be taken up and will be loamed and seeded that will result in 974 square feet of improvement that creates a vegetative or grass buffer between the existing area. He said the other area that was sited for an improvement in the Notice of Intent was currently the building and the dirt parking lot that has no stormwater management system at all. He said so it will be an improvement by actually putting in the systems and also the other improvement was to provide a buffer of 974 square feet between the work. Mr. Levesque said that the entire site is considered degraded because it’s dirt and under the regulations the Commission can allow activity with the degraded area but not further towards the river. He said by putting in the narrow buffer it is considered an improvement.

Mr. Kingston addressed the Commission for any questions.

Ms. O’Brien asked if the existing building would remain there? Mr. Levesque said it is going to remain there and there is no floor drains in the building so the system will be totally separate and reviewed by the DPW. Ms. O’Brien asked where the access was to the new building? Mr. Levesque pointed it out on the plan.

Mr. Niec asked what area was being paved? Mr. Levesque showed him on the plan and said that it was going to be graded and go back into the catch basin. Mr. Niec asked if anything was going to be brought in to raise the grade? Mr. Levesque said that will need to bring in some hard pack and with that there might be a slight pitch. Mr. Niec asked how all of the water was going to get into the system? Mr. Levesque said from the grade and there will be a very slight swallow gutter in the middle of it. Mr. Niec asked what it was like currently? Mr. Levesque said there a little hedge row of dirt and he thinks it puddles more in the middle.

Mr. Paul Fusaro said that he thinks Gary Weiner raised the elevation up on the new building to create a gutter and is about 6” higher than the existing one to create a valley.

Mr. Levesque said that there is also a cape cod berm all the way around the edge of the pavement to prevent anything from flowing over the edge.

Ms. Swords asked if they were going to leave the green area just grass or are they going to allow it to grow back to it’s natural vegetation? Mr. Levesque said they are purposing to let it grow natural.

Mr. Kingston addressed the audience for any questions, there being none addressed the Commission for any further questions. Being none he said that he would like the Orders to reference the landscape area as shown on the plan, that the berm will be a permanent limit of work marker and that the landscape area within the riverfront area is going to be permanent. He said if they plan to do anything in the future beyond that or store anything out there they will have to come back before the Commission.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to close the Hearing. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the project with conditions. The conditions will be written and signed on March 14, 2007.

Partial Certificate of Compliance – 73 Oak Brook Drive (Schneelock Estates)

Mr. Kingston informed the Commission that he did an on site visit on the February

14, 2007 and said that it looked fine. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to issue a partial certificate of compliance for 73 Oak Drive, DEP file # 150-131.

Informal Meeting regarding changes to Ruffino Road plan

Present were Jeff LeBeau, Baystate Environmental; John Moltenbrey and Matt Campagnari.

Mr. LeBeau said that they are asking for encroachment within the 100 foot buffer to allow for lots 2 & 3 to have more yard space. He said that the potential owner Mike Donovan for lot 2 is also present and they worked together on the placement of his house. He said that lot 2 will not change, lots 1, 3, 4 & 5 are still for sale and they don’t have a fixed layout and are not going to come back in 6 months and say here’s this house we want more. He said that he talked with John Moltenbrey and they want to make all of the recommended changes that evening. Mr. LeBeau then presented the plan and reviewed it with the Commission and said what they would like to is encroach up to and put permanent work markers right at the 50 foot to allow more yard space. He said that they are tight lots and would trade the square footage of the buffer zone impact (7,600 square feet) so they could put 4 more markers at the 100 foot buffer over on lot 4 to permanently protect it and they won’t ever come back and ask for more.

Mr. Kingston asked if they getting at least 50 feet? Mr. LeBeau said yes all along the back edge.

Mr. Niec asked if there was an existing Order of Conditions and asked Mr. Kingston if he has look at them recently. Mr. Kingston said he had and originally they tried to keep as much as much as possible outside the 100 foot so they wouldn’t have that many wetland lots. He said the thing that we are going have to amend it to do is to indicate that lot 2 is a wetland lot but other than that he feels that it is a minor change. Mr. Niec said that they could have them put deed restrictions on the lots. Mr. Kingston that the Commission did require restrictions but they haven’t added them yet because they haven’t been sold. He said so the deed restriction is going to have to refer to the new plan.

Mr. LeBeau said right that it has a revision date as of the latest change.

Mr. Niec asked would an Amended Order of Conditions need to be written because the wording on the deed restriction needs to be changed? Mr. LeBeau said the thing with that is they are not changing any of the limit of work markers on lot 2.

Mr. Kingston said what the Commission needs is a revised Notice of Intent referencing the revision and referencing specifically there will be limit of work markers on lot 2. He said what that does is makes a revision as a minor change and another hearing doesn’t need to be held. He said if an Amended Order is written another hearing would have to be scheduled and the Amended Orders would have to be resubmitted to DEP. He said they are making some revisions to the Notice of Intent and will give the Commission a new copy of it and then as a Commission can update the Orders and reissue them referencing the new plan and the date of the new notice that way they can proceed without having another hearing and another review by DEP.

Mr. Niec asked if the other drawing showed that there was no work being done there, did it show an area that said the area to remain vegetated? Mr. LeBeau said that they didn’t put anything down and now they know they want to have a lawn there.

Mr. Kingston said the way they had it originally because they were not purposing any work within the 100 foot buffer they didn’t actually consider it to be a wetland lot.

Mr. LeBeau said that there is no clearing necessary for this because it’s basically all meadow and they are asking to have a lawn out there and put the markers so that there is a jurisdictional boundary.

Mr. Kingston said that we are still getting 50 feet which is normal. He said that the Commission will need a revised plan, a new copy of the Notice of Intent which references the revised plan and references the limit of work markers on lot 2 and lot 4. Mr. Kingston said so when the Commission needs to issue a certificate of compliance we will have the proper paper work to refer to.

Mr. LeBeau said then the Commission can update the Orders. Mr. Kingston said that the Commission will update and reissue the Order of Conditions based on what is submitted to the Commission.

There being no further business and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously to close the public meeting at 7:30 p.m.

For the Commission,

George Kingston, Chair