MELROSE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 1999

Present: Robert Boisselle, Bill Dailey, Paul Locke, Peter Mortimer, Nancy Naslas, David Valade

1. It was voted to approve the minutes of the meeting dated 8/5/99.

Granite & Burnett St.

2. David drove by Granite & Bennett St. on the way to the meeting tonight. It looked like there was more debris on the wrong side of the hay bale line than there was the last drive by. Bob will follow up on this site.

Aquatic Control Technology

3. Invoice was received from Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. totaling $1,987 for chemical treatment of nuisance aquatic vegetation on 6/28/99. Aquatic Control will be coming back to Towners Pond to do another rodeo treatment at the far end of Towners Pond. The water is about 1 ½ ft. in some places and the sun is streaming through because it is so low and everything is sprouting up.

121/129 Penny Way Subdivision

4. Correspondence was received, dated 8/10/99, regarding Penny Way Subdivision, 121/129 Penny Way, Melrose, MA DEP File No. 217-96. John Colucci, Esq., wrote that he represents the Adams Penny Realty Trust, which has purchased a seven (7) lot subdivision located on Penny Way, Melrose, MA. "In accordance with the OOC (revised and enclosed) relating to this property, notice is hereby given that activities will commence on the site no earlier than 8/20/99 (see Order of Conditions - Revised enclosed as 'A')." The site representative, Brian Butler, called Bob and they have the hay bale and stakes in the ground and are looking for a commissioner to look over the site and confirm the activity. David Valade will follow up on this site.

Bridge/Towners Pond

5. Dana Jewell attended this meeting and he has been roaming through our trail

networks. He discovered a bridge across the brook that runs from Mt. Hood down to Towners Pond that has been totally disassembled in individual pieces, parts of it carried up the hill toward Mt. Hood. Dana found the pieces lying there and surmises that kids must have carried the pieces up the hill and decided it was too much of a task and left them there. Dana took the stringers and some of the boards and put them away in the woods and covered them with leaves for now instead of trying to carry them back. Meanwhile there are pieces lying near the brook also. He stated that a bridge like this one should be put together with screws. The nails were not adequate, it needs 5 in. deck screws. The secretary will work out a schedule via E-mail to reassemble the bridge on a weekend in the near future. Dana asked that we give him a call with the scheduled date so that he could join us, if he is available.

Public Hearing - 10 Windsor Street

6. A public hearing was held to discuss the Notice of Intent submitted by Frank Procopio of 10 Windsor St. for the construction of two single family homes within an area defined as Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Notice was given in the Melrose Free Press on 8/12/99.

A short presentation was given by Mike Rosati, representing Mr. Procopio. Mr. Rosati presented an overview to propose two single family dwellings on the east side of his house.

Mr. Rosati: On the overview, if you came in off Howard Street, you take a left and just on your left hand side is where Mr. Procopio's house is. You will also see a yard, brush and secondary growth. We have come before the commission because we will possibly being doing work within 100 ft. of the wetland, swamp or stream. In this case here we are not bordering wetland or stream. We are really dealing with a Zone A of a floodplain or a bordering land such as the flooding under the Wetland Protection Act. The act is quite clear as to what performance standards we need to adhere to in a situation like this and basically the Act is trying to make sure we keep the same storage for flooding that exists presently on the sight today with the project after we developed it. Basically what we have done here is we propose two dwellings very close to the road and we would do some minor filling in the front of these houses, and with the filling that we are doing here, we would excavate for that same volume in the area behind the house, so that there would be no net effect on the flood storage in this area. That is what the Wetlands Protection Act is trying to address here, not that a project of this size would really affect the storage volume of a big storm. However if they didn't address this type of issue, incremental jobs like this could have a profound effect on a water shed. To meet the letter of the law, we have to propose this proposal with compensation in the back.

Dave: Can you point out how the water flows from the property now and what the effect will be from the compensation area?

Mike Rosati: Although the elevation has been lowered, basically the slope would be a little bit shallower in this area here. It would be graded so that the water would positively drain and wouldn't hold water in this portion, except when water is backing up from the floodplain itself. It is designed so that the water sheet flows in this fashion off the site like this and will continue to do so.

Dave: So the effect afterwards is if the water backed up to a certain degree now, it would still be the same?

Mike Rosati: That is correct.

Bob: And what is on the other side of that property?

Mike: This is power lines here, pretty much it keeps going low down through here and then comes this way, I believe. I don't believe there are any homes in the general area right here. This is more part of the easement for power lines and there is also a generator stationed back here.

Bob: Is there wetlands in the back here?

Mike: There may be well beyond our property. I am not sure.

Mike: We are proposing hay bales at the rear of the structure here because they are going to come in and excavate here and we are going to be exposing some areas here and may have some potential for erosion. We would have these here just in case to catch whatever siltation may occur in this area so that this would prohibit any migration coming off the property.

David: It looks like there are 5 different compensation areas and the only ones that you are excavating are in the gray?

Mike: No, It was basically to show the engineering dept. or Mr. Lynch that we have to compensate on a ft. x ft. basis.

Bob: ft. x ft. or cubic ft.?

Mike: ft. x ft. per cubic ft., in other words in our case here, I believe between the 67 and 68 contours, we are filling 600 cu. ft. These shading areas are just trying to illustrate that we did that.

David: Okay, so there are multiple areas and it is just at different elevations so you can do your engineering calculations?

Mike: That is right.

Bob: Area 2 is 380 cubic ft.; area 3 is 2486 cubic ft.; area 4 is 105 cubic ft.; and area 5 is 282. What is the height at that point? You are going to have the elevation to 65 - 67?

Mike: 67 is the floodplain line. Here at area 4 we are dealing with 66 back from elevation 66.5. So we are cutting into the ground and this area 4 is ½ ft. Basically it is really re-landscaping.

David: Has the engineering dept. reviewed all the figures?

Bob: They have cleared it.

Bob: So the final grade in that area will be 65 or 65 ½?

Mike: That is correct. In here it will slope from 66 down to 64, this elevation here would be 64. At the hay bale line it is 64 - 64 ½ and over here it is more like 65. It will blend in with the existing contours at the hay bale line. It is not flat, it is actually pitched down this way.

Bob: You are almost creating a swale onto the applicant's property.

Mike: Basically what we are doing, if you wanted to look at it that way, we will be creating this swale that looks like this.

David: It is fairly wide in spots and looks more like a floodplain than a swale.

Mike: Right.

Nancy: Do you have an idea how far away the wetlands are that are bordering land subject to flooding?

Rep: I don't. It is further than I can see.

Bob: It wasn't noticeable. I would say maybe a quarter of a mile.

Public Comment:

Robert Cuppernell, - 11 Windsor St: My concern is the last area's flood that we got was right up to the first floor windows of my split entry home. My concern is that with two more houses there what do they have for displacement? I am talking about an inch off the window. Right now our house is pumping water. I think it is going to be a serious concern.

Bob: The displacement that they are looking at is just a total of 2,866 cu. ft. and they are removing 2,866 cubic ft. Technically there should be no change in the volume moving towards your home or an inch from the bottom of your window at this point. Right now if the water is coming from outside of this individual's property, moving toward this gray area and moving across the street, there shouldn't be any change in volume, again depending on the storm that we are looking at. You could have a greater amount of storm than you had in the past.

David: The best way to describe it is if we get a bathtub with a foot of water in it and we put a block in it, it raises it to 13 inches. What we as a commission have to look at is the plan to say they are going to scrape enough further in the bathtub so it still stays at that level with the addition of the block.

Mike: Has anybody made a site visit?

Bob: Yes, we were there last Thursday and we were with your boss and we walked the site and we looked at the gray areas we are looking at. We looked at Lot D and Lot F and it didn't look like much is going on in that particular area. Now, you aren't filling any areas but those that we are discussing here?

Mike: That is correct. I also want to point out that Frank is not building basements on these houses, so there won't be a need to pump out basements.

Peter: So they are going on a slab?

Mike: That is correct.

Bob: Are you putting piles down?

Mike: They will probably put a wall below that would get into the natural grades for protection.

James Carrabis, 15 Windsor St.: When he builds this house on the right looking at the map, that's a trunk sewer line there, what effects would it have on that house being built there.

Bob: There is a sewer line going through the property?

James Carrabis: It goes through this property, about 12 ft. from this property line it takes to provide a road.

Bob: There is a pipe along the property that isn't going to be touched at all by the construction.

Bob: Were all the abutters notified?

Mr. Rosati: Yes. The first time Paul notified he didn't give the time of the meeting, so he notified a second time.

Bob: We received notification that you apply for a File #, and before we can issue any Order of Conditions, we are going to need that number.

Mr. Rosati: I do have a letter from Paul to the DEP. The reason they didn't give us a file # when they submitted it was that inadvertently he did not check off the box relative to the estimated wildlife habitat, whether it was in a circle showing on the habitat maps. He included a map and the site on the map, but we didn't check the box in the computer form, and that is the reason why we didn't get the number. He sent it back and circled the area. I will follow up with that to get that number.

Bob: We will be meeting in 2 weeks to go through the Order of Conditions at that time. Is there a problem in the OOC that if we request to create the compensation area before the construction begins, etc. Lot D and E?

Frank Procopio: The only problem would be when you bring a piece of machinery in, the cost is almost $250 per move in and $200 out. I would like to do the digging, all the machine work and have it all completed before the actual frame goes up.

Bob: If you are doing all the digging, there shouldn't be any problems. What we are looking at is not to dig the house, put the house up and view the compensation area afterwards. We are asking you to do all the digging right up front.

David: When you bring your equipment on, assuming it is just one time. You do the grading to the back of it first to regrade the compensation, then dig whatever you have to do for the foundation and then backfill around the foundation, just in that order.

Frank: Right, one lot at a time.

Katherine Carrabis, 15 Windsor St.: I would like to know why I wasn't notified.

David: I assume the process that you followed is the normal one where you went to the Assessor's office and asked for the abutter's list.

Mike Rosati: That is correct.

David: What normally happens, is they go to the Assessor's office, ask for a list of all the abutters and the Assessor's office has a method that they do that, give him a list of who to notify and he sends out based on that. Are you directly across or just slightly down the street?

Katherine Carribis: Not directly in front.

David: That's probably why, because if you are little bit off set from directly across the street, they don't count it as a direct abutter.

Katherine Carribis: I can't understand that because the water still comes there. Where are they going to drain that water when it gets flooded. That place gets flooded all the time.

David: It is going to the same place it goes now.

Nany: They aren't going to make it any better, but they are not going to make it any worse. All the Wetland Protection Act requires is that we keep it the same as it is now. We can't require them to make it any better. We just have to prevent them from making it any worse.

Bob: Please send us that letter with the File # and we will be discussing the OOC at the next meeting. You can have a representative at the meeting if you want to go over it.

Public hearing closed.

Voted: To table the NOI at 10 Windsor St. until the next meeting subject to receipt of the DEP File No.

Voted: to adjourn 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Nancy Pritchard
Commission Secretary