Minutes of Conservation Commission

March 28, 2007

 

Present were: George Kingston, Chair; Martha Hamilton, Vice Chair; Jody O’Brien, Clerk; Mary Swords and Colleen Foerster. 

Steve Niec and Michael Salvon were not present.

 

Public Hearing – Benton Professional Partners, 265 Benton Drive 

 

At 7:00 p.m. The Chair, George Kingston opened the public hearing and Clerk, Jodi O’Brien read the legal notice into the record.

 

Present was Kim Masiuk and Doug Mattoon from Associated Builders and Jeff Elia from Benton Professional Partners.

 

Ms. Masiuk said that she was presenting on behalf of Benton Professional Partners

and said that they have requested an Amended the Order of Conditions for 265

Benton Drive.  She said it was discussed informally with the Commission at the last meeting and essentially what’s transpired is that they went through the permit process about 11/2 years ago for the project with Planning and Conservation.  She said that they presented the very same master plan however they detailed construction drawings for Phase I of the entire complex which was for a 30,000 square foot building in the center, the main access drive and the infrastructure utilities for the entire complex.  She said none of the approvals specifically referenced the master plan as it was still conceptual and it still is conceptual for the areas with the exception of Phase I.  Ms. Masiuk said that they have interested parties but they don’t really want to commit without having some sort of guarantee that it’s a allowed project so they went back to the Planning Board and Conservation as well to see what they could do with that and in fact they request an Amended Order of Conditions form the Conservation Commission so they could include this.  She said that it is the same plan that was before the Commission previously and just to refresh their memory the wetland areas are on the north and south side.  She said with Phase I of the project the stormwater management system for the entire complex was put in place and the 2 basins were right adjacent to the wetlands, all of the paved surfaces are 50 feet away and the drainage design is completely based on the master plan.  She said the only difference on the plans now is they marked the limit of work for the entire master plan and showed the markers.  She also added a table on the plans to show the amount of impervious area based on their conversations last time and it’s their understanding that although the plans are still conceptual if they stick to the limit of work for the entire master plan and they don’t increase the impervious surfaces with runoff directed to the basins that they could come in and show the Commission the plans but wouldn’t be required to file an Amended Notice of Intent.  She said so that was the approach they took on it and she did a table to make it little easier for the Commission to keep track of what the impervious surfaces are as far as collecting runoff for impervious surfaces and directing into the northern basin and there is some directed to the southern basin also.  Ms. Masiuk also said that snow storage removal came up at the informal department head meeting that Ms. Swords had attended and as a result of that meeting a note was added stating that it won’t be allowed in the resource areas or in the buffer zone.  She said other than that it’s really the same plan that they saw before and the other plans are still conceptual at this time but they did max out the site.                                     

 

Mr. Kingston asked what the change of impervious surface was currently?

 

Ms. Masiuk said that the master plan stayed the same.  Mr. Kingston said so there is no increase or decrease.  Ms. Masiuk said exactly because they haven’t changed anything at all.

 

At that time Mr. Kingston addressed the Commission for any questions, being none addressed the audience for any questions.  There being none and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to close the hearing.  Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the amended plan dated 3/26/07 and issue and Amended Order of Conditions for DEP #150-359.  

 

 

Public Hearing – Ramona Circle 

 

At 7:15 p.m. The Chair, George Kingston opened the public hearing and Clerk, Jodi O’Brien read the legal notice into the record.  Ms. Foerster recused herself due to conflict of interest.

 

Present was Heather Comee, Pioneer Environmental; Gary & Ramona Suffriti and Everett Suffriti.

 

Ms. Comee said that they filed a Notice of Intent for Everett Suffriti and DEP comments  have been received with one major concern regarding the stream in rear of the parcel.  She asked to have to the hearing continued to give them time to gather some data concerning the stream and then to respond in writing to Commission.  She said that they would response to DEP and possibly make some revisions to the plan.  Ms. Comee explained that the parcel is a 10 acre lot on the west side of Parker Street with an existing home on property.  She said that the majority of the property is forested and the rear portion of it is contains bordering vegetated wetland and was delineated with blue flags labeled W1 all the way up to  W25.  Ms. Comee said an isolated wetland located off site was located and labeled X1 – X5 along with a 20 foot sewer easement that bisects the property and goes through the wetland area.  Ms. Comee said that the wetland area was delineated using the DEP criteria of 50% or more vegetative wetland vegetation as well as soil data.  She said that the applicant is proposing a 5 lot subdivision ending in a cul-de-sac and a detention basin is being proposed in the back of the property in order to hold the stormwater.  She said that they are also proposing a silt fence to prevent erosion into the wetland area and permanent monuments marking the limit of work line which will range from 58 to 40 feet that will go around a proposed cul-de-sac and along the 100 foot buffer of the isolated wetland.  She then introduced Bob Cafarelli, Civil engineer that designed the stormwater system.

 

Mr. Cafarelli said that the site grades from the road to the rear towards the wetlands so the drainage pretty much reflects the natural drainage of the site.  He said that the  basin will go into a detention basin that was designed for the post development flow that is actually less then the peak flows.  Mr. Cafarelli said that the area will be sewered and the grade is advantageous to sewer the entire subdivision because the sewer is on the low section of the subdivision.  He said that one manhole will be needed in the center of the road and the sewer easement will attach to the town sewer and the frontage lot on Parker Street is currently tied into Parker Street if a new house is built and it will tied into the existing sewer service on Parker Street.  Mr. Cafarelli said that it is a 5 lot subdivision with an existing house so it will be 4 additional lots to the lot that is currently there.

 

Mr. Kingston addressed the Commission for any questions.                     

 

Ms. Swords asked if they were limiting the size of the houses to 1,700 square feet?  Mr. Cafarelli said the 1,700 square feet is not the square foot of the house itself it’s just the impervious area and if it has 2 floors it would be double that.  He said that he assumed a large house plus a 20 foot wide driveway going all the way to the road so he assumed impervious area of a rather large house with a rather large driveway.

 

Mr. Kingston said that the Commission will definitely want to do an on site walk to verify the wetland delineation and also to identify where the stream is and the Commission will require a written response to DEP comments on the stormwater drainage system.  He said that he knows the stream they are talking about but wasn’t exactly sure where it is relative to the property and how far back it is.  He said that the isolated wetland they are indicating might be a bordering wetland and he would like that accurately delineated and he thinks it’s possible that the wetland may be considered vernal pool.

 

Ms. Swords asked if the detention basin is going to be a wet bottom basin or dry bottom? 

 

Mr. Cafarelli said that it will be very close to the ground water.  He said one of the other  questions from DEP was that they do observation holes and they did and they will be located in the middle of the dentition basin.  He said they found the seasonal high ground water to be about 30 inches and be about 2 feet deep so it’s above the ground water but it’s going to be pretty close to the ground water.

 

Ms. Swords asked she thought she read that it was going to be a 3 foot depth on the detention basin? 

 

Mr. Cafarelli said that the depth will be 3 feet but they are building the sides up to get the 3 foot depth.  He said that he thinks at the lowest point is goes down to 24 or 26 inches from existing and that’s on the high side and on the low side it will be about 1 foot down in the ground.

 

Mr. Kingston said the Commission will need to get written response to DEP requests for information on infiltration rates.  At that time Mr. Kingston addressed the audience for any questions.

 

Don Cavanaugh, 112 Fernwood Drive asked if it could be pointed out on the map where the current sewer line was. 

 

Mr. Cafarelli pointed it out on the plan.

 

Mr. Cavanaugh said that he was be concerned about the catch basin for the runoff in the corner because it can be pretty wet even at this time of the year and asked if the runoff would be less with the development then it is today?

 

Mr. Cafarelli said the peak flow yes because it will be contained with a controlled discharge that will go into a riprap.  Ms. Comee added that it doesn’t go directly into the wetland it will go east of the sewer easement so it’s still into the wetland area.

 

Rebecca Quinlan, 172 Fernwood Drive asked how do they do about find out if is perennial stream or whether a seasonal stream?

 

Mr. Kingston said that there two kinds of streams, perennial flow all year round and falls under the rivers act and a stream that doesn’t flow all year round is called an intermittent stream.  He said on the USG service map there is a stream back there that is shown as a perennial stream, a river.  He said the a river has a 200 foot jurisdiction around it whereas an intermittent stream only has a 100 foot and the standards for development in each of those is different.  Mr. Kingston said one issue will be where exactly is the bank of the perennial stream that’s shown on the USG Map or can they rebut the fact that it’s a perennial stream.  He said so it has to do with the performance standards of what can be done within a certain distance of each thing and until the Commission gets out there and actually does some measurements and takes a look at what’s where, it’s really hard to answer what they have got is going to fly or not.  He said that his suspicion is that depending on the exact location of the stream and where it’s bank is it may or may not have a impact on some of the boundaries of what they are doing.  Mr. Kingston said that it may mean moving things a few feet one way or another and the Commission  will need to continue the hearing to take a look at it and get all the details down.  He said but it’s a matter of distance and where things are actually located and there are different criteria, different performance standards for rivers and ordinary wetlands.                     

 

Dawn Bretta, 15 Fern Glen Road asked if the plans submitted have been allowed for an intermittent stream or perennial?

 

Mr. Kingston said right now the plans are based on it being an intermittent stream but until the Commission knows exactly where it is and what looks like we can’t really comment one way or another, it’s an open question at this point.

 

Ms. Quinlan asked how soon will the Commission go out and look at it?

 

Mr. Kingston said that the Commission will go out within the next 2 weeks.

 

Dennis Quinlan, 172 Fernwood Drive asked if there was a minimum lot size required for the area?

 

Mr. Kingston said yes there is.

 

Mr. Quinlan said so if it was river and depending on it’s banks are and they may not end up with 5 houses. 

 

Mr. Kingston said that was a zoning thing and the 2 lots at the back of the property have  about 4 acres each and most of that is wetland and they can’t do anything with it so they have got more than enough land then they need.  He said as long as they can move the houses up to meet the side yard set back and get the required frontage on the street, they could still squeeze them in.  He said again that he can’t say until the Commission has been out there and seen the written responses and actually measured some things but at this point he would guess they would be able to work it so they can get 5 houses in there which would be entirely up to the developer.

 

Ms. Bretta said it was motioned that there are blue flags designating the wetland area and she walks back there a lot and noticed a lot of the blue flags are just thrown on the ground near the dead end.  She asked how they can tell where the wetland area is and what may have removed by the excavator that was out there?

 

Mr. Kingston said that he was sure that the wetland people are going to make sure that there are fresh flags out there.  He said that the Commission expects that they will have the proper plans and re-flagged it, they will also review where they put them and whether or not the Commission agrees if it’s wetland.

 

Mr. Cavanaugh asked if they were allowed to go out on the on site also?

 

Mr. Kingston said with the permission of the land owner.            

                   

 Lil Bretta, 161 Fernwood Drive said that there is a wooden sign there that says it’s a quarry and would they still be able to go in there?

 

Mr. Kingston said at the end of Fernwood Drive is town land and goes all the way over to Kibbe Road and they can still go in there.  He said he is not sure where the Hall Road goes, whether it’s on their property or town property and that needs to be determined. 

Mr. Kingston said the last comment he has before the hearing is continued is that he doesn’t know what the frontage requirements are and how close they are on those back 2 lots and it would be better if they could give the Commission 50 feet on the cul-de-sac because they have got 40 feet there.

 

Mr. Cafarelli said 40 feet to the silt fence. 

 

Ms. Comee said that depends on the grading within that area but it could be looked at.

 

Mr. Kingston said it also depends on the front requirement for those 2 lots and the lots adjacent to the sizes, but he would ask them to reconsider it and to try to give them 50 feet of a buffer there.  He said the other thing that was discussed at the round table that he doesn’t see in the Notice of Intent is again the responsibility for the drainage system.  He knows that the owner has talked about that being the responsibility of lot 4 and the Commission would like it in writing as to who is responsible for that whether it’s a homeowners association or the individual homeowner. 

 

Ms. Swords said that she doesn’t think that’s it’s a good idea in this particular instance to have one homeowner responsible for that detention basin.  She said only because it abuts the sewer easement and if something happens where it’s neglected and the sewer easement is impacted she thinks it would be fairer if all the homeowners where responsible.

 

Mr. Kingston said that it was up to the developer to decide that.  Ms. Swords added that would be her preference.    

 

Gary Suffriti said as far as the easement they have always had it where the homeowner would be liable for it but if the Commission feels that all of the homeowners should be then he doesn’t have a problem with it.

 

Mr. Kingston said that it’s simpler if they have the one homeowner be responsible for it then a homeowners associations.

 

Mr. Suffriti said that nobody across the street is going to care.

 

Mr. Kingston said on the other hand you as a developer marketing it will have more trouble selling that lot with that liability on it then the other houses.  He said who ever buys that lot has the liability for maintaining it so as a developer he has to make the decision what the wants to do.  Mr. Kingston said that the Commission is just trying to point out to them the pros and cons of either position and also that they are adjacent to a sewer easement, if it fails and washed out the sewer it could be significant.  He said they don’t care how they do it, but the Commission needs to know when the Conditions are issued how they are going to that in writing so that the conditions could be written to have the deed restrictions on the proper lots. 

 

Mr. Suffriti said that there preference would be to have that one owner but it’s not a problem for him to work the Commission.  He also said that when the Commission does the on site walk he doesn’t have a problem with any of the abutters join them.    

 

No further discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to continue the hearing until April 11th at 7:15 p.m. and will perform the on site visit on April 1st at 1:00 p.m.          

 

 

 

Public Hearing – RTH Group (JWW Realty ),152 Denslow Road

 

At 7:45 p.m. The Chair, George Kingston opened the public hearing and Clerk, Jodi O’Brien read the legal notice into the record.  Ms. Foerster recused herself due to conflict of interest.

 

Present were Mike Burns, O’Leary Company; James Walsh, RTH Group and Heather Comee, Pioneer Environmental.

 

Mr. Burns explained that RTH Group was looking to do an expansion totaling about 12,000 square feet to the existing building.  He said that the project involves the expansion of the existing stormwater retention facilities and a portion of the property is within the wetlands area.

 

Ms. Comee said the site is located at 152 Denslow Road and is about 3 acres of land.  She said when the original building was purposed a delineation was conducted and has since expired so they re-delineated it.  Ms. Comee said she looked at plans within the Commission’s office and it appears the wetland line falls along the same area of the old wetland line.  She said they hung new flags W1 up to W11 and the central portion of the site currently consists of mowed meadow and the wetland area is forested and there is portion of the wetland that could potentially be isolated land subject to flooding.  Ms. Comee said that no calculations where done to that effect but it would fall within the delineated wetland area and was delineated as an isolated wetland.  She said that it’s protected under the town’s by-law with a 100 foot buffer zone and it was not submitted to DEP because it only falls under the town’s by-law.  She said that they are maintaining a greater than 50 foot buffer zone in some areas and then other areas it’s grading right up to the 50 foot but none of the building is proposed within the 50 foot buffer.

 

Mr. Kingston said the only question he has is isolated versus bordering and they have been through this many times and there is a hydrological connection between that and the wetland to the north which is definitely bordering.

 

Ms. Comee said that it is connected by a stormwater pipe and she has talked with Mark Stinson from DEP and they categories that not as a connection to another wetland.  She said if it was a connector pipe that equalized water between them that’s one thing but if it’s a pipe that contributes stormwater to either one of them then they don’t consider that bordering.  She said if it was a confined wetland and had a an intermittent stream just flowing with in it and not even leaving the site, just an intermittent stream flowing within it the wetland would be bordering a bank of an intermittent stream and they would consider that bordering vegetated wetland even though the wetland is completely contained.

 

Mr. Kingston said the situation with this one is that it was an agricultural field and it was leveled and drained with that area in the middle being one of the drainage areas.  He said he was trying to see what they ruled for Benton Professional Partners which is a more recent ruling.

 

Ms. Swords said she thought Pete Levesque originally ruled that it was connected.

 

Ms. Comee said that she worked on that project and had seen from a previous filing that there was a stormwater or a clay pipe connecting it to another wetland.

 

Mr. Kingston said that the Commission ruled on May 24, 2006 for Benton Professional Partners that it was bordering.  He said that the town has stormwater easement but it’s really an agricultural drainage pipe and the Commission is treating it as bordering for  Benton Drive with a current delineation within the last year, not that it impacts their project.  He said that they have ruled that it is bordering and have been supported by the State on it and he really wants to keep that way because to rule that it’s isolated changes all the rules.  He said that he didn’t see anything compelling that tells him that it’s not isolated and there is actually 2 drainage pipes, one to the north and one to the south as he recalls.   He said that is doesn’t really impact their project whether it’s isolated or bordering but it does in terms of them having to file with the State but the Commission has several times in the past ruled that as a bordering wetland and he would really like to keep it that way unless they want to give the Commission something in writing that compelling disputes that.  He said that they are giving the Commission 50 feet which is fine and doesn’t seen any problems with the project per say but he thinks that it should be filed with the State and get their comments.  Mr. Kingston personally he doesn’t see a compelling reason to reclassify it as isolated when the Commission has already gotten a couple of projects in as bordering.  Mr. Kingston said he would like to continue the hearing until April 11th and have them come back in that’s it’s bordering and he thinks at that point the Commission can approve it with conditions.

 

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to continue the hearing until April 11th at 7:30 p.m.

 

       

Benton Drive, Lot 5 – Inglewood Realty

 

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to issue the Amended Order of Conditions and Special Conditions for Inglewood Realty, Benton Drive, Lot 5 DEP #150-335.  

 

 

There being no further business and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously to close the meeting at 8:15 p.m.

 

For the Commission,

 

 

 

George Kingston, Chair