April 19, 2001- Melrose Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes

Mr. Taylor: At this point we don't seem to be getting much information from Mr. McLaughlin. I spoke to Mr. McLaughlin, I spoke to the dentist and he said it's John McLaughlin's project, John McLaughlin says it's the dentist's project. John McLaughlin said he reviewed it with the Building Inspector, Mr. Gregorio. I dealt with John Gregorio, a great guy, and I called Mr. Gregorio and he doesn't know anything about it. I have also spoken to Mr. Schena, Public Works, who works with Joe Lynch. John McLaughlin said that they reviewed the plans too. We don't really know other than what we see tonight, we really don't know what is happening and that is a little disconcerting, but maybe that is part of the process.

Bruce: What we can do for you is leave a copy of the Notice of Intent and the plans you see in front of you and the plan in the office, so any time during the week you can go and make copies.

Mr. Taylor: In the Planning Dept. Is that on the 2nd floor?

David: 2nd floor on the other side of the hallway, about 2/3 of the way down. To let you know what our jurisdiction here, it is really with this being Zone A; it also comes under the Riverfront Act, because I believe it you have a main stream, Bennett's Brook. So there are two reasons we have jurisdiction, but what we have really is limited to making sure they file the right things in terms of the Riverfront Act, and to make sure that for any change in the runoff they have compensatory storage and don't cause any different situation in the flooding. In terms of aesthetics, that is really up to the Building Dept. or the Planning Dept. or the Board of Appeals, or whomever would also have to review this.

Mrs. D'Amico: So your only concern is the water, and they would be concerned with other things in the neighborhood, such as traffic or otherwise? We have had terrible flooding problems already and if you haven't had flooding in your home, it sounds like you have water for a few days and then you get over it. Well, it is not that simple because you have to deal with all the aftermath of the water. I myself have very bad asthma, and every time my basement gets flooded I have terrible mold problems after, trying to get all the mold and the cleanup that goes on after, and I am on medication every time there is a flood because of my asthma. Not only that, while you are trying to get the water out of the home all the doors in my house swelled, so I couldn't get my front door open. There is a whole bunch of other issues there. To say you get water in your house and you pump it out isn't the whole story, so I think that there is a lot of health issues involved too if you have this problem and I am sure we could go much further with this, and I will look into the other issues with the Planning Board as far as how it is really turning into a commercial area. I called McLaughlin's office this afternoon because yesterday morning at 4:30 a.m. this trash collection came, beeping, and this happens every week. It is not even legal to be there at 4:30 a.m. Obviously, this person doesn't really have a lot of regard for anybody living in the neighborhood. He is there to make money and then he goes and lives someplace else. I intend to inject as strongly as I can all of that. I know we chose to live there, knowing how that was zoned. It wasn't zoned, by the way, when I bought my house as flood area, and now we have to pay more for our insurance as it is, but if you try to put any additional insurance on your home or if you need to put an addition, etc. you pay through the nose for your insurance because of the zoning. I think that there enough problems there without somebody simply trying to fit more customers in so he can make more money, and I don't even know what is going on, but I am strongly against it.

Mr. Taylor: He has been an okay neighbor, trash issues aside. When he went to expand his building he sent letters out, he reviewed plans, and the process seemed a lot more above board. This time this sort of came out of nowhere. There is not a lot of input. He did that, whereas before he asked if we mind. This seems a little different this time and I am questioning why, but maybe that is more of a Planning Board issue.

Robert Schmidt, directly in back of this project at 265 Howard St.: He proposed when I called him on the phone when I received the letter that he wanted to put 14 spaces. I told him if you change that land at all, it is going to flood my yard even worse than what it does. He said he has hired Hayes Engineering, which used to occupy that property years ago, and his name is Peter, I don't know his last name, he has been with the Hayes Corporation for 20 odd years. I knew him when I lived there and I have lived there 22 years. When I see the proposal he has, it wants to put a chamber system in the ground which is going to flood my yard worse. He has hired Hayes Eng. As you see he has proposed, he wants to put a chamber systems in so what happens, I am not licensed but my cousin is and we have put septic up in NH for homes, and when you put a chamber system in which he is going to buy out of Shay Concrete in Wilmington, if you know anything about them they are just pods they put in the ground. They dig out the fill and put them in on top of the ground and leach into it. Once that whole yard is hot topped, it is going to fall into that, it is just going to back up because the land is already saturated by that point, we all know that. He knows that also because two or three weeks prior to today when it was raining real bad, I drove over and monitored the Bennett's Creek and they were standing out hoping it wasn't coming into his slab, that is how nervous he was about that. Know I know these chambers will suck in the water and then it is just going to saturate and roll right off of my property. These pictures I have here show his backyard right here, that is my yard. This is looking down the stairs in my backyard. This is his yard. We are talking about 2 ft. of water. So the water in my yard is this deep, it is this deep in that yard. Once those chambers fill up, it is just going to go. There is no other place for it to go except it is going to seek its own level. But now when the hot top is not there, it dissipates quickly because it sucks down quick. Now we have a funnel type thing, the water is just going and it can't disperse as fast into the ground.

David: I am not an engineer, but have learned over the years being on the commission, and some of what happens may depend on the soil because, like you said, when the soil reaches a certain saturation without the asphalt there, it can't take any more. If it a fairly impervious, one of the things I have learned about is peat, I don't if you have peat in the area of not, but peat almost acts like asphalt. It is that impervious to water, so if it is that type of soil when they actually put the crushed stone in, otherwise it may actually be better because it may allow the ground to hold more. Without knowing what the soil is like, I can't say, and that is some of the questions we would ask when they come in to present.

Bruce: I think that was the solution they did to that property that was next to the pumping station. It is crushed stone under the tall grass.

Peter: Are these pods open ended in the ground, or are they closed?

Mr. Schmidt: It doesn't show on the plans.

Peter: Would they go into the water table or would they just end in the barrel?

Mr. Schmidt: I would say it has to leach down to the bottom. They have to empty out whether it is the side or the bottom. It could be both for that matter. Once the water table is up to the bottom of the chamber and the chamber fills, the chamber is only going to be what it looks like maybe 2 ft. from what I can read it quick. It is going to fill up the chambers and then where is the water going to go? It is going to hit the hot top now. It is not like grass can absorb like a sponge somewhat, it is just going to go roll right over even more.

David: That is one of the things we definitely will be reviewing, the engineering calculations, what it would do now vs. what they are offering.

Mr. Taylor: I know Mr. Valade said he is not an engineer, but do any of you on the commission have any civil engineering environmental backgrounds?

Paul: I have a civil engineering degree and work for the Department of Protection Engineering.

David: There is an additional commissioner who is not here who is also an engineer, Mr. Boisselle. I am not sure what Bob's background is. Nancy Naslas has an engineering background.

Peter: Nancy Naslas has a concentration on hydrological engineering. She is very good. She is in England right now.

Mr. Schmidt: I just don't understand how once those catch basins fill up, that water is going to stream right off that hot top and fill out all our yards, and once those chambers are full, because the land is full underneath, it is just going to go.

David: You are right, but one of the things we would look at is that the chambers have enough space to hold all the water that would have been held in the ground and can't seep into it because of the asphalt being there.

Mr. Schmidt: I hope it can hold 10,000 gallons at minimum.

David: But the ground is not holding that right now.

Paul: You do have to keep in mind, whatever we require them to do or not do, it is not going to change that. What we are hoping to do is not to make it worse. That is our charge.

Mr. Schmidt: I know that you can't change the elevation or topography, but I think it is going to make it worse.

Mrs. D'Amico: We won't know until it is done and then will you undo it if it makes it worse? I know that you won't. Once he gets the okay to do this and we don't win, it is there for good. If you have made the wrong decision, we live with that forever.

Mr. Schmidt: And not only is it hard for us now if we want to sell our homes because we are in a flood plain, because the first time they said if we have a sump pump, that is okay, but now we have to have insurance for that, it is mandatory through a mortgage, and then they look out at the back yard and they see 14 cars there, SUV's and pick-ups, they stick up over an 8 ft. fence like nothing even at ground level, and he has a dumpster in the front. That dumpster will be in the back as soon as it is hot topped and there will be two companies with these dumpsters. He told us when he built that building it was going to be a two-story building. It is a three-story building, and he swore to Herb and I he had ample parking, more than enough. Well, he lied, and it is his name on the application, not even the fellow that owns the property. If, in fact, he owns the property, will anybody know?

David: That was one of the concerns that we definitely are going to address.

Mr. Schmidt: It kind of looks a little shady to me. It is not like the normal situation. If somebody is going to put a 14 car parking lot in your yard, wouldn't you want your name on it? They are not even here at the meeting. I guess to him it is not important because he doesn't live there. He probably figures it will go through and that will be it, like his building, the same thing.

Mr. Taylor: It is a little different because it was the same footprint. It was on a slab.

David: I was the commissioner who was asked to walk the building there and check out that he really had the dry wells.

Mr. Schmidt: But it was deceiving. It is a very big structure with a full third floor. We walked through it ourselves when it was framed. He has showers, kitchens, etc. in there.

Paul: It didn't affect what our plan duty was. It was on the same footprint. It was taller than the plans.

Mr. Schmidt: It was much taller. He has taken an inch, and he is going to take a mile.

Mrs. D'Amico: Isn't there a law where you can only prevent whatever the judge says you can prevent, and you can't listen to the rest. Sometimes you have to hear the whole picture to make an informed decision.

Mr. Schmidt: When it is all said and done, he is going to have 25+ parking spaces in back of the two properties.

Mr. Taylor: And I guess I question the need for that.

Mr. Schmidt: It is not a retail facility. Not counting out front, the dentist probably has an honest 7 or 8 cars and he has another 6 or 7 in front of McLaughlin Insurance. You are taking 35 to 36 spots. How many people work there?

Mrs. D'Amico: How many people can be in the dentist's chair at one time?

Mr. Schmidt: I used to go in there. My dentist used to be in there before this dentist took over and it is very small.

Mr. Taylor: Just out of curiosity, do we know the sq. ft. of the lot?

Paul: 13,307 sq. ft.

Mr. Taylor: That much?

David: The lot might be 1,097 sq. ft. If you look where it says "lot to be" up in the corner here.

Mr. Schmidt: He has more parking than the size of the building.

Mr. Taylor: Okay, 1100 sq. ft. of parking and 14 spaces.

David: We don't know if that is definitely right because where it says lot 4 down below, it says 15,300 sq. ft which I assume is the entire lot and, the parking if that is correct, looks like it is about ¼ of the lot.

Mr. Schmidt: Well, he has the parking in the front also though.

Paul: I will contact Mr. McLaughlin to see if he would like to pursue this, and if so, request that he re-notify the abutters and reschedule an upcoming hearing most likely for 2 weeks from tonight, May 3.

Daivd: Looking at the filing, the book that came with it, the indication is this is all within the river front area, and he is saying that 3726 sq. ft. would be disturbed in the river front area. I don't know if that could include whatever area he disturbs to put his catch basins, and otherwise that might not be the total impervious surface.

Paul: We have questions about the way the Notice of Intent was filed.

Mr. Schmidt: If I could read between the lines, I think he is probably paying for it. John McLaughlin told me he will probably get a couple of spaces out of that for parking. I am sure it is John McLaughlin that is fronting this whole project if I had to guess.

Mr. Taylor: The dentist told me it was John's project.

Mr. Schmidt: He is a pusher and he wants to get the max out of everything and he gets his car and is gone at the end of the day. Would it disturb you if the dumpster came at 4:30 a.m. in the morning?

Mrs. D'Amico: I am going to call him again tomorrow. I was going to ask him about it at the meeting tonight.

Mr. Schmidt: He has a two car garage in the back. He sublet that out once before he owned the property and it was like 4:30 or 5 a.m. I heard a truck in the back. I thought someone may be robbing the insurance company. He subleased it to somebody and I don't know what they were storing, they would load up a truck at about 4:30 or 5 a.m. I went over to the fence and I didn't know who I was getting involved with so I called the police. The police came down and that day John called me and he said he sub-leased that out and he said he didn't know they came that early. I told him they were there at 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. to do whatever they do. He stopped that eventually.

Moved: to close public participation.

Paul: You will get notice if Mr. McLaughlin wants to pursue this, you should get a separate notice.

Mr. Taylor: If things go through and for whatever reason it does get approved, do we have a right of appeal to DEP?

Paul: Yes

Mr. Schmidt: Does this usually happen that people don't show up?

Paul: This is very unusual.

David: I think it happened once before. I think what happened is someone came in to tell us the person wasn't going to be there because they had to be in two different towns at two different hearings at the same time.

Peter: To look on the optimistic side, maybe he has decided not to go through with it.

Mr. Schmidt: I would hope.

Mrs. D'Amico: But, wouldn't he tell you?

Peter: It would be the courteous thing to do.

David: The normal thing is we get notification that it is withdrawn if that is the case.

Paul: Well, there is also a possibility that if he did want to withdraw it, he might have tried to call Bob who is in the Netherlands right now.

Paul: Also, if there is a public hearing again in two weeks, one thing you may want to do is to have any additional photographs which is always helpful.

Mr. Schmidt: Would you like copies of photographs?

David: Generally, if you are showing us photographs at a public hearing, we do like to have a copy of them and it is best if they are dated.

36 Slayton Road - Site Visit

Paul: I got a call from the lawyer for the Slayton Road property. We had talked a couple of weeks ago about scheduling a walk-through site for this coming weekend. They don't think they will be able to have it flagged until Monday so have asked if we would be able to do a site visit next week in the early evening by 6 p.m. I have tentatively scheduled it for Wednesday, April 25 at 5:30 p.m. The secretary will let Bill and Nancy know. Bob will still be on vacation.

Paul: We have a legal notice for the Pembroke Real Estate Property. That meeting is still scheduled for May 17. We will file this so that is in the newspaper in time for that.

David: Bob is going to make sure we have a quorum because Bruce and I both work at Fidelity, and at the time he is reading the public notice we will be reminding Nancy to record that we will be leaving for the evening. Bruce and I heard from Pembroke at work and let them know that neither Fidelity nor Conservation Commission capacity will be participating.

Invoice

Voted: to pay $144.97 for services rendered by our secretary for transcription services and a cartridge for her printer, totaling $144.97.

Correspondence

A workshop on comprehensive permit law from Mass General License Chapter 40B, and it is a DACD co-sponsored workshop if anybody would like to go.

We have been invited by the MDC and The Mass Community Forestry Council to celebrate the certification of the remaining Waverly Oak as a nationally recognized Famous and Historic tree at Arbor Day, April 27 at 10 a.m. This is at Beaver Brook Reservation, off of Trapelo Rd., in Waltham, MA.

MACC Newsletter lists all the different fundamentals for Conservation Commissions. If anyone has not received it, there will be a copy here on file.

UNIV of MA - sent a letter: "Dear Mr. Boisselle: The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, through the University of Massachusetts Boston, has launched a project to develop a basinwide water quality strategy for the Boston Harbor Watershed. The watershed encompasses 293 sq. miles, includes 45 municipalities, and is home to over one million people. The water quality issues of the watershed's several sub-basins - Neponset, Mystic, Fore, Back/Weymouth and Weir - are varied and complex. Realistically, the solution to many of these problems requires a collaborative approach. We are invited to a meeting at Robbins Memorial Town Hall Auditorium, 730 Massachusetts Ave., Arlington, on Friday, April 20 from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m."

The Eastern Middlesex Mosquito Control Project is planning a spring aerial application to control mosquito larvae on April 17 and April 27 during daylight hours.

The Mass Watershed Coalition has a list of activities and if anyone is interested, they can join for $25.

75-77 Loomis Street, Malden

We have received a Notification to Abutters Under the Mass Wetlands Protection Act. Richard Marchese, Trustee, 75-77 Loomis Street, Realty Trust. They filed a Notice of Intent with Malden, seeking a determination of the boundaries of jurisdictional wetland and resource areas on the property. The address of the lot where the activity is proposed is 75-77 Loomis St., Malden, MA. Copies of the Notice of Intent may be examined at the City Clerk's Office, Malden City Hall between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Notice of the public hearing including the date, time and place will be published at least 5 days in advance in the Malden City Press/Melrose Reporter, or Malden Evening News or Malden Observer.

Mt. Hood Enforcement Order 3rd Status Report

Paul: I received a telephone message from Joe Lynch before this meeting that he wanted to talk with me, but I was unable to connect back with him because I was coaching a baseball meeting. We received a package from the Office of the Acting City Engineer, Joe Lynch dated April 19,2001:

"Dear Commissioners: In accordance with the special conditions imposed upon this permitted project under an enforcement action initiated by the Melrose Conservation Commission (dated February 7, 2001), I respectfully file this (3rd) bi-week summary report. Attached please also find copies of various information pertaining to siltation control to be deployed at pond 3 and a copy of a memorandum issued to the Board of Alderman regarding the status of the various projects under way at Mt. Hood. I, through Mayor Guerriero, requested that funds totaling $87,000 be appropriated for the purposes of rendering construction activities on the 12th fairway stable. The Board of Alderman on April17th approved said funding request. Coordination of professional consultant efforts has made great progress. With authorized funding now in place I expect that the progress will continue to a reasonable and timely conclusion. CDM and the two environmental science/engineering firms have a comprehensive vision of the Conservation Commissions expectations with regard to environmental assessment and a recommended remedial actions plan. I hope to report more fully on the environmental component of this project to the Conservation Commission at its next meeting.

On Wednesday, April 11th Stephen Spencer (environmental investigator) of the DEP conducted a detail inspection of the entire project area. I conducted a follow-up discussion with Mr. Spencer and was happy to learn and now report that he was generally satisfied with the effectiveness of the protection measures that have been deployed at the project. He supports the proposition of the Melrose Conservation Commission Enforcement Order and, in particular, its provisions regarding environmental assessment and remediation. I then contacted Robert Boisselle and he too had spoken with Mr. Spencer. Mr. Boisselle verified my understanding that Mr. Spencer's inspection is accurate. I have not yet received a written inspection report from Mr. Spencer, but expect to at some future date. When I receive the DEP report I will forward a copy to the Conservation Commission for your record."

Paul: Mr. Lynch's letter continues to detail the responses to each of the points in the enforcement order.

David: There is one that is significantly and severely lacking and is not reflected here, and that is the daily inspections that we requested, and the fact that we requested that they be forwarded to us in time for each of our meetings and to be reviewed here. We didn't have them for our last meeting. I talked to Mr. Boisselle subsequent to the last meeting and what he told me was they had been placed on Rick Amirault's desk and since Rick was no longer with the city, they had not been forwarded to us and they would be in time for this meeting, but apparently we don't have them again. I also want to go on the record as saying that I am very troubled because at the last meeting we asked Chairman Boisselle to talk to the DEP Strike Force about coming and looking at Mt. Hood, and when I spoke to him he told me they were too busy, they couldn't come, but an Alderman of the City of Melrose called and spoke to Mr. Spencer and he was here that evening. From what this says, on April 11 he came about 5 p.m. and spent 2 ½ hours working at Mt. Hood and I was somewhat surprised to find out that when the Chair of a Conservation Commission makes request they are too busy, but they can come when an Alderman makes a request. I was troubled by that. I don't know whether the problem was at DEP that it wasn't communicated to them in an accurate manner what we were hoping they could do, but I want to be on the record as saying it shouldn't have happened that way. Also, I would like to reflect on the record at the last meeting we requested water quality sampling being done at Mt. Hood. Perhaps I didn't make my intent clear in the motion. I wanted independent sampling that we are responsible for. Bob spoke to Joe Lynch and Joe told him they would do the water sampling, but from what you have for us today, we don't have the results of those water samples, and I expected they would have been done in a timely enough fashion for us to review today. I am inclined at this point to make a motion once again to cease and desist all operations at Mt. Hood because they have not complied and continue to not comply with the conditions we allowed them to continue under when Paul and I visited up there, and one of the conditions was that they report to us from a daily log their inspectional activities of the protectional measures that are done up there, and we still have not received that and it has been over a month that we have a gap in this log.

David: I make a motion that we issue a Cease & Desist Order for all filling, grading, moving of earth and other materials at Mt. Hood related to the activities of the ball field on the12th fairway or the storage of any soil or other materials anywhere on the Mt. Hood property in conjunction with/or to be used in the 12^th fairway area.

Paul: We have a motion. Would the commissioners like to discuss this motion?

Bruce: I think we should wait until we receive his hard copy report. He visited on the 11^th. We had requested that somebody go up there. Let's see what his report says before we place a Cease & Desist Order on the city.

David: But his hard copy report will not address the fact that the Engineering Department and the Parks Department both agreed that we would receive a log at least, that the barriers and otherwise would be inspected on a daily basis and for over a month now that log has not been presented to us. It wasn't presented at our last meeting which means we have got somewhere around a 4 to 5 week period that we have not had the opportunity to review those. That will not be addressed in Mr. Spencer's report. It is not part of what he reviewed.

Paul: From the evidence that we have so far, I think the Engineering Dept. appears to be taking adequate and appropriate steps to protect the wetlands and to begin the evaluation that hopefully will be to the remediation of the property.

David: But they have not complied with what we asked them to do, and that has been a continuing problem since the day work started.

Paul: I would make a distinction between issues where environmental resources that we are concerned about are being damaged or threatened to be damaged vs. a possible bureaucratic snafu or an inability to make the connection as the responsibility of the project went through the Parks Department to the City Engineering Department. It is my personal opinion that having a Cease & Desist Order for what may or may not be a paperwork exercise may be overkill for something in comparison to actions which, in fact, threaten the water resource.

David: I would agree if it were purely a paperwork exercise, but without the walk we don't know that the daily inspections are happening and none of us have the time to go up there after every single storm and on a regular basis to ensure that the barriers that have failed on multiple occasions before are correctly working, but without the paperwork that they agreed to do we have no assurance that the mitigation affect is occurring as it should.

Paul: On the other hand we have some evidence from the visits that we have been up there that the actions that have been taking appear to be holding and protecting the resources and we appear to have some documentation that the DEP inspector who did visit appears satisfied with the actions that have been taken are protective. In many circumstances, the lack of inspection reports forwarded to us sometimes can be equated to a lack of daily inspections or a lack of protection of resources. In this case at this time I am not convinced.....

David: I am glad you brought it up in that manner because I personally have made an observation that the inspectional reports that we had received to date would not and could not have been accurate. When there was snow at Mt. Hood I went up to walk to check on the work that had been done on the wall. There hadn't been snow in over a week. There was one set of footprints on the hay bales, and the only way that the hay bales could adequately have been inspected is walking on the bales themselves. The ground on both sides for a good 30 or 40 ft. was too soft. There were no footprints in there as well. There is nothing to indicate that anyone had been on or inspected those hay bales in spite of the fact that we were receiving reports that said they were in good working order. There is no way that someone could have checked that without leaving footprints or other evidence that they had been there.

Voted: to open for discussion from the public.

Alderman Dunn, City Hall, Melrose: First of all I don't know how much this commission is aware of, but one of the things that have been going on obviously has been an outside audit. One of the sites in the preliminary report and it is only preliminary because every time they turn around the pile is getting bigger, it is the Clerk of the Works of the Project apparently who is supposed to be making your reports and the other reports is in environmental landscape management, who also has one of the contracts on the project. So I don't know who has been making reports to you, but the clerk that was hired has been cited in the preliminary report of the audit for both conflict of interest and for not performing the work of clerk. I would suggest to you it is the Clerk of the Works that would have been responsible for the day to day inspections. That is #1. #2, Mr. Lynch was before us Tuesday night basically saying wetland replications and these sort of issues that have not been addressed, and the engineering work that has not been addressed will not be within hopefully 20 or 30 days, whatever the bidding process on emergency and replication is. I don't think anybody that has been up to Mt. Hood has been able to walk away from there without saying this is just a disaster. I would think the last thing that this Conservation Commission would want is: 1) knowing you are not getting the reports. I would suggest it is none of your business why you are not getting them, the fact of the matter is you are not getting them. Those were terms and conditions that were required by a vote. I would suggest to you that the real question is how in the world can the vote to lift the Cease & Desist Order stand in light of the fact that they did not meet the terms and conditions for the lifting of that order. They came in before you and said look we will do this, this and this. Here are the requirements to have you lift it and they haven't done it for whatever reason, ran out of paper, who knows. I would think one of the real problems we are having in this city throughout this entire thing is everybody has been looking up saying, well gee should we do something now. You issued a Cease & Desist Order. I have to very seriously question when somebody doesn't meet the terms of that lifting as whether or not that Cease & Desist Order is still in effect, so I am not sure if I was chairing this meeting I might be looking at Mr. Valade and suggesting his motion is superfluous because they haven't met the terms and conditions for lifting. The simile is like trying to find a German officer in 1946, there apparently weren't any. Nobody was in charge here.

David: A complete lack of accountability.

Mr. Dunn: Complete, and I know the board is slowly creeping up on it and if we can get one more vote we will be there. But the reality is work has stopped up there right now. They have stopped bringing in fill. A Cease & Desist Order, or reinstituting the Cease & Desist Order, procedurally I would suggest it is already reinstituted because they haven't met the terms and conditions. That is what you are dealing with here. Whether what is going on there is right, wrong or indifferent. They didn't meet the terms and conditions. If I came in to you and wanted to do some work on my house and I needed a permit and you gave me a permit where you lifted the order based on those terms and conditions, and I didn't meet them, I suggest you would be right down there saying John, guess what, the Cease & Desist is back in effect. Come in and see, hand us the documents and we will lift it. So it is time we stop letting the tail wag the dog here. I think he is actually right. I think it should be in place and try to get some sanity in this process. Thank you.

Terry Waugh: 357 Porter St. Every wetland area up there has been compromised. When you go up there, there is no longer clean water, it is gray and it is dirty. If you disturb it is all clay. If this is so destroyed that you can't get it back, who is going to restore it? Is the city going to have to pay for this? The hay bales are all floating, it is a joke. There is no accountability because no one goes there checking on it. Every wetland area there is an urgent clay right into every single area, and pond 1 and 2 are gray areas, and 3 is a disgrace. Everyone is very concerned about the ballparks for the kids. What about conservation issues? That should not have been put on a back burner.

David: What about the kids that fish there, on ponds that may be dead soon if they aren't already?

David: If it would make the chair and other members of the commission more comfortable, I would be amenable to amending my motion so that this Cease & Desist Order would not take effect before closed business next Monday, the 23rd, in which time the chair could contact Mr. Lynch and whomever else is appropriate within the city, check to ensure that the records are intact, that the inspections have been occurring as appropriate, and if they haven't been then at that point and time this would go into effect, which I think would address the concern you are talking about, then it just becomes whether or not they are doing it, rather than whether or not they sent the records to us.

Bruce: I think the motion should be more along lines that they should receive a letter from the commission reminding them that the Cease & Desist Order has not been lifted until they meet the conditions.

David: See that is not correct, because we did partially life the Cease & Desist Order to perform certain actions and one of the things we requested as the basis of that is that they did do daily inspections and that we received the inspections through I think Wednesday, prior to our Thursday meeting, to be reviewed at our meeting.

Bruce: But those were retaining walls we are talking, the finish of bringing in loam.

David: That is true.

Bruce: The retaining walls, the barriers to protect the wetlands, those were the things that were lifted. That work continues. It is continuing with bringing in loam, the spreading of the loam, the spreading of the fill that they brought in, that is still under the Cease & Desist I understand, and I also need to remind everybody here that by the Massachusetts Conservation Commission, they said that they need to vote and have a quorum of all the commissioners, which means that whatever we agree on tonight, all four of us have to agree to it.

Paul: As an explanation to the public, we have I am not sure whether you would call it a legal opinion, but an opinion from the Massachusetts Association Conservation Commission based upon the legal rulings that have taken effect.

David: The technical terms would be that they require an absolute majority, which is the majority of the members of the commission as opposed to a simple majority which is the majority of the commissioners present and voting.

David: At this point and time since no one has second my motions, it has effectively failed anyway and the point becomes mute.

Bruce: I move that we send the City of Melrose a letter reminding them that only portions of the Cease & Desist Order have been lifted, that no other action shall be taken at Mt. Hood until the remaining conditions set down in our Cease & Desist Order are met.

Voted: to send a letter to Joe Lynch, City of Melrose, specifying which sections the Cease & Desist Order are still in effect and what type of work is physically allowed in the current Cease & Desist Order, sending a copy to the Mayor and the Board of Alderman.

David: When you send the letter, as acting chair, could you send a copy to the Mayor, because my belief at this point and time is that it has bounced around enough places within the City of Melrose that I am not sure who is responsible for it, but the Mayor is ultimately responsible for what happens in the city and should take the appropriate action to ensure the correct city department handles, because by the time they get it they may decide the acting park commissioner is now responsible for the project again which sends us into another bureaucratic route and nightmare which we have been through since the day this started.

Bruce: I think we should a copy to the Board of Alderman in that case too.

Paul: I will write that letter tomorrow and Email it to Bruce to review it before I send it out.

David: I would like to also discuss the water quality tested because I had hoped that we would have seen results from it by now. We have had a second number of the public come to us and say that that have seen sediment discoloration and otherwise in 1^st pond which means we have a severe infiltration that if it continues and it is in 1^st pond, it is eventually going to end up in Towners & Swains Pond. I guess since the chair forwarded the request for water quality testing to the Acting Superintendent and Acting City Engineer, my belief and feeling last time was that we are going to do this independently and that he was going to use Aquatic Control to do the testing for us.

Voted: to make the motion again that we request in this case independent testing to perform at Conservation Commission expense by our preferred vendor which is Aquatic Control and that the testing take place at the entrance to 2^nd pond, the exit to 2^nd pond, the entrance to 1^st pond and the exit to 1^st pond. We have 4 points as the water flows out of 3^rd pond into 2^nd, where it comes out 2^nd, where it comes into 1^st, and where it goes out to 1^st.

Bruce: And the entrance to Towners.

David: At this point I don't know that we want to ask for entrance at Towners until we see evidence that it is coming out of 1st pond, and I agree that if that would be a follow-up action and that the testing be for sedimentation and other suspended part particular matter that could result from runoff from the activities related to the development of a ball field and other at Mt. Hood.

Voted: to open the meeting up for public discussion.

No discussion.

Voted: to close the meeting for public discussion.

Moved to adjourn 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Pritchard
Secretary

Minutes of April 19, 2001