Minutes of Conservation Commission

April 11, 2007

Present were: George Kingston, Chair; Martha Hamilton, Vice Chair; Jody O’Brien, Clerk; Mary Swords, Michael Salvon and Colleen Foerster. Steve Niec was not present.

Public Meeting – Pembroke Terrace, Lot 12 (Great Woods X)

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 Rick Granger from Dan Roulier & Associates. He explained that lot 14 had been walked and that the Commission had questions about the depression and said that Chuck Dauchy had got all of the calculations to demonstrate it.

Mr. Kingston said the basic question was whether or not this was a jurisdictional wetland. He said that it’s not large enough to become a jurisdictional wetland and so after the Commission walked it and according their calculations agreed that area is not a jurisdictional wetland therefore it’s not subject to the protection under the act and therefore he would agree with applicant.

Ms. Foerster asked if it was not 40 feet under the by-law?

Mr. Kingston said under the state act it’s a ¼ acre and 400 square is required under the town by-law because it is 2,948 square feet but would not fall under the state regulations. He said the question is does the Commission want to do a negative determination or a positive determination under the by-law?

Ms. Foerster asked how close is the proposed activity to the isolated wetland?

Mr. Granger said about 40 feet.

Ms. Foerster asked where would the edge of the maintained lawn be?

Mr. Granger pointed on the plan where it would be.

Mr. Kingston asked the Commission how they would like to treat it under the town by-law?

Ms. Swords said if there is no impact on the isolated wetland she would say give him a negative determination but can the Commission have a stipulation that when a transfer ownership takes place there will be a deed restriction that would prohibit any alteration of that or would that have to come under a positive determination?

Mr. Kingston he said that they could do that but the problem is that conditions on Request for Determination don’t have any real standing. He said on the other hand under the by-law if the homeowner where to alter it that would be a violation of the by-law.

Ms. Swords said that it would be but the Commission would want to give the homeowner some kind of notice that they have a protected area on their property and would Mr. Roulier be willing to put on a deed restriction?

Mr. Kingston said so if the Commission where to issue a negative determination and condition it that a deed restriction be put on the property stating that the isolated wetland is not to be filled or otherwise altered.

Ms. Foerster said that her concern was there is a significant amount of area they can use so it is justifiable to have to go up within 10 feet of he isolated wetland?

Mr. Granger said that he thinks they are pretty much respecting as much as that as they can over to the easterly property line.

Mr. Kingston said that the main function of that wetland is flood water storage and it’s not big enough to be a vernal pool so it’s probably not significant to wild life habitat. He said the one thing that he does see there that he is not happy about that there is a drain that is exiting directly to the isolated wetland. He asked if that was legal under town building code? Mr. Granger said yes. Mr. Kingston also said that the homeowner might choose to fill it in so if the Commission requires a deed restriction at least the homeowner would be aware that there is a concern there. He said again the main function of the wetland is simply to catch the stormwater and infiltrate it.

Ms. Foerster asked if it was possible to submit revised plans showing where the actual limit of work is going to be because there should be some kind of buffer.

Mr. Kingston said that the Commission will want to have silt fence and probably permanent monumentation.

Mr. Granger asked at that the edge of it ? Mr. Kingston said 10 feet off it so there is no filling right up to the edge. Mr. Granger said so they will show a silt fence and monuments 10 feet off the edge and the limit of work. Mr. Kingston said yes and removal of the foundation drain and the deed restriction.

Mr. Kingston addressed the audience for any questions. There none and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to close the meeting. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to issue a positive Determination of Applicability confirming the delineation and that the area is subject to review and approval by the Town of East Longmeadow.

Public Meeting – Michael Rau, 262 Vineland Avenue

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.

Michael Rau, applicant submitted plans and explained that he would like to add on to his existing garage in order to make a 2 car garage.

Ms. Foerster asked what the topography was like?

Ms. Swords said she has been out there and when you get off Mr. Rau’s property line it slopes down. She said that the whole area is compromised and his project would have minimal effect if anything. She said that it would be a good idea to supplement the plantings with high bush blueberry or red twig dogwood.

Mr. Kingston asked Mr. Rau if he was going to be excavating for a foundation?

Mr. Rau said yes and plans to install silt fence and hay bales.

Mr. Kingston addressed the Commission for any question being none addressed the audience for any questions.

Regina Retynsky, 66 Smith Avenue said she had no problem with the project but she thought that he was going to build where she saw the orange flags.

Mr. Rau said no that he just had the land surveyed and those were the flags showing his property line.

With no further discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously, (6-0) to close the meeting. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted to issue a negative Determination of Applicability, work described in the request is within the buffer zone but will not alter an area subject to the protection under the Act, therefore not require a filing of a Notice of Intent.

Continuance Public Hearing – Ramona Circle

At 7:20 p.m. The Chair, George Kingston reopened the public hearing. Ms. Foerster recused herself due to conflict of interest. Mr. Kingston said that himself, Mary Swords and Jodi O’Brien conducted an on site inspection along with the applicant on April 1^st and they observed the wetland originally labeled as isolated is in fact bordering and there is a perennial stream in the back. He asked the representative what they were providing the Commission as a revision?

Ms. Comee, Pioneer Environmental said that the project engineer, Bob Cafarelli was unable to attend because he was sick so she picked up the plans and also submitted their response to DEP comments. She then addressed DEP comments as follows: Concern with the perennial stream as shown on the USGS map and they don’t feel that the stream is perennial but they don’t have the required documentation to prove other wise so they filed it as perennial and are presuming that it’s perennial. She pointed out on the plan that they flagged it, R1-R8 associated with the mean annual high water of a perennial stream is the inner riparian zone, which is a 100 feet out from the mean annual high water also the 200 foot outer riparian zone which is 200 feet out from the edge of the perennial stream. She said the area is considered a resource area and they have removed and revised their plans to show the stormwater detention basin outside of the riverfront area. The limit of work line will be marked by silt fence and permanent monuments outside of the outer riparian zone. She said that they didn’t submit a full vegetation plot because they didn’t feel that it was necessary so they just complied a whole list of all the vegetation they observed on site and Mark Stinson form DEP said basically that’s useless information to him and he wants to see vegetation plots or no vegetation list at all. She has submitted and conducted 2 vegetation plots on either side of the wetland line and those have been included in their additional information. She said that they were also concerned about stormwater that Bob Cafarelli of Civil Engineering addressed the question in that it’s concerning the 80% total suspended solid removal for the stormwater management system. She said that what Mr. Cafarelli did to revise it was that he added an extra deep sump catch basin to remove suspended solids before it actually gets to the fore bay and the detention area. She said by adding that he gets above his 80% total suspended solids. She said that the confusion was that he had included 10% for street sweeping and the DEP was saying that is up to the Commission to decide whether or not they want to include or except street sweeping as part of the 80%. She said he is just kind a taking that out of the equation and he added an additional stormwater management system or catch basin in order just to bypass that in case the street sweeping doesn’t occur at the frequency it’s suppose to. Ms. Comee said DEP’s last question was if the soils have been verified with the location of the detention basin and test pits were done and included in the original Notice of Intent. She said the test pits show that it’s a class C soil which doesn’t have a high peculation rate for infiltration so his system is based off of that and has designed to handle the storms that he is suppose to and based the class C soils. Ms. Comee said at the site visit they found a hydrologic connection connecting the wetland area (pointed to the location on the plan) down to the main wetland system which would characterize the wetland as a bordering vegetated wetland and has been changed on the plan. She said that Commission questioned whether it was vernal pool or not and on site it was agreed that it was not a potential vernal pool and another question the Commission had was concerning a 50 foot buffer from the edge of the cul-de-sac which they were able to maneuver the grades in order to provide a 50 foot buffer from the wetland area. She said that was all the changes that were made on the plans.

Mr. Kingston addressed the Commission for any questions. There being none addressed the audience for any questions.

Dawn Bretta, Fern Glen Road asked if trucks and excavating equipment would allow be allowed to go through 200 foot buffer area? Mr. Kingston said no they won’t because all of the access is going to be from Parker Street. Ms. Bretta said her concern was if they would be entering through the dead end. Mr. Kingston said no but DPW has the right to do that because there is a sewer easement there and the applicant will not be doing any work back there.

Lil Bretta, Fernwood Drive she said at the last meeting they said that they were moving the pumping station to the other side. Mr. Kingston said no that’s it’s not a pumping station but a detention basin and at the on site it was discussed basically it’s up to the developer and his engineering to decide the best place. He said that it’s basically a hole in ground that keeps the water so it doesn’t flow out into a rush into the wetlands. He they can put it any place that legal and it’s up to them to decided where they want to put it, the Commission doesn’t tell them where because their engineer designs it and has to take into count the slopes and the water flow. Mr. Kingston said that they did mention the possibly of maybe putting it on the other side or splitting it but they’ve chosen to put it where they are putting it and that’s what they are filing.

Ms. Dawn Bretta asked if they were still proposing 5 houses? Mr. Kingston said yes.

Ms. Lil Bretta asked does fertilizer go through the filter thing and come out clean into the wetland? Mr. Kingston said fertilizer and things like that are soluble but there is enough of a buffer zone and there is a whole natural area between there and is suppose to absorb it. He said they did modify their plan and put in deep sump catch basins so that sand and dirt from the street will be captured and cleaned out every couple of years.

Ms. Hamilton asked where the sewer line was?

Ms. Comee said that it is along the inner riparian, the 100 foot river front area.

With no further questions 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 project with conditions.

Continuance Public Hearing – RTH Group, 152 Denslow Road

At 7:40 p.m. The Chair, George Kingston reopened the public hearing. Ms. Foerster recused herself due to conflict of interest. Mr. Kingston said that DEP comments have been received with no substantial comments.

Ms. Comee, Pioneer Environmental said at the previous hearing they had filed this as an isolated vegetated wetland and the Commission had informed them that there is pipe connecting the wetland to another wetland north of it. She said so they have re-filed the Notice of Intent reclassifying the wetland area as bordering vegetated wetland and filed a Notice of Intent with DEP. She resubmitted plans to the Commission and said that DEP comments where received and had no substantial comments. She said that they are maintaining a 50 foot no disturb zone and even more that 50 feet in some areas and the applicant is proposing to put a new building on and expand the retention basin.

Mr. Kingston addressed the Commission for any questions, being none addressed the audience for any questions. There being none Mr. Kingston said that he was happy that it was reclassified to bordering vegetated because it keeps everyone consistent. He asked if the new filing incorporated everything from the old filing? Ms. Comee said yes and also the new filing has the new classification.

Ms. Hamilton asked Ms. Comee if she found the drain? Ms. Comee said no she didn’t.

Mike Burns from the O’Leary Company said that he went out and found it.

Mr. Kingston 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 Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the project with conditions.

There being no further business and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously to close the meeting at 8:00 p.m.

For the Commission,

George Kingston, Chair