Conservation Commission
Meeting Minutes

Minutes of March 21, 2002

Present:  Nancy Naslas, David Carpenter, Paul Locke, Susan Murphy, Bruce Rider, David Valade

Voted:  to accept the minutes of March 7, 2002 as amended.

Penny Road/Stream

Nancy: Legal Notice, Public Meeting, City of Melrose Conservation Commission:  In accordance with the provisions M.G.L., Chapter 39, Section 23B, the Melrose Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting Thursday, March 21, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the Mayor’s Conference Room, 2^nd Floor City Hall.  The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Request for Determination of Applicability submitted by the Melrose Parks Department for cleaning the stream along Penny Road.”

Ray Blanchard, Interim Parks Department Superintendent:  What we are trying to do here is to help out Mr. Magown, who has had a lifelong problem down here with the stream running along Penny Road, with the water level that comes down there.  What we are trying to do is to get that stream to flow a little bit better than it is doing right now.  The stream runs right adjacent to Penny Road.  We went down there about a month ago and cleaned out all the vegetation, all the trees, etc. that had fallen in there, the dead debris, and cleared it out as best we could by hand, through this whole length, all the way up to where it goes in underground, and we were able to clean debris out and it made a little bit of a difference, but what now I am looking to do is there is a very short section which is right adjacent to Mr. Magown’s house.  This purple area here would be Mr. Magown’s house.  There is a stretch here of maybe 10 or 15 yds. I guess.  It is really high.  What happens is our remediation that everybody is familiar with at Mt. Hood, this is the 12^th fairway and the 12^th green.  This is wetland area right adjacent to that area, where all the water comes down into this wetland and then comes down the stream channel to the 14^th fairway which is represented here, so it is in a pipe underneath the 14^th, and then comes up out of ground right in this area here, and then runs above ground in this creek down into the Lynn River down there.  Basically, what happens here, is when the water comes out of the ground here, it is higher here for this 10 or 15 yds. than it is here, so the water elevation has to actually rise before it can flow.  What happens is the elevation gets so high that it floods the fairway this way instead of flowing.  What we are looking to do is to come in here and clear out the soils that have eroded down from this bank, clear that out.  What we have noticed when we went in there physically and did a manual clean out was that there is a cobblestone wall to that stream that was originally in there, and Mr. Magown has been saying for years that there is a cobblestone side and a bottom to that stream at one point.  What we are going to hopefully do is to go in and pull that sediment out of there and get back and see if we can find those cobblestones and find that bed lining and lower this elevation so that we can get a much steadier flow down the stream.  That is basically all we are trying to do.  It will alleviate the problem for now.  I will be honest with you there is going to need to be a lot more work done there in the future.  This pipe that comes across underneath the fairway is clogged and also we think is broken in many sections.

Richard Magown:  That pipe is clogged, the one that comes from the catch basin to where you are talking about the cobblestone, because now the water is coming out of the edge of the fairway, there is about 6 or 8 inches of water on the edge of the fairway where that pipe is clogged up.

Ray Blanchard:  This area comes across underground, and we can’t clean out the pipe because it is broken in many ways and needs to be replaced.  It comes into what is not really a catch basin.  It is really a hole with a manhole cover on it.  Then there is another section of pipe that runs along here that is again in need of repair.  At some point in the near future, hopefully toward the end of the remediation project, we can hopefully save some money to come down here and do some sort of a new piping system at that time to alleviate the problem.  Through the remediation project we are still funneling the water into the same way it was going before which as it has always come down the stream channel and into this river that has always been the way the water has flowed.  We are not stopping that at all, we have actually brought the volume of water and the flow down to what it was pre-fill during the remediation, so this is an area that is going to need to be addressed a lot in depth in the next coming years, but right now to help solve a problem immediately is to go in there and do a little cleaning up, and that is what we are asking for today and informing you of what we would like to do.

Nancy:  So all you are proposing to do today is in that 15 yd stretch of stream channel to clean out the sediment that is on top of the existing constructed cobblestone channel.  What are you going to with the sediment?

Ray Blanchard:  We will probably take it off site.  The project is going to be undertaken by the city.  Part of the public works is going to help, so between the Park Dept. and the Dept. of  Public Works we will do this entirely by ourselves.  We will remove whatever we take out of there.

Nancy:  How are you going to do it?

Ray Blanchard:  I think the original conversation is to bring a backhoe in there.  It is going to be done manually and with machinery, and hopefully with the backhoe maybe get the first 1-2 feet out of there, and then actually get in there with a shovel and try to find those cobblestones.

Nancy:  About how deep do you think the sediment is?

Mr. Blanchard: Right in the middle of the channel is probably 2 ft.

Mr. Magown:  There is 2 ft. of fill in the bottom of that brook.  The top of the fill is even with the top of the pipe now.  There is only about that much space between the pipe where it hits the mud, that is why it is backing all up. 

Nancy:  There will be a big difference to down stream if you do it while it is wet versus if you do it while it is dry.

Ray Blanchard:  I would like to do it as soon as possible so it would have to be wet.

Mr. Magown:  Better do it now.  Water is flying down there now and it is backing up the brook.  When that brook backs up, it backs up through a pumping station and that is on the same pipe from the manhole, so if you better do it now because it is flowing down there now.  It is full of clay.

Ray Blanchard:  We are going to try to do it as soon as possible, because anticipating that we are going to going to come into the rainy season, we want to have that flowing as best we can by the time we get to that rainy season.

Mr. Magown:  I would make a suggestion.  You better do it before you start digging up there, because it is really going to come down there.

David:  I have a couple of questions; the first is once you have cleaned it out how are you going to prevent the sediments from coming back in.  You indicated it was erosion coming down on the bank above it.

Ray:  We are going to have to do some planting on this upward slope here.  We are going to have to get some sort of vegetation so we can stop that erosion.  Right now it is just barren soil, so we will have to do some sort of a seeding progress, probably go in there in the spring and get some vegetation.

David:  You might want to do something before you vegetate with fabric or something like that, otherwise when we get the rains to clean, it may go  right back before you can vegetate it.  The other question is I don’t know how far it goes up there, but there is a significant amount of wetland species here and my concern is if you are bringing in equipment, that you damage some of the areas other than the pipe.

Ray:  Where we are going to be involved is right adjacent to Penny Road, and the equipment can almost do it from Penny Road.  We will be off the street slightly, but where you are talking about is down this way more, and we wouldn’t be involved in that. 

Mr. Magown:  That’s another problem, the water comes flying down Penny Hill Rd. into that brook.

Ray:  Yes, we do get a lot of flow this way.  We should actually do some sort of a riff raff.  There is a little runnel the weather has forced down there, so we should probably pour some stone in there to try to slow that down a little bit too.  

David:  It may be worth where the surface  water damage comes to put some stone or something so instead of coming straight down the bank, it flow velocity, comes around it, that may help as well.

Ray:  It is an area that we really need to pay attention to and this is a first step into solving a much bigger problem, but this is not going to solve anything, but it is going to help the flow a lot.

Nancy:  I think this is clearly jurisdictional under the RDA, but we do have some alternatives under the RDA. The question is would this be a positive or negative determination?   (Nancy reads options).

Paul: In the plan you might want to address the movement of sediment downstream during construction process and see where it can control.  That would be our main concern.

Nancy:  I had made a list of concerns that we have brought up: 

·        planting on adjacent slopes for stabilization;

·        equipment not to damage existing bank vegetation;

·        stone to be added at Penny Hill’s discharge to this stretch of stream;

·        sediment to be removed from site whatever you clean out;

·        and consider putting silt fence and hay bales to protect the downstream waters during the cleanout and during a couple of hours while you are working if you can make a little settling pond with this water flowing through.

Voted:  A positive determination: 1) the area described is an area subject to protection under the act, removing fill and drudging or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent.

Nancy:  You will come back with your Determination of Applicability form telling you what I just read.  I can give you the forms with both the abbreviated NOI and the NOI and you can decide which one you would rather do.   The green cards will need to be sent to the abutters.  I will put it in the newspaper.

Voted:  to open the meeting to public comment.

No comment.

James Jones Road/Malden

Nancy:  Bruce attended the Malden meeting on James Jones Road tonight, and they withdrew it for 6 months.  

8 Hemenway Ave.

Voted:  to open up the meeting to address correspondence related to 8 Hemenway Ave.

Nancy:  We have Mr. Rose and Mr. Amero here to speak about 8 Hemenway Ave.  Mr. Amero, would you like to begin?

Mr. Amero:  I brought my engineer here tonight as he is more qualified to speak to you.

George Samboris , Engineer:  Regarding the as built conditions that are on the ground right now, there has been some minor revision from the existing site plan that was presented in the Order of Conditions.  The house was originally proposed to be set at an elevation of 82.7.  The garage floor is now at 82.07; approximately 8 inches lower than what was initially intended.  The original plans had showed a series of stone wall and wood retaining walls.  The homeowner elected to make them all stone walls, and they have not dissolved any wood walls at all.  There was also a short wall adjacent to a portion of the existing stone wall on the northerly side of the property due to the reduction of the grade by 8 inches, plus the existing final conditions were graded a little bit lower than was initially intended filled up to the top of the existing wall and there were a couple of spots were he did actually maybe add about another foot layer of stone on top of it, the stone that bordered the property line.  The initial intent of regrading under the original order of conditions was to have all the drainage on the southerly side of the house come out towards the street, and on the north side of the house towards the street, and some of the natural grade would go towards the abutting property.  The conditions that exist here now based on the as builts, they still do the same thing.  The grade is about one foot lower than what was initially intended, but it still is directed above the runoff towards the roadway for half of the lot, and for the other half goes to the street and the abutting property.  We think the changes basically to go from a wood wall to a stone wall were minor in nature.  We don’t feel that it is a major change that requires the filing of an additional Notice of Intent.

Nancy:  Paul, would you point out where the buffer zone ends from the property?

Paul:  (responds).

Mr. Samboris:  Currently, the only thing that has not been installed as yet is the bituminous concrete sidewalk to gain access from the driveway to the main entrance to the house and the final set of stairways is not installed yet.  There is only a temporary wood stairs.

Nancy:  There was a very old existing stone wall along the edge of this property here. 

Mr. Samboris:  It still exists.  The fill was grated to the top of it.

David: This diagram I am looking at confuses me.  I have one contour line that says 81 here and it says 80 down here.

Mr. Samboris:  This is supposed to be 82.

David:  So there is no 81 contour line?

Mr. Samboris:  There is.

Nancy:  Here are some pictures of the stone wall up here if anyone wants to see what it looks like on the ground.

Susan Murphy:  You said a layer of stone has been added to that stone wall?

Mr. Samboris:  Yes, or a portion of it.

Susan:  How high a layer?

Mr.Amero:  About 1 ft.

Nancy:  In this picture here, which is the original stone wall and what has been added to it?

Mr. Samboris:  I would say these lighter cobblestones were added.  These darker ones are the original ones.

David Valade:  So this is the stone wall that is finished in this picture?

Mr. Samboris:  I am not sure when this was taken, but the stained stones are the existing wall.

David Valade:  What I am looking at here is quite a bit of sediment if that is the finished wall could wash out.

Mr. Samboris: I don’t know where that picture was taken.  I have no idea in relation to where it is.

David Valade:  I can point to this picture as well.  It looks like quite a bit of stuff was washed out from the heavy rainstorms.

Mr. Samboris:  He hasn’t finished this grading.  He still has to do fine grading, put loam and seed, and do his final thing.

David:  Then why do we have an as built plan if it is not finished and built?

Mr. Samboris:  It is an as built currently as the conditions exist right now.

David Valade:  So this is a current date plan rather than a final as built?

Mr. Samboris:  Yes, it is.

David Valade:  Then what are we being asked to review and approve tonight?  The change in the stonewall?

Mr. Samboris:  Yes, that is all.

Nancy:  These pictures were taken by Mr. Rose on March 10.  I don’t know if any work has been done after that.

Mr. Samboris:  I don’t know.  These grades were taken last weekend. 

Nancy:  It looks the same to me as it does in these pictures from when I went out.  Does anyone have any more questions for Mr. Samboris?

Bruce:  Yes, in this picture here, is that supposed to be the pile?

Mr. Samboris:  This was the original wood retaining wall.  There was a stone wall along here, a wood one here, and then another wall over here.

Bruce:  So what have you done?

Mr. Samboris:  We changed them to a stone wall.  There was ledge on the property.  He incorporated part of the ledge into the work for the stone wall and made a stone wall that had about a 6 or 8 in. all in one batter. 

David Valade:  You did the honeycomb stuff in this?

Mr. Samboris:  Yes

Bruce:  What is the grade on the stone wall there?  It is kind of hard to see.

Mr. Samboris:  These are the existing grades over here.  The contours run through them, but originally the base of the wall is around 88 to 89.

David Valade:  You have a fairly steep 8 ft. drop off on the wall here.  From 96 it looks on the top it may be 8 here, almost 10 ft. down the other end, or 11 at this point.

Mr. Samboris:  Correct, and as the wall swings around the corner, it gets more of a vertical wall.

Bruce:  So are you asking us to put that in also?

Mr. Samboris:  I think the issue is that in order for him to get an occupancy permit, he has to file a site plan with a building inspector.  The building inspector indicated that this lot fell under the jurisdiction of Chapter 131, and that there was a change in the initial test from the wood walls to the stone walls, and he wanted to know what the Conservation Commission felt about the change in materials.  We can’t send the building inspector certified site plan saying that it improves the existing plan without having the commission’s blessings as to deem that the change between a wood and a stone wall was only minor modification.

Nancy:  So you are requesting that we tell you either that these changes are an acceptable amendment to your exiting Order of Conditions or if you require a new Notice of Intent filing?

Mr. Samboris:  Correct.  The grades are what was proposed on the original plan to what is on the site as of right now, the path that any runoff would travel is still the same.  They still have the infiltrators for the roof.  

Nancy:  The drywalls are for the roof liters?

Mr. Samboris:  Yes.  Basically what the entire lot did before was a cross load from the southerly portion to the northerly portion which basically had all the runoff come straight over to the brook. Now the grades as proposed and what they are doing now are taking this half and running it out to the street into the drainage system and this half will come over and land into the abutting property and half will come out to the street, and there was a reduction in runoff to the abutting property.

Nancy:  We are fortunate that we have a couple of abutters here and they are welcome to put in their comments at the moment since we have opened it up for public discussion relating to this site.  I would like to invite Mr. Rose to make some comments if he cares to.

Mr. Rose:  Yes, I do.  Thank you. 

Nancy:  This is the Order of Conditions plan that we received today.

Mr. Rose:  At the first meeting when the plan for this lot was originally proposed, I don’t have the date, the plan looked like a very good plan.  It was well thought out, it fit within the neighborhood and it didn’t negatively impact anybody or anything.  I asked at that meeting one question, and the question I asked was that the wall which is our property line, as our deed clearly reads, not be touched, and I was assured by the builder and I was later assured by the owner that was not to occur, what in fact has not happened, and what I see them proposing, is that they increased the runoff onto my property which is what this will do, and if I may Madam Chair, I have more recent pictures.  I took some pictures today of the wall, and I also have some pictures of what it looked like in the summer.  These pictures also have a yardstick included, and I believe we heard earlier that in some locations the wall had been, in fact, raised by 1 ft.  In fact what you will see in the pictures is that in places it is over 2 ft. of new fill that has actually been put on the wall.  It has been mentioned that there is new stone.  I believe what would be more accurate would be that some boulders have been in fact piled on top of the wall and dirt had been filled in behind it.  Since that has occurred, there has been leaching and sediment has basically come on to my property.  It has invaded my wife’s garden, which abutted the wall directly, and if I may add the wall itself, prior to any of this construction, was in fact a wall on both sides.  It had a base, and the stones went up to a level.  Now what has happened with this construction, and I guess you can see it on the new plan also, is that they have added a couple of feet to the top of that wall.  I have some issues.  The runoff, and we have heard earlier that the runoff increase was going to be minor, in fact the runoff is going to be major because now there is going to be runoff onto my property, whereas under the original plan there would not have been any runoff because any water coming down that hill would have been mitigated by the grass prior to the wall and would have been absorbed by the land.  Now what is going to happen is to roll over the top of the wall and directly onto my property.  The grade has been raised right over 2 ft. in spots.  The wooden wall that was originally there was not changed as was stated earlier.  In fact it appears to have been eliminated from the plan, and in fact the property line has now become the new wall.  So they eliminated a wood wall and they erected a barrier, as it were, right over the property line, and unfortunately some of it encroaches physically on my property, as the property line would have been the center of the old stone wall.  That has now been obscured and it is going to be very difficult to re-establish.  In order to re-establish the property line, I would think that any of the fill that was put on top of the wall could be seen in the pictures.  You can see the difference between the old and the new.  All that would have to be removed down to the base on both sides of the wall, the width of the wall would have to be established, and then the property line could be determined. Now that has been buried.  So I have to at this point in time express in the strongest terms possible that I would find this plan unacceptable on a number of levels, not the least of which would be the increase in runoff onto my property.

David:  I have a question about a couple of the pictures that you just gave us.  They clearly show vegetation that hasn’t started to grow this year.  I am just curious when they are from.

Mr. Rose:  I’m sorry.  These pictures were taken in the summer, and basically what I attempted to show here was that there was some grading work done, but it was minor in nature when it comes to that area over the past weeks.

Nancy:  If I could summarize what you are saying.  Correct me if my understanding is incorrect.  What you are saying is their proposed railroad’s high wall, which is shown on this plan right here, which is in the Order of Conditions and is on the approved plan, shows that this elevation line ties into an 80, so it should be about 2 ft. tall railroad’s high wall right here, and then you go maybe a couple of ft., and then you get to the stone wall.  So there should be a couple of ft. in between the railroad’s high wall and your stone wall, and you are saying that would provide a buffer for runoff.  Mr. Amero, what you are saying is you are replacing the railroad tie wall 2 ft.  So instead of having a wooden 2 ft. tall railroad’s high wall a couple of ft. back from the stone wall, what we have now is some bare earth and rocks piled up on top of the existing stone wall.

Mr Samboris:  That is correct.  The existing stone wall, as Mr. Rose has stated, is a common barrier of the property line between his and the applicant.  The surveyor has located the property line and the property line falls along the face of the wall.  On Mr. Rose’s property the wall actually falls entirely on the applicant’s wall.  The improvements to the lot reduce the runoff going to Mr. Rose’s property.  It does not increase.  The original lot prior to any construction had a cross slope that went from the right side of the plan to the left side of the plan, sloping off from elevation of mid 90’s down 70’s and it went straight into his property.  The proposed improvements and the actual improvements route 75% of the runoff into the existing roadway, which is a reduction of the runoff onto Mr. Rose’s property.

David:  For someone who is not an engineer, in looking at these, a good chunk of the runoff that used to come across where the house is, is dammed by the house and comes down the street or the stuff that was on the roof will go into the drywalls and proposes to reduce the runoff onto Mr. Rose’s property?

Mr. Samboris:  That is correct.  As far as locating property lines, which obviously has nothing to do with Chapter 131, the boundaries in this area are determined by the stone bounds in the roadway.  You wouldn’t have to undercover or dismantle part of the wall to establish the property limits.  The stone bounds is based on the roadway layout which Mr. Amero has hired a surveyor and the rebounds are currently there.

Mr. Rose:  On that issue, I will gladly provide a copy of my deed, which clearly says by the stone wall, and there is an established definition in land court for the word “by” and by means bisect.  I am sorry to contradict the gentleman, but I have been through this a number of times and that has been a decision in land court of what that verbiage actually means on a deed.  The property lines are not established by bounds in that area of Hemenway Ave., not by these concrete markers.  We don’t have them.   It is not registered land.  It is deeded land that we are dealing with, and again I will gladly provide a copy of that dead and it will clearly say by the wall.  Before, I might add, there was no runoff onto my property in all the years I have been living there.  There has never been runoff from that hill prior to any construction onto my property ever.  There is runoff now.  That is clear.  It is clear by the pictures I have submitted.  I can bring any number of people who have lived in that area for 20-30 years, and they will tell you the same thing.

Nancy:  We can’t approve work that is not on the applicant’s property.

David Valade:  I think the question is the material change going from the wood wall to a stone wall, and then a separate question you have whether or not that is impinged across your property line which is beyond what I think we can address.  But looking at this, I have to admit I am a bit confused that we have an elevation over 60 ft., 70 ft. that drops before 20 ft.  I don’t know how you can drop 20 ft. across 60 ft. and not have had runoff.

Mr. Samboris:  Heavily wooded, heavily vegetated, it just absorbed it all.  We didn’t see any.   I can clear up our hopes to explain that: 1) is to prevent any struggling whether the applicant has done work on his property or the abutted property.  As Mr. Rose says this deed says by the wall.  It is correct given any other monuments that are listed on the plan, a wall will establish boundaries, and where it says by the wall, he owns this center wall, therefore Mr. Amero also owns part of the wall.  So they both own the wall.  So he had a right to do some work on the wall just as much as Mr. Rose does; 2) to solve the drainage issue that Mr. Rose is concerned about, we can very easily establish a swale on the applicant’s side of the stone wall to direct any runoff that would be heading toward Mr. Rose’s house and direct it to the other way.  We can simply do this when doing his final grading.

David:  Your suggestion that you can do that says to me that we do need to do an amended filing because that is something we have to have on the record as part of the revised Order of Conditions.

Mr. Samboris:  Well, in the existing filing the establishment of the railroad tie wall there basically created swale.  All I am saying now is that we are going to create that swale by doing our final grading.  The separation between the wall and the railroad tie wall actually provided the swale to come out.  We will just do it with grading.

Susan Murphy:  The purpose of the railroad tie wall would be to give some stability to that.

Nancy:  Yes.   To have a flat sidewalk, and then it is going to be 2 ft. and then water could go between the stone wall. 

David Carpenter:  What is the reason for not doing the stone wall?

Mr. Samboris:  The grade of the house was installed approximately 8 inches lower than what was initially intended, and the existing wall provided most of the barrier you need to do the filling on the property that didn’t really necessitate the installation of railroad tie wall except for one small area.  The existing wall was high enough to accommodate the grade that was being done at that time.  The grading on that side will be approx. 1 ft. lower from what was originally planned.  We will still have some final grading to do.  It is probably a little bit higher than what loam grade would be right now.

Paul:  Based on the plans that are submitted now, it actually seems that the grade is 80 along here instead of approx. 2 ft. gap, so that is somewhat higher or there is more fill between the houses and wall than originally proposed rather than being lower.

Mr. Samboris:  That is not the final grade, it is the rough grade.  He still has final grading to do.  We have to meet the grade at the corner of the driveway and the driveway is 7/10^th of a foot, 8 ½ inches lower than what was originally planned, so this side is going to be lower.

Nancy:  So what you are saying is the plan you have given us today is not the proposed final either?

Mr. Samboris:  It is the existing conditions that exist there right now.

Paul:  Which don’t in keep the final grade or any proposed swale or mitigation the runoff that might be proposed.

Mr. Samboris:  It doesn’t indicate the swale, that is all.  The plan itself as it is today

is a mitigation of runoff in the existing conditions.

Paul:  Which plan?

Mr. Samboris:  Both plans that you have, the filing plan and the site conditions that exist currently right now.  Mitigated runoff that goes to the abutted property based on existing conditions.

Paul:  Yes, however while the total slope and the amount of water that would be diverted based on this new plan, certainly 75% would go that way, but comparing the existing conditions now to the proposed plan in the Order of Conditions, one of the features that existed in the proposed plan in the Order of Condition plan was to have a space between the drop off and the barrier wall, the rock wall, which would slow down whatever runoff was coming here, slow it down and mitigate somewhat before it hits the next property.

Mr. Samboris:  Or about 40 ft., it wasn’t the entire length.  That was not what the purpose was, but……..

Paul:  Whether that was the purpose there, it does have somewhat of an effect.

Mr. Samboris:  Correct

Paul:  Given with the railroad tie wall, I think you can be fairly certain that the material that was holding back would not be coming out through the holes in the wall, whereas the walls that are presented up here left the walls in a jumble of stone rather than tightly placed railroad ties, and given that there is that question I think it is legitimate to ask for a revised filing.

Nancy:  It sounds like the choices we are considering now are either do the work as initially proposed or submit a revised Notice of Intent.  Is there any further discussion.

Bruce (to Mr. Doucette):  Do you have an issue on what is going on right now?

4 Emily  Ave./Malden

4 Hemenway Ave./Melrose/Amero

Eric Doucette,  4 Emily Ave., Malden:  I have a lot of concerns on what is going on in my side.  What has happened is they put a lot of boulders separating my property line with theirs.  In some areas I have taken pictures and came to speak to someone at city hall and they said I need to send a letter to Mr. Amero.  I don’t know if that is the proper procedure and was looking into that.  In some areas along our property line, they have gone over the line onto my property, and for the last two weeks there is a bush that was on my property side that was cut down and has been laying on my front lawn, and I have been waiting two solid weeks to see if someone would have the decency to come up and remove that bush, and nothing has been done.  I have taken pictures to show where that tree was and to where the property line pole was and the bush was clearly on my side.  Again, the bush has been on my front lawn for two weeks now and has yet to be removed, it is completely dead.  Again, in some other areas along the property line they have gone over the line onto my side.  I have several pictures of it, and my main concern was the danger factor because there is such a drop off from my property to the building of the house property.  I was told that would have to be rectified by myself by a fence and it is not their concern, it is my concern. 

Nancy:  Again on that side of the property, it looks like a change has occurred from a proposed railroad tie wall with a pretty steep slope graded there to instead a big rock slope.

David:  It looks like to me what was done is to widen the area to the flat yard next to the house.

Mr. Doucette:  May I ask a question to the contractor.

Nancy:  You can address your comments to me.

Mr. Doucette:  I haven’t seen any landscaping plans.  I want to know what is the proposed plan of making the slope more secure or less dangerous.  Right now it is just a lot of rocks and if I were to have some of my friends over with their kids, if they were to fall over, they would be in deep trouble.  It has been like that for a good two months, and again I am looking into it, but they have gone off the property on five or six areas that I have taken pictures of, so much so that there was a rope line that has been torn down because of the construction.  Again, they took out a bush of mine.  I don’t want to sound like I am a tree hugger, but the bush was clearly on my property towards the front.  It has been taken down and has been laying across my front lawn for the last two weeks and it has yet to be removed.  That really does rub me the wrong way.

David:  It is okay to be a tree hugger here with the conservation commission.

Nancy:    Mr. Samboris and Mr. Amero, you are welcome to address his comments, but I would reiterate that it sounds to me and I will check to see if the other commissioners concur, but there are enough issues, both that we have brought up and the abutters have brought up to request another NOI submittal.

Motion made and second: that based on the proposed changes that we have heard, a revised Notice of Intent filing is required.

Nancy:  Is there something you would like to add, Mr. Doucette:

Mr. Doucette:  What can I do about rectifying the problem, them going over my side of the property?

Nancy:  The motion we now have on the table means that the work that is different from what they proposed to us before needs to be resubmitted for approval, and that gives us the avenue where we are required to have another public hearing and abutters will be notified in writing about the public hearing.

David Valade:  Unfortunately, in your situation what really needs is does the proposed stone wall differ enough, or that is what we discuss, whether or not they have encroached on your property something beyond what we can review here.

Burce:  My issue would be also that the rear stone wall was more a dam or would redirect the flow of water.  Now it comes straight down the slope through the wall and across the property.  That alone, especially redirects and increases some of the flow where

before it came direct down the back.

Mr. Samboris:  Is it the commission’s concern the location of the walls in relation to what was initially proposed? If Mr. Amero was to change, redo the walls on his property so they conform to the existing plans with the exception of the back stairwell, but include the wall on the side and reconstruct it the way it is shown on the plan, but do it out of stone.  Would changing the material make a difference?

Nancy:  For purposes of clarification, we need to get this plan back showing exactly what it is you proposed.

David Valade:  I think also one of the issues that we started with is the stability of the building, the wall structure itself. 

Mr. Samboris:  The point I am trying to work is if he rearranged the wall so that he could solve a wall along the side where the wooden retaining wall was, and reconsider this wall and make it out of stone, the exact location of the other one.  Does that matter to the commission?

David Carpenter:  I think the point I am trying to make is that does not provide the same sort of protection as a railroad tie wall rod.

Mr. Samboris:  It most certainly does.

Mr. Doucette:  I am having a problem seeing that.

Mr. Samboris:  I am not saying what stonewall.  You are looking at spillover, a stone wall during construction and not passing through the wall.  I am talking about putting a stone wall as shown on the existing plan.

David:  I am also looking at something to me that looks more like a pile of stones than a constructed stonewall.  My concern based on what I see here is stability, and if you are addressing that, if you are going to come in with a stone wall you will need to address that.  Whether or not it is going to look like this is not relevant.

Mr. Samboris:  What I am saying is if he takes the existing plan that is on file in this office and produces that layout but makes the wall out of stone, rather than wood, does that not constitute a change with this commission.?

David:  With a vertical 2 ft. stone wall, however the height is?

Mr. Samboris:  Yes, all as built.  He is going to put it in the exact same location,just say you are going to change materials.  That is an option to rebuild them as initially intended out of stone, not wood.

Paul:  If your client  had come here tonight and had regraded the original plans and constructed a wall as originally indicated, and came back for a similar discussion in the future, the issue then would be whether the change in material alone rather than the grade would be sufficient to do that.

George:  I am just asking to go one step further.  Would the commission see that the change in material of a wood stone for the wall.  Would that necessitate a substantial change that would require a new NOI?

David:  I can’t speak for the commission, but in my opinion if you came in with a stone wall in the same place constructed with the same gradings, I wouldn’t object to that, but I would want to see a plan.

Nancy:  And it will still be set back a couple of ft. from the old line.  But this whole side of the property, the west side of the property, that is a big stone slope.  That is a big change from what is on the ground right now, to get it back to this. 

David:  In my opinion, the change would include that it would have to meet this as well as the wall.

Mr. Samboris:  I understand that, but that is the decision he has to make, either file a new NOI or make the wall out of stone or wood, whichever he chose. 

David Carpenter:  I don’t think we are getting hung up on the material.  I think what we are talking about is the function of the structure.

Nancy:  And also if that is his intent, I would clarify and come to us with a modified version of this one, instead of this.  The wall has been changed to proposed stone wall made of this material and this is approximately what it is going to look like.  Let us know and get it clarified and approved before moving forward.

David:  If the person who made the second doesn’t object, I would be happy to withdraw my motion and move that we continue this at a future meeting where we can see one of the outlines, in essence the original plan with this stone wall on it.

Nancy:  And once again I would like to take advantage of the fact that we have two abutters here and see if they have any further comments about what we have now shifted towards discussing?

Mr. Rose:  I would see that as a reasonable next step which would get closer to what my main issue was, let’s just do what we said we were going to do in the beginning.  I think it is a positive step.

Voted:  The motion is withdrawn and we hope to hear from you again soon.

Nancy:  I am just going to annotate this as existing conditions plan instead of as built for the purposes of the discussion at our meeting tonight.  To round out the discussion, I received a letter from Mr. Rose on March 10, 2002, advising us that there was construction activity on the property adjacent, which is 8 Hemenway, and this will be put into the file records.  Attached to that letter were the 4 photographs that I passed out at the beginning of our discussion.

Hemenway Ave./Senier Property

Nancy:  Also, regarding Hemenway Ave., we have Mr. Senier here.  Are you prepared to discuss anything with the board at this time or just drop off paperwork.  You can give us a heads up as to what you find, so everybody can think about it before our next meeting and come out and take a look.

Mr. Senier:  I am giving a Notice of Intent on the house for a swimming pool in my backyard.  I have copies of the plan.

Nancy:  Have you sent it into the DEP yet?

Mr. Senier:  I have the copies here.

Nancy:  Okay, so by the time we have your hearing we should have a file number from DEP.  Specifically, what we do is someone will submit and give an informal presentation to the board, and then we will have the advertisement and formal hearing, and the abutter notifications.

David Valade:  This is that line for the wetland.  It is completely in the buffer zone of the wetland. 

Nancy:  This dry well is for the purpose of any time you need to empty your pool, you have a place to charge the water to.  We can put you on the agenda for the next meeting at 7:45 p.m.

Paul:  Will the concrete block wall remain a concrete block wall?

Mr. Senier:  Yes, what it is basically, as stated before, is the same survey.

David Valade:  Is this the lineation when you built your home, or have you had the wetland boundary reviewed again?

Mr. Senier:  It has been reviewed again.

Lewis-Monk Field  Improvements

Mark Ordway, President of the Churchill American Little League:  I am not sure I need to do a Notice of Intent. I gave Madam Chair some pictures that I have been carting around town and you are welcome to look at what I have.  Basically, what we have here is a batting cage that exists by the Ell Pond Lewis-Monk Field across from the DPW, and what we want to do is better utilize the existing cage area by putting a roof over it.  I have been to the Mayor, the Parks Dept., and the School Committee and they are all saying no problem, but they said clear it with the conservation commission.  I don’t know if that is appropriate based on what I am hearing today, so I did get a form from Madam Chair a few weeks back.

Nancy:  That is a request for Determination of Applicability.  That is what we went through tonight with Mr. Blanchard earlier, of  Parks Commission.  You saw our findings on that when he has to go and now come back with a Notice of Intent form which could happen to you or not.

Mr. Ordway:  I don’t have a surveyor out here.  I wonder if a need a survey plan on this property.  It is city property, it is not private property.  It is under the jurisdiction of the Parks Dept.

David:  I think you probably have two issues you want to address which would probably require a filing.  The first is I believe is that you are in a floodplain there.  If you are not it would be very surprising since everywhere around you is. 

Mr. Ordway:  There is a $400,000 project that is being planned to help that area.

David:  I don’t know if it is in the scale or not, and it looks like you are probably within 100 ft. of the pond or the vegetation that surrounds the pond and the little river that is coming in.

Mr. Ordway:  Definitely, I am within 50 ft.

David:  Okay, which means there are two issues that would request us to at least review it and decide whether or not you have to file beyond that.

Mr. Ordway:  Let me say I have met with the Ell Pond people and they have been to our board meeting and are actually looking to give us money to do this job because of the improvements to the site.

Paul:  The Ell Pond Committee is just another committee process so you might want to talk with them, as well as us doing a Request for Determination of Applicability.  They have gone through that process.

Nancy:  The thing is maybe he is trying to get a feel from us now and is the RDA going to be sufficient, or do we think that he needs to save a step and do a NOI anyway?

Paul:  I think what David is trying to get to, to lead you on without saying what our finding would be, is what we would be concerned about is the flooding issue and our concern there is the work that you do doesn’t bring in fill, doesn’t take up space, so it doesn’t effect the flooding that is going on.  You can’t make it work. 

David:  And by adding a roof, would it divert water in a way that it doesn’t currently go?  Ultimately, it is really for your protection because if we don’t do this we could cease and desist you or the neighbors could make everybody unhappy.

Paul:  To give you an idea of how it would go.  We would take your filing based upon if putting a roof on the batting cage is going to effect flooding problems one way or another.  Probably  not….  We can’t tell what the result would be.  That is what we would be looking after.

David:  But you might read something into the fact that we are trying to help you get this right.

Mr. Ordway:  I can tell you I took that form  traveling twice, trying to fill it out.

Paul:  The other issue would be protection of the wetlands, the pond, and whether the work that is being done would have any impact on the water, any runoff, fill material, flooding which hopefully there wouldn’t be with the roof on.

Bruce:  Now the floor of the existing batting cage, is that asphalt?

Mr. Ordway:  That is something I am looking for guidance on.  It is a very wet area, especially the frame where we play baseball.  Last year I guess we flooded the whole Ell Pond area, so I would prefer to put down a better terrain altering surface like an asphalt with a hard skin on it so the kids don’t tear it up in puddles, etc.  It is not the intent to bring in fill.  It turns out that is one of the higher areas.  The basketball court is actually about 1 ft. below the batting cage.  Unfortunately, when the kids play they dig holes and then fills water, and I would like to try to make it better.

Paul:  One thing we wouldn’t want to see is a change in elevation and in terms of impervious surfaces, if you put down asphalt one thing you would probably want to discuss would be the relative imperviousness of asphalt surface versus the compacted dirt that is presently in the batting cage which probably does not allow a lot of percolation of water.

Nancy:  A lot of these too are issues that are probably leaning more towards a Notice of Intent of an abbreviated NOI versus an RDA.issues that lean towards a NOI vs. an RDA.

David:  I would say an RDA would be appropriate because when soccer came in a number of times they put up lights and we did an RDA because it really didn’t change it.  We said it is positive, but since it is not doing any subsequent changes it is right.

Nancy:  Okay, because it is in the buffer zone, not a resource area.

David:  And it is in the floodplain, but it is not adding to the floodplain.

Nancy:   It sounds like we have a general consensus that it seems like the RDA is the appropriate form.  The second question is there someone willing to give you a little help in filling out the form.

Mr. Ordway:  I would appreciate some help.  Should I seek outside help or is there someone in the commission that can help.

Dave:  You can talk to the Parks Department.  You are going to need to talk to them anyway since they own the land.  If you are going to file it, you have to have some kind of a signature from them.

Paul:  Not for an RDA.

Mr. Ordway:  Last Thursday I was in front of the Parks Board and they approved this plan.

David:  I don’t know if Mr. Blanchard would have the time to help you but he does have experience filling out this form because he brought one to us tonight.  It may be worth it to ask some of the parents involved with Little League if they have done this kind of thing.  I would volunteer to help you but I have never done one so I could get it wrong.

Paul:  Dave Dickerson, Chairman of the Ell Pond Committee, may be able to help you.

Voted:  to have a short recess while Nancy gets the correct form for Mr. Ordway and Mr. Senier’s form.

244 Vinton Street

Nancy:  I  went with Barbara Jesse to the land owned by the city listed under conservation land. It has become a bus stop for Roosevelt School.  I signed the contract not to exceed $1,000 for removal of trees.

18 Whittier St., now Sibley St.

Glen Crowell is a contractor, and now a neighbor.  One of the property owners said Mr. Crowell has brought in a bunch of fill and it looks like it is not the kind in the Order of Conditions.  Nancy called Mr. Crowell.  Paul will look over the files and will address this issue.

Penny Hill Subdivision

Nancy drove up Route 99 with Ray Blanchard.  Work is progressing for a 6 home sub-division here.  They came in to the commission and we issued the OOC on the 20^th of March 1996. .  There is a very small area, which is in the buffer zone.  The retention/basin is in the buffer zone.  It looked like they did a little grading.  There is cable blocking and rocks up the hill.  The applicant is Brian Butler - Trustees of Realty Trust.  Is that still the owner, and where is the tax bill being sent?  Their property was subject to OOC and it is now expired and they need to come back in if they are working, but the fact of the matter is the entire property was subject to OOC.

David Carpenter:  When did they get their subdivision?

David Valade: 1996. 

Nancy:  David Valade has agreed to follow up on this property.

Bio-Diversity Day

Susan Murphy: I attended Bio-Diversity Day and was curious why there are no species in Melrose.    They want outreach in Melrose and I am willing to assist.  They are planning little trips in the Fells. 

David:  Dana Jewell and Dave Dickerson would be great resources for you.  They are on the Ell Pond Committee.  Also Barbara Jesse, botanist for the City, has a wealth of knowledge.

Voted:  to adjourn at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Pritchard

Secretary