At the last meeting the commission received a letter from Gayle
& William Rose concerning a situation on the street of Hemenway
Ave. The commission sent a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Rose on 4/12/00,
inviting them to attend tonight's meeting (4/20/00) at which time
they would review the 3 Hemenway Avenue file to determine what action,
if any, should be taken.
Mr. Rose: In my letter of 10/28/99 the main question that I had
was on the berm that is in the middle of the roadway. We have information
that the Conservation Commission approved the berm, or at least they
gave some kind of acknowledgement that there was no problem with putting
it there and it would resolve a problem. The real issue is that the
berm redirects water from its historical flow, sends it down Hemenway
Ave., and as a consequent it ends up on my property, flooding out
my wife's garden. What I am basically asking is at what meeting was
this approved, and why weren't abutters notified so that they would
have some kind of input into this. Right now I am living with a flooding
situation that didn't exist before.
Bob: You have always had a flood issue down there.
Mr. Rose: I have never had a flooding situation in Gayle's garden,
not with water running from Maple Terrace on the hill.
Bob: You have always had flooding on other issues in your area.
Mr. Rose: The water table issues, yes.
Bob: The berm was involved with the resurfacing of a driveway. I
don't believe there was an approval for the berm. There is an approval
for the resurfacing of the driveway. The berm was installed and we
looked at it and the water didn't seem to be doing anything except
going onto the property of Petrella. It seems more of a hindrance
than anything else.
Mr. Rose: A hindrance to what?
Bob: To Mr. Petrella and the water going on his property.
Mr. Rose: When it really rains, the water coming down Maple Terrace
slides into Hemenway Ave., hits that berm now and then rather than
going into the swale that was between the Petrella and the Dantona
property and into the back of the wetlands, instead it is redirected
by the berm down Hemenway Ave. towards my house. It crosses Hemenway
Ave. over to my side of the street, and then because of the pitch
of the existing elevations that are now there in the roadway, it goes
right into Gayle's garden and floods it. Prior to the installation
of the berm we did not have that problem.
Bob: Is that berm going to be removed with the new betterment that
is going in?
Mr. Rose: What betterment? The betterment that we don't have a date
for yet?
Bob: I just read what is in the paper and that the street is going
to be done over.
Mr. Rose: There is a proposed betterment to redo the street, but
there is no date or commitment when that betterment is going to occur.
In the meantime we are being flooded. If that betterment is going
to occur in one year, two years, six months, we are still being flooded.
Gayle is losing vegetation. She already lost part of it. She is planting
all different plants now for that area because it is constantly wet,
where it was not before.
Bob: If we tell Mr. Petrella to removal that berm would all flooding
cease? I dont' want to see in three months from now that you still
have a flooding problem and the berm is gone.
Mr. Rose: Well if other elevation changes haven't impacted the normal
flow of the water, I would say it will solve the problem. The first
issue that I had was a little bit uncomfortable in hearing that the
Conservation Commission had approved the installation of a berm within
the middle of a roadway.
Bob: A private way. I think that belongs to Mr. Petrella. Isn't
that the private way that we talked about.
Mr. Rose: No, it is a private way, but there are other restricting
issues that they have in their deed.
Paul: Did the Conservation Commission vote at any point on that
berm?
Bob: No
Paul: So that is the direct answer.
Bob: The berm is an illegal aspect and we will ask Mr. Petrella
to remove it.
David: Is the berm within the 100 ft. buffer zone?
Bob: I don't have the measurements.
Mr. Rose: Yes, it is. From the plans I have, it is within the 100
ft. buffer zone.
David: The reason I asked is, if it is not, we have no jurisdiction
over it.
Bob: I will have to get another file on that. If you are looking
at this and where the berm is, the 100 ft. buffer zone is almost facing
Mr. Rose's property and going at a 45 degree angle upward, and the
berm is way up the top beyond the buffer zone. I will get another
map on that.
(Bob located another map and Paul reviewed it while the meeting
continued)
Paul: It seems clear that side of the street falls within the buffer
zone so we would have jurisdiction.
Bob: Do you agree this particular berm is illegal?
Paul: It requires the conservation approval if it falls within the
100 ft. buffer zone. They would have to file with us and we have no
record.
Bob: We will request the berm to be moved at this point, Mr. Rose.
James J. Petrella, 3 Hemenway Ave.: I purchased my property from
the Cefalo Brothers. The property was built approximately 4 ½ to 5
years ago. The area we are talking about - my whole driveway sank.
The water was approximately 2 ft. deep in my driveway. I went to the
Engineering Dept. and made a vain attempt to try to get some assistance
out of somebody in city engineering, be it Joe Lynch. I told him that
our property was being flooded and it is not a natural flow of water.
It comes up out of the middle of the street on Ireson Street and I
invite you all to please take the time to go up there while it is
raining and please look at Hemenway Ave. and you will see there is
no water whatsoever that flows on anybody's property but my own. I
also have videotape if you would like it. I want to pass this photograph
around. All of the trees on the right hand side of that picture and
all of the locusts which fall within 100 ft. of the so called buffer
zone have been taken down without anybody's permission, without a
permit.
Bob: Mr. Petrella, we are not involved with any trees. That is a
whole issue in itself.
Mr. Petrella: I am trying to explain that since the trees were taken
down in late January or early Februay, the ground level water has
just jumped up dramatically. In the photograph you will see this is
the right hand side which is my side of the street. In some of the
other photographs which I just happened to take, they show the so
called berm, and it shows the water still coming onto my property.
I would be more than happy to take the berm down. I am not here to
argue or complain, but when I went to the city for help, you have
to understand that the city told me "no, it is a private way,
you guys are out there on your own". So be in effect that my
driveway sank, probably about 2 ½ - 3 ft. when my yard settled after
it was built, I had no other choice but to repave it and I spent a
lot of money on paving it.
Bob: Resurfacing your driveway is not the issue here, Sir. Basically,
it is the berm that we are trying to alleviate. The sad part about
it is that when the water comes off the hill, the natural route for
that water is straight down through your property to the wetlands
at this point. Diverting it in either way sends water everywhere except
going to the natural area that it has been going to for years before
your house was there, that was down road.
Paul: To clarify, when the house was built the Order of Conditions
specify that there would be a swale there.
Bob: Technically, you are "accepting the water coming off that
hill".
Mr. Petrella: Yes, I am just trying to get it to flow properly between
my yard and Mr. Dantona's yard. I asked somebody from conservation
to check it for me to make sure there was no water going on anybody's
property but my own. I believe you came down while it was raining.
Bob: Yes, I did come down.
Mr. Petrella: I just want to have it on record. Did you encourage
the board members to come down while it is raining out and take a
look and see where the water is going because I don't want anybody
to be mistaken. The berm was an attempt to make the water flow, and
we suffered two huge storms in the area and there is a high water
table. I encourage you to look at the opposite side of my house on
the right hand side and look at that conservation swale that the city
required be put in, and that dried up and everything over there is
dead. All the trees are dying on that side of my property. In the
photographs that you see here, I just want it on record that I did
not cut the trees down. I don't know what the law is on cutting down
trees within 100 ft. of a buffer zone. Is there such a law? May I
ask that question? Is there a law of cutting locust vegetation and
mature trees down within 100 ft. of the buffer zone?
Paul: The buffer zone itself is there to protect the wetland. Not
having any trees does not necessarily effect the quality of the wetland.
So the present absence of the trees would probably be irrelevant to
the wetland.
Mr. Petrella: But if you had three or four mature trees and those
trees did not take water up to the top of them anymore, do you think
there would be an increased water problem in the street?
Paul: It is hard to say.
Mr. Petrella: If you took all those trees away are you telling me
there wouldn't be a problem on the street with water coming up out
of the ground? I am just curious because this work was all done a
while ago and no one complained about water until the trees came down.
Paul: I believe there was a complaint to the conservation commission
last fall.
Bob: There was an issue at that time with the construction of a
new street on Hemenway and we were waiting for the Engineering Dept.
to respond back, but with what Mr. Rose has said it has been dragged
out.
Mr. Petrella: Did you drive down my street, Mr. Boisselle, while
it was raining?
Bob: Yes.
Mr. Petrella: Did you witness any water from my property going on
to Mr. Rose's property?
Bob: I noticed the water splitting and moving down street and moving
onto your property.
Mr. Petrella: Thank you, it is on my property though?
Bob: It moved both ways.
Mr. Petrella: That is correct. Did you see it flooding Mr. Rose's
property at all?
Bob: I saw a pool of water at the end of the street.
Mr. Petrella: Yes, that is from the digging when they put the new
pipes in.
Bob: This was recently. There was a large pool of water at the end
of the property and there was a pool of water going your way.
Mr. Petrella: I also want to say that I have a video tape of Walls
Pond rainout and anybody is more than welcome to see it. That is all
I have to say.
Paul: One thing before your leave. It is in the conservation commission's
interest, and I think everybody's interest, to try to get the water
to flow where it was originally intended to, which I think is what
you are attempting to do and I think that certainly the neighbors
and Mr. Rose particularly would like the water to go that way. Originally
this was the conservation commission's intent when the original Order
of Conditions was approved.
Mr. Petrella: At the right hand side of my property there are two
drains the size that a tractor trailer can drive through. They completely
changed that side of the swale on that side of my property without
notifying the abutters and I am a direct abutter. I encourage you
to come down and take a look at it. I don't know who approved the
plans, apparently they were put in without the abutters knowing it.
That was a natural flow of water that was also changed without anybody
knowing. The street is a mess and the city required that to be done,
but yet they didn't require anything on the opposite side where the
water flow was coming. I did ask them to install some type of a drain
there and as quoted by Mr. Lynch, he said "no, I could not install
a drain there to help us with the water problem" and I was more
than willing to foot the entire bill for it. If you would be so kind
to direct us on how we can solve the water problem, I would be more
than happy. If the city betterment doesn't go through, then I have
no choice but to apparently try to stop this water flow. If you go
up to Ireson Court between the Olson and I believe the Bickford house,
you will see the water is coming right up out of the middle of the
street. It is not natural rain water, but there is something happening
under there where somebody is not maintaining the street up there
and it flows out and onto our property. I encourage you to take a
ride up there and take a look while it rains and look for yourself.
Bob: Mr. Petrella, at this point would you remove the berm?
Mr. Petrella: Absolutely.
Bob: Thank you very much.
Tony Dantona, 3 Maple Terrace: I went before the board with my pool.
On the plan we had built a retaining wall, for what was happening
was the swale was eroding into the wetland. We built a big beautiful
wall there. We did change the elevations a bit, but we had to protect
the dirt from eroding. The berm might be a superficial issue. Is that
the end of it or are we going after the wall, or is that wall okay
with conservation?
Bob: At this point we are only talking about the berm and that is
what came in the letter.
Mr. Dantona: I figured I would save us coming to another meeting.
Bob: We are not here to face anything else at this point.
Paul: We may need to look at the whole area in total.
Mr. Dantona: We are coming in on one area, when it is the whole
area that has to be looked at. When you talk to the city, they don't
want to listen to you. They think that the problem is right there.
Bob Senier - 5 Hemenway Ave. - I believe you have been there several
times when it was raining and is it correct the water does build up
where I installed the water pipe? I built the latest house there at
5 Hemenway Ave. That is because everything has been tied up in court.
If it was repaved, I think that would solve the problem. I have seen
you checking out the culvert a few times. Nobody's property is getting
flooded now from the street water. There is a puddle where I installed
the water main, but if we could move on and get the betterment done
and get it paved, everything would be set.
Bob: Again, it is a private way and you have to work with the city,
with your alderman, etc.
Mr. Senier: I just want to have it on the record that nobody's property
is getting flooded and you have been down there, and you are a witness
to that.
Bob: Some of the properties are being flooded at this point; Mr.
Petrella's property is being flooded.
Mr. Petrella: What he is trying to state, Mr. Boisselle, is that
he wants the board to go down there and see for themselves when it
rains out. That is all we ask. Let it rain for a day, take a ride
by in your car, go look at my yard, look at Mr. Dantona's yard, check
out Mr. Senier's yard, and please look in Mr. Rose's yard.
Bob: We will.
Mr. Petrella: That is all I ask. Thank you very much.
In accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law Chapter 39,
Section 23B, Melrose Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing
Thursday, April 20, 2000 at 7:45 p.m. in the Mayor's Conference Room,
2nd Floor, City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss #2
and #4 Sibley Street construction, submitted by Glenn Crowell of 18
Whittier St. for the proposed construction of a two lot subdivision
roadway and two single family houses. Any interested person wishing
to be heard in this discussion should appear at the time and place
designated. Melrose Conservation Commission, Melrose Free Press, 4/13/00.
Bob: We are in receipt of a letter from Mr. Som.
"We have received your letter dated 3/20/00 regarding Sibley
Street subdivision and have made it part of our record. We also forwarded
a copy to your letter to the conservation commission.
This is an application of Glenn Crowell land of Sibley Street. I
am the owner of a duplex addressed 27-31 Cutter Street, Melrose, further
to voice opposition to the subject application doing the public hearing
held on Monday, 2/28/00 at City Hall. I want it to go on record with
the following: On 12-3-97 the Melrose Conservation Commission issued
an enforcement order under Mass Wetland Protections Act by establishing
that my property located on 27-31 Cutter Street was on or bordering
a wetland. A Cease and Desist Order was issued. The subject application
is on the same parcel land, which was determined a wetland by the
commission. Due to the above, my construction was delayed and I had
to undergo incurring additional expenses. My direct and indirect expenses
were significant. In the public hearing held on 1/21/88, the commission
determined that the area established by the commission as wetland
was significant to the interest of ground water supply, flood control
and storm damage prevention, and prevention of pollution. A very restrictive
order condition was issued 2/05/88 (copy attached). Since all the
above actions by the City of Melrose official by the commission was
based upon the parcel of land on which the subject application has
been filed. I would expect all the official bodies of the city to
be fair and consistent if the application is approved and a permit
to build on the subject parcel of land be granted. I would expect
the city to formally re-send the Order of Conditions dated 2/16/88
and compensate me for the direct and indirect expenses I was forced
to incur."
Bob: Going through the files of Mr. Som, I find that he had an Order
of Conditions issued to him and he seems to highlight a specific one
which was #18 which states upon sale of the property the conservation
commission must be notified in writing by the buyer that he or she
has been made aware of these Order of Conditions. He has a Certificate
of Compliance which was dated 2-16-88, so that closed the books on
that.
Paul: Why is he subject to the act?
Bob: He was doing construction on his home, it looks like an addition.
Part of the application reads: "I am unable to establish the
buffer zone and as such I did not know how much of my lot area is
within such buffer zone. If a design criteria can be established as
to perform necessary design and adapt appropriate, mitigating measures
with the commission approval to ensure that my work does not affect
the resource area." I guess the commission at that time did inform
him of the appropriate mitigation type work and it generated the Order
of Conditions.
Sam Sleiman: Engineer for the applicant. The applicant is Mr. Glenn
Crowell - the site is on Whittier St., the owner of the property owns
#18 Whittier St. This is a paper street that exists today. Cutter
St. ends right here. This is the existing pavement on Cutter Street
and there is a driveway to this garage of Whittier St. There is an
existing house and shed on location here and going to the next page,
you have got the existing concrete culvert. If you got out there you
will see it is sticking out of the ground and going under in here
all the drainage on Whittier Street connects to this culvert. There
is a wetland back in here and that was delineated by Mike Howard and
flags were set over there and this is the 100 ft. buffer zone from
the wetland in this location. The applicant is proposing to do a subdivision
plan, build the paper street that exists right now, connect it between
Cutter Street and Whittier Street, 24 ft. wide pavement with sidewalks
on both sides, and provide for two single family lots. The profile
of the street as you can see coming from Whittier Street will be going
up for a certain distance and coming down all the way to the intersection
in here. The high point would be in this location here at Station
Complex 00 and the water from this location will be going down to
an official catch basin which would be connected to the drainage system
that exists on Whittier St. The water from here going back will be
captured by two catch basins in this location and connected over an
existing 18 in. drain that will connect on the existing culvert. This
catch basin right now is connected to this manhole and connected all
the way to the existing concrete culvert. The jurisdiction of the
act obviously is on the construction of the road and construction
within this slab does not fall within the 100 ft. buffer zone. You
can see our filing is for both the roadway construction plus the single
family house construction. Actually it is just for Lot 4 and the road.
The description covers both lots, but the actual fee covers one lot.
It is what the law requires. This is two lot single family houses
that we feel will be existing drainage, and with the small amount
of roadway in here we will be able to connect to the existing drainage
system and maintain the same flow that always was going to the culvert.
Bob: Are you getting permission to plug into the culvert.
Mr. Sleiman: No, we are not connected to the culvert. The culvert
is already connected. There is an 18 in. by going from this catch
basin to this manhole. There is an existing drain that goes from here
all the way to the culvert. We are just connecting right into that
drain. We are not going into the culvert at all. It is the same situation
here. We talked to the Engineering Dept. I think they sent a letter
to the Planning Board indicating they are in favor of this drainage
system and that storm management is not required for this small project.
Originally we stopped the road short over here. We were required to
extend it for snow storage when the city plows the street. Over here
are the proposed hay bales to protect the wetland during construction.
Two things are important in here that I want to mention. Originally
we proposed to have basements on these houses. We are now proposing
to start on grade no basements on these houses so we don't get into
water problems. The elevation of these houses will be basically higher
than the street by about ½ - ft., so there will be some fill in this
area as you can see by the grading. I just received the soil report
from the engineer who did four tests, one here and three in the road.
Basically they are talking about somewhere from 4 to 8 ft. of fill
material and peat. After the 8 ft., there is suitable material for
foundation to bear on, so they are recommending that we remove the
peat in the foundation area down to 8 ft. and in the area of the road
where we have the utilities, and we will be proposing that to the
planning board when we do the presentation to them. Their report (and
we will get you a copy of it Mr. Chairman) does talk about the basement
in the houses that the water table is about 2 ft. from the ground
right now and if you do basement, you have to put drainage around
the basement, but we decided no basement in this area, so we will
be higher than the water table that exists over there right now. That
is basically the proposal in here for these two houses and the road.
Bob: Any questions?
David: Is the property currently subdivided, or is that something
you are going to do?
Mr. Sleiman: We are going through the Planning Board right now for
the subdivision.
David: Is it all one lot including the existing house and the proposed
two new lots?
Mr. Sleiman: There are four lots there. The front lot is staying
as it always has.
Ed Farrell: The front lot stays as it is. It has always been one
lot. The other two lots were three lots and they are making them two.
David: If I am reading it right, the hay bale is actually on a uphill
slope to the wetland. The road is 49 ft., it gets to 50 ft. and then
drops down to the wetland.
Sam: Yes, there is a low depression going down to an area of the
culvert so it is on an uphill, you are right, but you never know when
they do the construction of the hill.
David: The water in essence would all end up flowing into the culvert
through the existing drainage in the area and you are just going to
have it through different drainage?
Sam: Yes, I encourage you to go and look at it. It defines storage
of all the water that collects from here does go into the culvert
where this pipe goes in there. In the reality all of the water either
coming from Cutter Street to the catch basin to the existing pipe
or from here, or from the site, goes into that culvert.
David: Near the catch basin then you are saying there is an opening
where the water goes into the culvert?
Sam: There is a little opening there in the culvert that we should
probably close.
Bob: Does the wetlands water ever flow into the lots at all?
Mr. Sleiman: I have never seen it doing that. We visited the site
last year in some heavy rain and I haven't seen it overflow. I know
the culvert gets over-capacity and sometimes the drainage within the
streets get a little bit backed up, but that is what we heard from
the city engineer.
Bob: 4-8 ft. of peat. Are you intending to put piles under the concrete
slabs?
Mr. Sleiman: No, the geotechnical conditions were to remove the
peat for 8 ft. and to put crushed stones and put back the foundation
respectively.
Bob: So you are removing all the peat?
Mr. Sleiman: 8 ft. within the area of the work area.
David: Are you doing 8 ft. where the street is as well?
Mr. Sleiman: Where the sewer and the water is because we don't want
those to settle.
David: So you won't strip the whole thing?
Mr. Sleiman: We are going to have to talk to the engineering dept.
and see what their recommendation is on that. As you can see, the
street is down here. We are doing some significant fill in some areas.
That may be good enough for the spread of the street, but they may
insist to take all the peat, and if they do we are going to have to
do that.
Bob: There is quite a drop along that property line - 7-8 ft. drop?
It is probably where the lowest point of the property is.
Mr. Sleiman: We are trying to bring it back up.
Bob: If you are standing in the culvert, your property's space is
coming from the opposite side of the street and just sort of tapering
down toward the culvert. Is there going to be the same levels at the
top of the culvert or lower?
Mr. Sleiman: The house would probably be higher than the top of
the culvert.
Bob: What about the property in the back?
Mr. Sleiman: The property in the back is the same thing. As you
can see in here with my grading, I am not touching the area.
Bob: Do you leave a buffer zone of 10 ft.?
Mr. Sleiman: More than that, actually about 20 ft. that I am not
touching. And by the way, the culvert in here and in here does not
have an easement. The city does not have an easement of the property
and we are including that easement as part of this proposal.
Bob: I was there at least 4 times this month and last time it was
raining during a rain storm. There was no water noticed on the property.
The area was wet, but there was no standing water to be viewed. The
culvert itself had a large crack that went right across the top of
it at one section, probably up in near the red area, which was about
2 inches. You could actually hear the water flowing. The water was
really moving through the culvert and the water was backing up at
the other end and it was sort of spreading out. But again, even at
the lowest point (I have pictures here) shooting towards the low point
that was probably here and shooting towards the lowest area, you'll
see the vehicle and you can almost see a 6 or 7 ft. drop, and there
is no water again flowing towards the lower section, there was a great
deal of absence of water at that point.
Dave: Is the city engineer comfortable with your calculations about
adding the water to that 18 inch pipe?
Mr. Sleiman: Yes
David: Did you put together a riverway filing for us?
Sam: We don't feel that there is a riverfront area.
David: In prior public hearings that we have held, when almost the
entire project is within 200 ft. of that stream or just a culvert,
we have indicated that is indeed within the riverfront. In essence,
it is about a two page form, and from our prospective it is more of
a mere formality than anything, but if you could provide us with one
that would be useful I think.
Sam: We would have to change the Notice of Intent because a Notice
of Intent says it is not and we have to do an analysis. The DEP right
now, to be honest with you, is stricter on the riverfront than ever
before and they require an analysis that is very detailed, economic-wise
and everything else. If it is just a form we have no problem, but
I think it is a lot more than that. If the commission determined it
is a riverfront then we will have to, I just don't think it is a riverfront.
Bob: Is there a waterway with a name on it? It looks like a Spot
Pond brook there.
Mr. Sleiman: I put that in there as a brook.
Bob: If the waterway has a name to it, it is going to be considered
a riverfront at this point.
David: It is not going to have an affect. It is a more mere formality
I think in this case. I am only one commissioner. I don't speak for
everyone else.
Bob: The term that DEP is using is if the waterway has a name to
it, it then becomes part of the riverfront act.
Mr. Sleiman: I will check on the name and see if that is recorded
anywhere. We will revise the Notice of Intent and include a riverway
form.
David: There is nothing I have seen here that says this should not
be done. I just want to be sure you get everything done so someone
can't come and give us grief and you grief later on.
Bob: Is there anyone here against this project?
Joseph Sullivan - 24 Whittier St.: I am not for it or against it.
I have concerns that everything will be done right, not only for the
residents in the immediate area, but for the city as well, and not
just pass it for additional revenue.
Bob: That is why we are asking for more detailed information concerning
the form, etc.
Mr. Sullivan: I know at the last meeting I voiced my concerns. My
property is located probably about 5 or 6 ft. above Mr. Crowell's
only because the embankment there drops down anywhere from a foot
right at the street. It goes back to maybe 2 or 4 ft. When it rains
all day, my cellar is wet.
Bob: That is because of the high water table, and that is what this
gentleman is saying at this point, there will be no basement at this
time for these homes.
Mr. Sullivan: My concern is my house gets water. Now not only taking
down trees, but I believe you are going to raise up the whole level
of that land, right?
Mr. Sullivan: In some area we are cutting and in some area we are
raising down here for the road and houses, but overall it is balanced.
It is not something that we are doing differently than what is already
there. You are not going to raise the area by taking down trees.
David: The second thing we are pointing out is since the borings
indicated this is mostly peat, one of the things I have learned of
peat is it almost like pavement in terms on how well the water goes
through it. They are getting additional draining to help some of what
the peat does already.
Mr. Sleiman: In reality, when you put crushed stone instead of peat,
you get better drainage.
David: It is worth pointing out, you are only putting crushed stone
in the street.
Mr. Sullivan: When I bought the house the driveway was there and
I haven't changed anything, but it is on Sibley St. and it probably
encompasses ½ of my driveway which is on Sibley St. and it pushes
one end of the driveway. When the work starts to begin, how are my
tenants going to get in and out?
Mr. Sleiman: Your driveway goes like this right now. If part of
the street is going to be taken out, the part on your land would stay
and we will do a curve cut so you can get into the garage. During
construction we will work with you and obviously, we aren't going
to cut off access to your garage. There probably will be gravel in
this area here for quite a while until we pave it, but we will always
work with you to get this in place. The owner lives here as you know,
so he isn't gong to let us cut off your access - legally you have
an access over there.
Bob: Is anyone else here against this particular project?
Bob: Is there anyone in favor of this project?
No comment.
Voted: to adjourn the public participation at 8:35 p.m.
Bob: Moving back to Paul's research, did you find anything Paul,
regarding Sam Sleiman's inquiry?
Paul: It certainly seems to believe that some areas in this are
a wetland. It is not clear when the brook actually was covered.
Bob: It goes back at least 20 or 30 years minimum.
Paul: We did have some concerns about fillings of the property and
there are pictures of 1993. It is hard to tell the exact locations,
but here it shows the ponding of water. Bob, you might want to look
at it.
David: You can't tell which property or which direction it is from?
Bob: I don't even recognize the house. Here is the plan mark.
Paul: This appears to be from the corner of Cutter and Sibley.
Bob: There is no street that exists. It is all wooded area, small
pond of water. It looks like a dumping operation that was going on.
Paul: Right, and is lead reoccurring to the wetland block on Sibley
Street.
Bob: These pictures go back to 1993, the area is dry and there is
no water. This is March and it is all dry. This looks like the head
of the Spot Pond Brook that is going into the culvert area.
Paul: I think what is indicated in these files, the wetland area
may be further north.
Bob: In the Special Condition #18 upon sale of the property, the
conservation must be notified in writing by the buyer that he or she
has been made aware of these OOC. This is not a stringent regulation.
It is in practically all of our packages anyway. Burnett and Granite
St. is a prime example that we used this particular order.
Dave: I suggest to you that obviously notification under that must
have happened, otherwise the current owner wouldn't have known about
it. Looking at the plans, is the existing pipe that comes from Cutter
St. an 18 in. or 24 in.?
Mr. Sleiman: 18 in. pipe. Actually what happened is the specific
plans show the 24 in., then Joe Lynch asked us to go and dig a test
pit on top of the pipe to see what was connnecting, so when we did
and went out there and surveyed it, we found out it was an 18 in.,
so I changed it on this plan, but I didn't change it on that one.
Bob: Could I have plans consistent? Plans seem to have a problem
10 years down the road if they are inconsistent.
Sam: We will send a revised map to show the 18 in., 200 ft. from
this point which shows the riverfront, the revised drainage pipe on
Page 2.
Attorney Jim McAvoy: I think the planning board is looking for a
preliminary report from the board, but I can confirm that tomorrow.
It might have been May.
Bob: At this point there is no obstruction or any denial of this
permit. We are still missing sufficient information to make it consistent
throughout, and we have some forms that have to be amended. At the
next meeting we should be finalizing the OOC for this project.
Jim McAvoy: I will leave a message on your machine regarding the
preliminary report date.
Bob: Do I have an agreement with you to continue to the next meeting.
May 4 at 7:45 p.m.
