|
Conservation Commission
Meeting Minutes |
|
|
Minutes of October 5, 2000[Approved 11/2/00]
Present: Bob Boisselle, Paul Locke, Nancy Naslas, Bruce Rider, David Valade Voted: to accept the minutes of 9-19-00 as amended. Invoices: Film development - $10.65; secretarial services for $147 for the month of September. It was voted to pay these invoices. Correspondence:
Public Hearing City of Melrose Conservation Commission The Melrose Golf Course Improvement - "In accordance with the provisions of the Mass General Law of Chapter 39, Section 23B, the Melrose Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing, Thursday, October 5, 2000 at 7:45 p.m. in the Mayor's Conference Room, 2nd floor, City Hall. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the notice of intent submitted by Camp Dresser & McKee for the City of Melrose for the Mt. Hood Golf Course Improvement which include clearing, grading and filling to accommodate new sport fields and a relocation of fairways on the golf course. Access road will be improved. Any interested person wishing to be heard in this discussion should appear at the time and place designated above. Melrose Conservation Commission, Ad #388521, Melrose Free Press 9/28/00." Bob: The Notice of Intent is being filed with the MCC for the improvement to the Mt. Hood Golf Course. Specifically, the improvements include clearing, grading and filling to accommodate the new sports field and relocate the 5th fairway on the golf course. The project will improve the existing access road through the golf course, which also serves as the primary access route to the playing field. The majority of the work is located in the upland, however 2,225 sq. ft. of buffer zone will be altered to accommodate this proposed work. These improvements will cover areas in the northeast region of the Mt. Hood Golf Course and these fields are scheduled to be constructed in the year 2000 and 2001. All work will be formed outside of the resource areas, however some work will take place within the 100 ft. buffer zone. Erosion and sedimentation control barriers will be placed at the limits of work within 100 ft. of the resource areas. We have a number of maps submitted and we have proposed work on one baseball field, one soccer field, one parking lot, access road improvements, drainage facilities, grading and contour to relocate the 12th tee and green. Richard Amirault: Supt. of Parks Dept., 94 Maple Street: I am here to give an overview. If you remember early this spring, I sent a letter to the Conservation Commission, stating that we would be seeking an NOI for the work on the 12th fairway. We did delay that because of the work that we did on the ball field. The scope of this NOI now is for the 12th fairway and the two resource areas located at either end of that 12th fairway. We are not here to discuss the ball field or the soccer field. We are strictly here to look at the two resources areas identified on the map. This is the golf hole that we identified in our master plan that was prepared five years ago and we would have started in the spring, but scheduling with all of the other work didn't' work, so now we are finally getting to the golf course project that has been planned now for five years. I will let Dwight Dunk take over. He did the work on the NOI for the two resource areas. He is with Camp Dresser & McKee and he is a Wetland Scientist. Bob: Are you saying at this point you are changing the specs that were submitted? Rich: That is an overview of all the projects, but the last one is what this one is. Nancy: What about widening the roads? Rich: It is not a part of this project. Nancy: But that's Wetland #1. Rich: Right now, it is not a part of this project. Nancy: But that differs from what we have in front of us? Rich: It probably shouldn't have been stated in the overview that way because we are not going to be in the buffer zone of the 3rd pond which is way up here. Right now no work is being proposed in there. Dwight Dunk: I am from Camp Dresser & McKee. To clarify some of the description of the entire project and then the work we are scheduled to be reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Camp Dresser & McKee was hired to develop a conceptual plan for this part of Mt. Hood, specifically for work on the 12th Fairway, tee and green, and also in laying out areas outside the buffer zone for future use of fields for the city because obviously you wonder where we are filling. It is kind of like a foundation on how you have to work from the bottom up and that filling extends down into buffer zones and we just need to see how it all works as we extend to the east. That is why in the overall plan that was submitted to the Conservation Commission, we identified all the potential work that could occur out here in the future. All of the work, specifically under the review of the Conservation Commission, that work within resource areas and buffer zone, here we have avoided work within resource areas and all the work is limited to work within the buffer zone to Wetlands 2 and 3. The access road, at some point in the future, would likely need to have some widening done and that is why we have identified it on the conceptual plan although as Rich mentioned it is not part of the Fairway 12 Improvement Project. Specifically, let me run through the existing conditions, here we have a large pond that was identified as Wetland 1, that is basically protected as land under water inland bank and has a narrow fringing bordering vegetated wetland around portions of it. We have Wetland 2, which is a small more or less isolated wetland, but within the isolated wetland is a small intermittent stream or ditch, and based on the regulations it is basically bordering on itself. Wetland 3 is another marshy area. It extends to the southwest and we can see standing water out there, and again that is bordering on a pond or a stream outlet, so we identify both of these as bordering vegetated wetlands and with all three of these resources areas, there is a 100 ft. buffer zone. Now the work within the 100 ft. buffer zone involves placing fill and grading adjacent to Wetlands 2 and 3 so we can accommodate changing this topography raising Fairway 12, and with this grading we would also be taking the water which currently flows from Wetland 2 to Wetland 3 via an under drain, within the field, and taking that via culvert under the fill over to an outlet outside the wetland resource area about 75 ft. and then letting it flow via the intermittent channel to Wetland 3. Prior to construction, all sedimentation control barriers will be installed at the limit of fill. Fill will be placed and then it will be stabilized either temporarily if it is going to remain exposed for a significant period of time, or continue to place the fill, covered with top soil, looming and reseeding. I also want to give you details for the sedimentation control barriers, silt fence and/or hay bales and there are enough copies for all the commission members. Mr. Dunk: Mr. Chairman, in response to your earlier question that would the NOI describe all potential future work shown on this conceptual plan, the work requested for authorization is simply just the filling within the buffer zones of areas 2 and 3 for the work on Fairway 12. Bob: When you say access road, what is the access road? Mr. Dunk: The access road comes from the clubhouse and comes up to the golf course, the play area, and it comes up along the pond here. It is currently an 18 ft. wide access road. Where the existing gate is, it is currently widened to 22-24 ft. and it started out that wide and would be extended some time in the future along the pond, until we get to a point here outside the buffer zone, it would be widened to 24 ft. in the future. Bob: So you are not doing any work on the access road? Mr. Dunk: There is no work on the access road posed under the Fairway 12 Improvement. Dave: Could you amend the description specific so that there is no confusion. Dwight: The description of the work is amended for the NOI just to grading and filling associated with improvements to Fairway 12 and for the grading and filling within the 100 ft. buffer zone to that. We probably should have been a little more specific in the NOI after describing all the work that is shown on this conceptual plan to then focus just on that work within the buffer zone. Nancy: The NOI states changing it to 18-22 ft. Mr. Dunk: That is part of the conceptual plan. It probably should have been worded the conceptual plan shows the following and list those things, and then specifically requested authorization in this NOI is for filling and grading within the 100 ft. buffer zone to Wetland 2 on Fairway 12, and filling and grading for the 100 ft. buffer zone to Wetland 3 on Fairway 12. Nancy: Did you talk about drainage line, the blue lines, and where did the water come from that is going to be going into that wetland? Mr. Dunk: The contributory area for Wetland 2 is basically in this area right now, and it comes into Wetland 2 and it flows via basically a field under drain into Wetland 3. David: It pretty much goes to Wetland 3 and flows through the crushed stone very slowly, more like a filled ditch. Nancy: And what is going to happen now?
Mr. Dunk: We are gong to put in an inlet set off about 20 ft. from the wetland at the toe for the new fill and carry the culvert in this direction. As the filling outside of the buffer zone continues, there will be a shallow swale put into the fill to direct it to a low point in here, then this culvert would continue towards Wetland 3 and outlet about 75 ft. from Wetland 3 and flow via a channel into Wetland 3, so the flows would remain going to Wetland 3. Nancy: So water can still flow out of Wetland 2 into 3? Mr. Dunk: Yes, And water along the newly graded area is going to be diverted around into the pipe that goes to Wetland 3. Nancy: So how do you account for it in your design for not depriving Wetland 2 of the water that it is accustomed to getting now, that it's not going to dry out that wetland. Mr. Dunk: No, we are not going to dry out that wetland. It is a fairly small contributory area to it now and it still is going to have a pretty good size contributory area coming to it because basically this part of the fairway will continue to flow into it. Nancy: And your outlet pipes will be the same or greater elevation. Mr. Dunk: It is going to match the same elevation. We worked with the designers, if we lifted it up it might change the characteristics of this wetland by ponding water to a higher elevation, so we want to capture that. I haven't run a level, but at this point here and then where it flows into the Wetland 3 here it is nearly flat. I would hate to try to guess what the slope is, but it is nearly level. Dave: you are moving the tee box as well. Where is it? Mr. Dunk: The tees are outside the buffer zone, the tees are currently in this area and would be moved over here. Dave: Okay, so the green spot, you have 2 green spots. Mr. Dunk: Yes, this is the far tee, this is the near tee. This was a potential area that a tee could go, but I don't think Rich wants it placed there. Dave: Is the gray strip the existing cart path? Mr. Dunk: No, that would be a proposed cart path. Dave: Is it going to be paved? Mr. Dunk: Right now it is kind of compressed dirt with people driving there. Dave: Rich, would it be a paved cart path? Rich: Yes. Dave: Now to get to the hard part of my questions. You have spent a little bit of time up there I assume. My assumption, based on spending a considerable amount of time there, both as a golfer, walking my dog both summer and winter, is that it probably was a wetland that was filled before the courses built the whole thing. In essence it is a huge bowl, it is very steep on all sides and all the water filters in there, and having been there a lot of times the reason I assume this is being done is because the water pools at the fairway, and if you go there during the winter when it is frozen it pools considerably more. My concern is that by doing that you are displacing water that stays in the fairway and potentially putting more into each of the 2 wetlands. Has any calculations been done about the water differences that are going into each of them?
Mr. Dunk: We haven't completed calculations as part of the conceptual design plan. David: I think we need to see that and to have your opinion as a Wetland Biologist what it could do by adding that much additional water to it. In addition, it could spread out the area that is currently wet in that wetland and cause an undue effect that you are not anticipating, and other things. I think as a guy who wants to help fix the golf course, you might want to understand that as well. You have probably seen what I mean, with the big puddles. Rich: We understand where the drainage area is through that 3rd resource area. It ends up being a pretty narrow channel. Any more water is just going to be funneled off there, and go through the water shed, all the way down through the 14th Fairway, that is where it goes. Dave: So there is an outlet from Wetland 3? Mr. Dunk: Yes, it is off the plan. Bob: Where does the outlet go? Rich: It goes across the 14th Fairway and just into that brook, and eventually goes culverted off into the Saugus River. Mr. Dunk: That is why one reason for Wetland 2 we wanted to match the invert of the new pipe with the invert of the existing outlets so that we don't pond water more in Wetland 2. It may, under a storm event, if it gets more water quickly, may rise above it, but then will always drain down to the same point that it drains down now. Dave: I can't speak for the rest of the commissioners, but I would be interested in seeing the drainage calculations that indicate you are not adding any more or less water as a result of the project. Bob: In the document, it says the runoff in the proposed soccer field will also be directed to Wetland 3 via the drainage system.
Mr. Dunk: Which is not on in this system here. What we are showing is the area up here, as it gets filled, has got to continue to sheet down the slope, which it currently does now. A good portion of it currently comes down the bedrock control topography down across the fairway. As I mentioned there is going to be a swale that is going to be created in this fill. Bob: I understand that swale. It is the comments you are making here, you are now collecting drainage from the soccer field and also incorporating into that and dumping everything into Wetland 3. Mr. Dunk: Yes, some of it is going to be sheeting across, being captured by the drainage system. Bob: Is your calculation going to show that? Mr. Dunk: The calculations that will be prepared subject to conceptual design would have to take into account the proposed contributory area. Bob: Is this the plan that is being submitted to us for construction? I am not talking about design, but construction? Mr. Dunk: This is being submitted to the Conservation Commission for construction, filling, and grading of the 12th Fairway for areas subject to review by the Conservation Commission. Paul: So when you submit the drainage calculations that we are requesting which are specific to this carrier, and you show it will not be changing dramatically slow based upon the changes that you are proposing in this particular area, and then you will come back to us in a couple of months with the additional flow coming off the soccer field? Mr. Dunk: No, when the calculations are prepared, it will be prepared for all areas that are tributary to this outlet. It will involve any grading or change of topography or surface characteristic that is tributary to this new point, which would include areas up in here. Paul: And you understand we would like to see that before we approve this work. Bob: Are you submitting those tonight? Mr. Dunk: We don't have those with us tonight? Dave: How long before this is all put together. I guess before you answer that, is there a finalized plan for the field because before you can tell us the runoff is going to connect into that system, you need that plan. Mr. Dunk: As far as the plan runoff, the point there would be to identify what the contributory area is, how much area is being sheeted towards here and collected. Now as far as having complete final design, we can develop drainage calculations based on this conceptual design, knowing that on the final design things may be changed slightly a ft. or two here or there, it would not be a wholesale change. As far as surface characteristics it would assume it is a turf area, now whether or not that gets built as a soccer field or some other use for the city, assuming it is a turf area would show sufficient runoff rates for sizing this system. Obviously, that work has to be done before these pipes are put into the ground, and if this area that is tributary were to be used in some other way, that is still vegetated and the runoff characteristics wouldn't change much. Dave: There is going to be a line pretty much that you can draw across that field where the water will flow to the depression 1 and 2, the isolated land subject to flooding we looked at before, or to this I think are really the only two places it could go, and a ft. or 2 of elevation could move that line 40 or 50 ft. if you are doing an inch per 10 ft., etc., I would imagine a considerable amount of water could fall in that area and have a serious impact on it. Mr. Dunk: I think the question there is what you call serious or significant. Dave: I guess my point is I don't know what you generally do a field, but if you are doing an inch per 10 ft., you are talking about 120 ft., and just a 1 ft. change in elevation and 120 ft. spread across 100 or more yds. I don't know what that comes out to, but in a 2 or 3 in. storm, we are talking about a major amount of water. It is going to run off at a higher velocity than it does now because it is not wooded, it doesn't have the underbrush, it goes through grass a lot faster, so I guess my point is that you can make assumptions, but those assumptions just changing that ft. you are talking about could drastically be different than what is actually be built, and to understand this we have to have something more than an assumption based on. Rich: The Park Dept. isn't prepared at this moment to say that soccer field is going to be built. There is a lot of contingencies that will drive our decision to build that or not. That is purely conceptual. We can't say with any certainty that that will become a reality within the next five years even. It is a good chance it won't, but it is a possibility. I propose that if that field gets to the stage that we are beyond concept, that we come back for a new NOI if we are going to impact that drainage system, but right now it is so conceptual I don't really want it to impact this. I would rather go on the concept that this is going to remain just the way it is, there is going to be no pipe connection down that hill. If some day we do plan to develop this, we will come in with an NOI because we are impacting it right here and then we will do the calculations based on what we propose at that time, and if you think there are other drainage schemes that need to be done to protect the integrity of that third resource area, I think we should address those then. So I think what the calculations should be for your next meeting is based on what is there naturally, and that is what will stay naturally, and when we propose to change that, if and when we propose to change that, we come in with a new NOI and show how it will impact this. Paul: You are aware that if you come in with drainage calculations based solely upon these changes and it is calculated so as to there is no impact on this wetland, our working assumption is going to be that any additional water off of that field is going to have an impact on that wetland, over time that is going to be very high.
Rich: We will have to look at that at that time. We have no alternative because this is only conceptual, it is not planning even to be discussed to be built in the next year, so I don't want it to slow down this process. All the water from here now goes here anyways, so what we are talking mainly is a velocity issue. I think a velocity issue from here could be solved some time in the future with a new NOI. We are not talking additional runoff, just a velocity of runoff. Mr. Dunk: Any future condition of fields, as far as a runoff characteristic, it would be given that right if it is a slow considerable bedrock, a shallow flow over bedrock which doesn't allow much infiltration and quite a bit of runoff quickly. Any future development of a ball field on there, you talk about a very flat slope with low underlain by a drainage layer that would allow some percolation.
David: But you are not changing, we will call them clips, those aren't changing under the filling where the ball fields are. It is up above those which was wooded and had underbrush, and a lot of things with slowed down water that will change considerably, and my concern is, and I understand you are saying you can come back with an NOI if it is within five years or something, but things change, you may not be Park Commissioner, we may have a different Mayor at that point and time, but my concern is that this drainage pipe, a considerable amount of it could be considered non-jurisdictional. It's a drainage pipe, it is not a stream, and in the area that is non-jurisdictional, somebody could come in and say there is no reason, that was nice that Rich Amirault made that commitment, but I am not Rich Amirault, this is non-jurisdictional, I am not touching the buffer zone, it is jurisdictional for us after the fact that they might be adding a considerable amount of water to wetland but we don't have anything potentially, so someone has destroyed the wetland. Rich: Couldn't you issue a determination because these are connected and this is technically outside your jurisdiction, but it definitely is a part. I don't know the mechanics of it, but I would think that in your determination you would say this link is critical to this entire NOI here and any future work on this is subject to the commission's review. I would think that would be a condition that could stick. Bob: I just want to make it clear Rich, that the possibility of water coming off the soccer field would overcome Wetland 3 and we would not approve the soccer field because of that. Wouldn't it be better just to make that decision right up front with the calculations, make that determination and work it out at that point? Rich: Well, what would be the outcome? That I wouldn't get a determination on the 12th? Bob: You would probably get a determination on the 12th, but your soccer field may be denied in the future. Rich: Well, I think it is a risk we have to take. I think this 12th hole is part of the master plan. It has been approved by the Park Commission. This soccer field has not been approved by the Park Commission. This is a long term plan that has been tried to have been fulfilled for a long, long time. I don't want to make one contingent upon the other. I think we have the technology and the ability if and when we do come in with this to mitigate the impact down here to whatever measures, but I don't think that we want to limit ourselves now by a concept that doesn't exist. David: But even right now you are still filling for the area that could become ball field. Rich: Only here. David: Right, but up above there where the field could be. Rich: Only the baseball field. David: Could any of the water from what the baseball field is, is that any part of the runoff that would come into this area? Rich: Most of that comes the other way. Bob: What about the parking lot Mr. Dunk: The parking lot has a basin here that would collect runoff, maintain it. Bob: Is that basin there presently? Mr. Dunk: No, it is not there presently. If the parking lot is built it would have a detention basin so that the rate of runoff coming off there would be no change in the rates of runoff from pre-imposed construction where the basin and the outlet are. Paul: How about change in the water quality? Mr. Dunk: The catch basins would have current design standards of 4 ft. hoods going to a water quality basin that is densely vegetated and it would then discharge to uplands which would allow overland sheet flow. You would be using all the current BMP's to remove TSS, as well as matching natural pre-existing flow. Rich: Again, if you look at the dates for the entrance to the proposed parking lot, the access goes through your buffer on the first resource area, so that when that plan goes beyond conceptual, we will be in for another NOI because we will be in that resource, so that will be subject to your determination of this.
David: I have a couple of questions, the first is the soccer field area as it is drawn on here. That hasn't been cleared yet, no filling is being done there at this point and time? Rich: No, there hasn't been any here. There is a lot of filling down the side of this hill. Right now it is being stored outside of this buffer zone. The minute I get my determination from this commission, and I want to stop the golf on that hole, all that will be coming down to go across here to the fill and this side will be reforested. David: Do you have a plan about the actual ball field, is that in an actual plan state rather than a conceptual like the soccer field? Rich: No, it is still conceptual, it has not been engineered out, in total it is very close. David: What I am getting at is if there is enough there so you can tell us the impact of the ball field that definitely you are doing fill for now, and when you bring the drainage calculation include any effects of that. I think that will cover some of my concern. My other concern about something adding into it later on, I think we probably can condition this. It says nothing can be added into that pipe without another filing and condition in perpetuity. Now that doesn't mean that every one of us in this room won't be part of it. None of us might be part of it later and no one may remember that, but that is about the best we can do as a commission. The last question I have is how are you getting trucks in there? Rich: Right now the trucks are coming across this proposed ball field at the moment, up the access road which was the last time we were here, right across here, across that storage area I just spoke of, it will be coming down this way. It is possible that as we get this field we will exit them somewhere here back onto this road by the 13th. David: So you are bringing them down in essence what would be the cart path. Rich: What is the very old, old cart path. It hasn't been used in years. David: If you started the 12th tee where it is right now, you kind of come down the access road at the tower and then down the narrow cart path? Rich: Right now, they are coming right in front of the old tee on 12, as being stored there. The trucks will keep coming down that way as they fill the side of this hill. They have already gone up here and filled up for the elevation of the new tee. There is a good chance what I will do to make it a loop so they don't have to keep backing up, is exit them somewhere right by the 13th so they can come down, dump and go out this way. We don't want to come across here. Mr. Dunk: When we flagged this area we also took tape ties 100 ft. to mark the buffer zones in the field and we put stakes so that everybody knows in the field where the 100 ft. buffer zone is. Paul: The silt fence and control barriers, are they going to be at least as protective as the siltation control around the isolated land subject to flooding? Mr. Dunk: They will be installed prior to placement of fill in the buffer zone per the details where it states hay bales and/or silt fence. Nancy: Does it show on a plan where they are going to be located? Mr. Dunk: It will be at the toe slope of the refill. Bob: On the plan, it doesn't show it. Mr. Dunk: It is all identified on the master plan. Dave: Would you do that for us as well next time, draw them where they are going to go? Unless we reject it tonight, you will be coming back with drainage calculations, etc. for us. Bruce: Where is the fill going to come from to fill the soccer field area? Rich: If we do it in the future? David: Right now all of this stuff is coming out of the big dig. Are you going to get enough for the soccer field from the Big Dig as well, or is that why it's conceptual that you don't have the fill available. Rich: It is not driven by fill. I won't fill in anticipation of a field. If the field gets proposed, we'll be here first with an NOI for it. We won't fill when they come in later. Like I said, the Big Dig fill could go on for another year, it could go on for 2 months, we have other avenues to get fill. I don't need that area to stock pile fill. There is no proposal and no thought to go in there and store material where that proposed soccer field is on this plan. Paul: On the plans that will be resubmitted as we meet, would it be possible to have shown on the plans the proposed conditions to the extent that it is not conceptual. It is somewhat confusing to have on these plans the soccer field which for the time being is not going to be there and there are no plans to be there, and yet it makes reading plans a bit difficult when you have one, two or three dramatic changes in slopes down in that area, so to the extent that the ball field is going ahead and you have some indication of generally this is where that is going to be, that may be worthwhile to include, but I think having the soccer field and the grades of the soccer field may be somewhat misleading and distracting. Nancy: While we appreciate the conceptual design so we know what your big picture is, I think we would like to have a piece of paper that shows what it is we need to approve only, so there is no confusion. Mr. Dunk: Just so you know where we are coming from. We submitted this conceptual plan to let you know what the big picture is. Rich: We will come back with the existing conditions all the way up that hill without that soccer field there, as well as the parking lot. All we will show is that ball field which has been approved and voted by the Park Commission. That is going to go in very close to where it is. The parking lot is still subject to approval. So everything except the ball field we will do as existing conditions. Bob: How steep is this hill that we are talking about here? Mr. Dunk: Is this slope 3 to 1, John? John Olcott, Landscape Architect at Camp Dresser & McKee: That is 2 to 1. Bob: And you are going to have a swale at the bottom of that? John: Yes. Mr. Dunk: This question where it is coming down to the wetland it is 2 ½ to 1. Bob: If you are on the fairway you are looking down into the wetland, how deep is that? John: About a 20 ft. drop. Bob: So there will be a 20 ft. hole on that fairway at that end? Mr. Dunk: About a 20 ft. hole, yes. Paul: Right now that is essentially almost flat or level with the wetland? Mr. Dunk: It is slightly up higher. Nancy: I have a comment. I would be interested to see what the existing watershed is, where the water goes one vs. the other, vs. what you are proposing, how that would change. You have to figure that out anyway for the drainage calculations. Rich: That might be helpful if we brought in the next plan which shows the exit of that wetland, how it works its way down to the 3rd wetland. There is a dynamic there because it is off the plan that you don't see, how it really just exited off the back of it down the 14th. Nancy: It might be illustrated to show the difference in the runoff before the existing conditions vs. the completed project.
Mr. Dunk: That will be part of the calculations. Paul: The existing conditions for this is pretty clear. You haven't been doing much filling in this area. You haven't changed the existing conditions here. But by existing conditions, you mean the pre-fill conditions or the conditions as they are as filling is going on, which are the true existing conditions, or are we talking about what will be. I guess the next step will be the proposed conditions without the soccer field since the soccer field is not being proposed. I think what we will be interested in is seeing the pre-filling conditions, they are not existing conditions, it is what existed even before the fill came in so we can get a sense of the original drainage. Rich: At the soccer field you'll get original existing conditions because nothing has changed out here. Actually, on this you can see the underlay of the existing conditions is on this plan. We will make it clear and maybe I can do a little overlay that does show exactly what we have filled out there that will end up you can see pushed over.
Paul: I think what we want is something that clearly indicates how those drainage areas may be changing from what the original conditions were, pre-work and then the proposed final conditions would be absent the soccer field. Bob: I skipped a step before we got into this. The NOI was a requirement to notify the abutters. Where the abutters notified? Rich: They were. Bob: Who has the list of the abutters and green cards? Rich: The receipts are in my office. I will bring them to the next meeting. Open to the Public: Bob: Is there anyone here who is against this project? Bob: Is there anyone here in favor of this project? Bob: There is no one here opposing or favoring the plans at this time. Dana Jewell:: When is the baseball or softball field going to be covered with soil? Is it going to stay like that for a long period of time? Rich: We are probably within two weeks of looming that. Dana Jewell: That Boston blue clay is almost impervious once it soaks up water. There was a huge depression there at one time that must have held tens of thousands of gallons of water back, that is why I was wondering if it stays like it is. Richard Magown: I live on the 14th fairway, right near the brook where the runoff on the 12th fairway is, where it is all going to end up because down off the12th now without any fairway, the brook is all blocked up. I would like to know if they are going to make concession of turning out the 14th brook and getting the water running before they propose this project. Bob: That complaint will have to go to Mr. Amirault. Mr. Magown: I've been through the City and I have been to the Park Department and the brook is still blocked up. The Park Department sends you to the City. The City sends you to the Park Department and the brook is still blocked up. Bob: Who is responsible for the brook on the property itself?
Rich: The Park Department. If I go there and do work in there I will have to come before you people first. Bob: What is the problem? He said it is blocked. What do we have trees down or what do we have? Rich: It really is an intermittent stream and in the summer when it dries out it fills with all the wetland species and it grows in and it has run itself in. I am not prepared to go in there with a machine and clear that out without coming to this commission. It is a naturalized area. If it was a strong stream that ran 365 days a year it would scour itself out, but it is not. It is all in a bog area, and then beyond that the outlet is a marsh, but I would be glad to put together an NOI and come in. Richard Magown: You should add it onto work you are going to do now because you are going to put more water down. Rich: We are not going to add water to that stream. Mr. Magown: You were there. How much water comes down to the 12th? It comes down over the mountain from this low hole. Bob: If this is dumping of water into Wetland 3 and going around to 14th, this is the question that came up before concerning overflowing Wetland 3 in the calculations, so we are hoping the calculations will not show large amounts of water flowing around into the 14th tee. Mr. Magown: That is where the water comes from the 3rd Wetland. Rich: We are not going to add any more water. Bob: And that is what the calculations are going to say? Rich: Exactly, there is some velocity issues maybe coming down that hill, and because that pipe is so flat, we'll add no velocity to the 3rd Wetland, and its natural drainage is out the back of it and down the 14th and out that brook, but we are not God, we can't make more rain come down on that area. I will put together an NOI, come in and propose it to this commission and let them look to see the best way to clean or dredge that out. Bob: Before we conclude this, for the next meeting we are going to need the drainage calculations, hay bales on plans, the water shed overlay, pre-filling and post-filling overviews and a list of the abutters and green cards or white slips and a registered stamp engineer on the plans. Nancy: I move to continue this hearing in two weeks time. David: Will you be prepared to come back in two weeks? Mr. Dunk: Yes Voted: to continue this hearing in two weeks time. Hemenway Ave/ William Rose Nancy: As you know we discussed Hemenway Ave. at our last meeting on 9/21. The morning of 9/22 I went out to inspect the street work and the entire paved portion of Hemenway Ave had been cleared of pavement and the width of that avenue has been widened considerably. All the large trees that were on the opposite side of the street from the Rose home have been removed. It was a while ago that they took the trees out. There were hay bales around the culverted stream at the west end of the road just past your pool. I spoke with Mrs. Rose and I told her I would check with the city to confirm that the work in progress was covered by an Order of Conditions, and that same day I spoke with Mr. Boisselle and he passed along to me a conversation he had with the City Engineer that, in fact, an Order of Conditions for that work does exist, it had come across our board, and the more we talked about it I did recall the things about the trees again, I remembered talking about how they would have to take those out. I had the opportunity a couple of days ago to look at that particular set of Order of Conditions in Joe Lynch's office, in particular around the area where the stream is culverted and that did remind me that those Order of Conditions did come across our table, but they were tied in with the property, the house that was being built at the time which was why I didn't remember them as a separate issue. When I mentioned at our previous meeting that if they didn't have an Order of Conditions, I would have issued a Cease and Desist Order, I found out that they did have an Order of Conditions, so basically all I have done is write up my field observation report which I will submit to you for our files, which is pretty much what I have just stated right now. Bob: In follow up to this, this is in reference to a letter that was sent to the DEP Office, and this was a follow up to calling Joe Lynch concerning the area, and that is what initiated the section by Nancy. We have another follow up letter from George Richardson: "The Roses may not contemplate seeking injunctive relief against the City of Melrose as of now. On Friday, September 25, the Melrose Conservation Commission issued a cease and desist order to the City ordering that the roadway work be terminated until such time as the city should obtain approval therefor under General Law c.131, Section 40. I am reviewing the proposed easement and shall let you know my thoughts on it within the next few days. My preliminary assessment is that it is too broad. For one thing, it is not clear that the Roses possess fee ownership of the land where the poles are proposed to be located, and I do not believe that they have any power to grant an easement in land that they do not so own. I am contemplating proposing that the Roses sign an agreement that would provide that they agree to have the poles located as proposed and they would waive any and all claims that they may have with respect to the location of the poles." Bob: Then we have a response from Donald Conn, City Solicitor, to George Richardson, Esq.: "I was disturbed to receive the attached letter September 25, 2000. In the letter you referred to a non-existent cease and desist order. I challenge you to produce a copy of any such order." Bob: We also have a follow up from the DEP as October 3, September 29, 2000. "On September 28 this office received information concerning the parts of violation of Wetland Protection Act at the following location, Hemenway Street. Department records indicate that work may be proceeding in a resource area and/or buffer zone without an order of conditions on file with the department. The work reported to be taking place is described as follows: paving, curbing, extension of Hemenway Road by the City of Melrose without a Notice of Intent filing for the commission. The department requests your assistance in this matter. Please advise the department of your finding and intentions in pursuing this possible violation. The Wetlands Protection Act grants responsibility to local conservation commissions to administer the act in Regulations 310CMR promulgated thereunder to protect the interest identified in the act." Bob: From this I believe there has been action in the court still concerning an adjunction against the city on Monday. Did that go through? William Rose: It is still pending. Bob: I received a call from the DEP Strike Force concerning this particular project and the covering of the drains on the roadway, which would prevent water from going through the 12 in. pipe in the roadway to the wetlands area, and talking to the engineering office and basically the covers over the drainage are basically to protect the drains doing the asphalt laying operations. Paul: The drains have been filled? Bob: They were filled. They were supposed to be cleaned out during the process, that is the reason the covers were put on to protect them from the asphalt going in. They will be removed once the asphalt is dry and hardened. They are also putting in granite curbs on that street. Bob: Now while this project is going on, David also had an assignment for Dantona and his pool aspects. Your decision at this point? David: I visited the site tonight. One of the things we are lacking is an as built plan. We have to ask for that. I didn't have a copy of the plans with me when I did it. Bob showed me that they indicated that there was supposed to be some kind of a drain in the area of the swale. I think that you raised an issue about it in your letter in the commission's minutes from the 21st of September. I didn't look for that because I wasn't aware of it. I need to revisit the site and see it, but it was indicated in your letter where there used to be a swale, there is no longer a swale. There are two walls on Mr. Dantona's property on his neighbor's property that come together and it is entirely gone. I'll have to check and see if there was something and we do need an as built plan as well. Nancy: So are we're just talking about the road? There is an issue of the swale in between the Dantona/Petrella property and whatever happened to the swale? Dave: Bob and I only spent a minute looking at it, but it was unclear about the wall. There is a thing that lists an existing wall on the plan, but when I visited it, the wall was there and it doesn't look like what the existing wall says on the plan. We need to take the as built and compare the plan to the as built and see what they have. I will visit the site and see if there is that drain as indicated. Paul: There was supposed to be a drain and I think it was supposed to be a hole, almost a drum like size, like a dry well. Dave: This isn't actually what we are referring to. Bob: No, but there is another option towards a dry well instead of it going directly into the wetlands. It goes into the dry well first. Mr. Rose: 4 Hemenway Ave. I am a little bit concerned when I listen to the conversation in that I think that there is a lot of history that is being missed here. We speak of existing conditions and to the point of discussion earlier, what is a definition of existing condition? Is the existing condition when the Cefalo's first laid out the land and set up pogs for the houses that had the swale in it. We sent a number of series of letters to the commission of which one was extremely terse. I apologize for that. But we sent a series of letters to the commission, asking that the commission investigate the filling in of the swale. The lack of action by the city at all in taking action in the filling of the swale and thereby eliminating a path of flow of water that fed the wetland has irritated me no end for some period of time. One of the things that has happened is that since the swale had been filled in, Mr. Petrella filled in the swale, he brought in many, many tons of dirt to fill in the swale, and since that swale was filled in, the water that used to come down Ireson Court, down to Maple Terrace, cross Hemenway Ave. and then enter the wetland can no longer do so. Since then, after that period of time he filled in the swale, he added a berm, because when he filled in the swale he raised the elevation of his property so now that it looks different than what the original Order of Conditions specified. The water hit that raised elevation, continued down Hemenway Ave. and flooded his driveway. That upset him, so what he did was, he had people come in, raise the level of his driveway and he added a bituminous berm. We came to the commission and asked for the commission's assistance in having Mr. Petrella remove the berm because at that time we were being flooded, and point of fact, all the water that came down Ireson Court and Maple Terrace was now ending up in our yard because it was now being deflected by the berm back over to my property. Mr. Petrella was directed to and agreed to remove the berm at that time at this meeting and Mr. Petrella never removed the berm. The berm was finally removed when the city came down with this "betterment" that they are attempting to do right now, and I have questions about the betterment and whether or not the betterment should have come in front of this commission for a full hearing. I understand that the work is being done pursuant to the Senier plan. The Senier plan terminates in front of my house. It does not go to Maple Terrace. My question is by what review was the expansion of Senier's plan done? When was that reviewed? I can't recall a public meeting for that. Bob: The plan was reviewed late last year I believe. David: At the time we did the Senier plan, I thought that we looked at the road as far as the plot plan in front of Mr. Petrella's house, almost to his property line with Dantona, because it wasn't all the way to the end of the road. Bob: But the end of the road itself, I believe, was revised at an alderman's meeting where it was presented by the Engineering Dept.to continue on doing Hemenway Ave. and just taking over Senier's plan at that time, and that was presented to all the Alderman. Paul: But the question would be at the point where the two roads come together at that corner. What were the plans for directing the water at that point? Mr. Rose: Correct, and that was never reviewed. David: I think we only went about to the Petrella/Dantona property, there is another 50 or 60 ft. from there out to Maple Terrace. I think a good chunk of it is jurisdictional and I don't think we looked that far. Nancy: Why is it jurisdictional all the way out there. David: Because I believe part of it is still is in the buffer zone, not all the way to the intersection, but there is a section I think we reviewed and the intersection that would be jurisdictional. Bob: I think the Dantona/Petrella's, right in that area about 10 or 15 ft., about that point is jurisdictional. We also have a question here. The decision that was made was appealed to DEP and DEP has a superceding order that there are other facts that I think that they discussed. The roadway was involved there too, and from my understanding there is an agreement between all the parties to get the road fixed. Mr. Rose: No Bob: I don't know what the superceding order is or what was discussed in the hearings or meetings of those particular sessions had occurred. Mr. Rose: The superceding Order of Conditions from DEP and what I believe you are referring to would be part of a mediation session. They are two separate events. They did not cross at all. The superceding Order of Conditions from the DEP addressed Mr. Senier's plan, and Mr. Senier's plan only to the limit of the construction which only goes to about where the telephone pole is in the center of the road, it does not extend beyond that. The DEP did not look at any issues beyond that because there were no issues at that time beyond that. There was no proposed betterment at that time, whereas nobody was talking about a betterment at that time. What you are referring to, I believe you got your information from Mr. Conn, and Mr. Conn has been corrected many times since he came out with that piece of information that everybody on the street agreed to the betterment. That is not true. If you go back and you look at the tape of which I have a copy of the aldermanic meeting, you will see that 50% of the families residing on Hemenway Ave. spoke in opposition to the betterment. Beyond that I won't go any further. However, I have serious reservations about the extension not being under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission, whereas there is a lot of water now that is being redirected. It has been redirected because Mr. Petrella did the fill and my question is still why is there no action on that. It is further being redirected now, especially in the light of the Conservation Commission directing Mr. Petrella to remove the berm. Now the berm is being replaced by the city in the form of granite curbing, and now what they are talking about is redirecting all the water that comes down Ireson Court and Maple Terrace, all the way down Hemenway Ave. into a single drain on my side of Hemenway Ave., and then it is to be culverted to one single 12 in. pipe. Bob: There are two drains. David: He is referring to an outlet from the catch basin. Is that correct? Mr. Rose: No. I am referring to the connection between the catch basin, because another factor that is not in front of this board, and I have a question - has anybody seen the topos of what the city proposed to do of the length of width of Hemenway Ave.? I believe I have the answer. It is no, because there aren't any. One of the things that is coming out now is that they are sloping that road towards my side of the street, such that water no longer crosses Hemenway Ave. and that is an attempt to avoid ice dams in the winter. Subsequently, all the water coming down the hill is going to come down my side of the street into one storm drain. From that storm drain it has to cross under the road and through a head wall and then into an existing swale. That connection is one single 12 in. pipe. Has anybody seen any calculations done on that? I doubt it. David: The missing swale you are referring to is between the Senier and Petrella property? Mr. Rose: Correct. David: To help me to put this in context. You are here tonight I assume to ask us to do something, or hoping that we do something. What would you like for an outcome of the discussion tonight? Mr. Rose: This is what I would like to see. I would like to see a Cease and Desist order issued immediately such that the city can come before this board in a full and honest hearing and present their whole proposal. That did not occur during the aldermanic session. To go into a little bit more detail, I went to the first meeting. They voted it up to the four alderman at court. At that time they told us that the full board would be meeting to vote on that subject January 12. Now once again, 50% of the people living on the street objected to it. So everybody walked out of there thinking that January 13 was going to be the meeting. In fact what occurred was on December 20 the Aldermanic Board met and voted the proposal in. No people in opposition were notified of that meeting. The people that were in favor of the betterment were notified of it and they were at the meeting. That is a whole separate issue. One of the things I had asked at that first meeting was to see what the topography was going to be because I was very concerned that there was no drain at the entrance of Hemenway Ave. to capture all the water coming down from the hill. That was one of my primary concerns. I had an issue with all of a sudden going to granite curbing which would create a channel. I had an issue of what the elevations were going to be coming from the Malden side and whether or not there was going to be flooding and pulling at that time. With no topography those questions couldn't be addressed. David: So to summarize, you want us to stop the work and if they are doing anything that is beyond the Order of Conditions for the Senier property that they go through the full review process with this board. It sounds like the way you are describing it, they are going beyond what we approved under the Order of Conditions and what came, the superceding Order of Conditions. Nancy: Joe Lynch came and presented that information to us I recall. Didn't he? Mr. Rose: The Senier plan wasn't presented by Joe Lynch. David: Joe Lynch was here and talked about it though because he was instrumental in the design of the Senier plan when they moved the pipe under the road, etc. Nancy: They came back to us with much more extensive plans because we continued the hearing. Paul: Do we have the Senier file? Bob: I can get it. Five minute intermission The Commission reviews the Senier plan. Nancy: What is this? Mr. Rose: That is the way Mr. Petrella's driveway is supposed to look. Nancy: And this is the curb to Maple. This is supposed to go to the end of the street right here. David: But his plans in changing things. I think the furthest thing we see back is the proposed catch basin. Mr. Rose: If you look here, you will see there is a limit of repavement right there. That is as far as his plan goes. Nancy: There is a limit of repavement just beyond your house and that is on the plan dated 11/17/97. The previous plan we were talking about that does go out is dated 10/9/97. And that does not indicate the road work. It does go out to Maple Terrace. This is the one I remember, the 11/17/97. It shows the big Oak Trees that were going to be removed. Mr. Rose: There should be one other plan from DEP. You are missing something. The superceding Order of Conditions. Bob: We don't have that. David: Could you look at the Datona or Petrella plans so we could see the other buffer zone limits? The other way, based on the plan that we have and we don't have the one that DEP approved, the work is going beyond the line that says the limits and within the buffer zone. Mr. Rose: The width also changes because what the work does it takes all this. Bob: If there is another map or superceding order by DEP that was incorporated during the mitigation period, that map would supercede this map, so you would have to go with the map that is being issued by DEP. Is that the one? Mr. Rose: Yes. The way you can tell is one of DEP's request was that there was a tree back here that Elizabeth Savergenette, I believe, was concerned that the runoff was going to undermine and destroy, so what she asked Mr. Senier and his contractor to do was to place boulders to protect that tree. That was one of the changes that was made. That notation is not in the print. I have the notation to the existing print without changing any dates. Apparently, that is what occurred. Nancy: There is no new date. The Engineer's stamp date is still the same and there is a drainage swale detail showing the boulder as well. Mr. Rose: There was a concern about the outflow swale from the two drains. You noticed that it got moved. David: So that is interesting, this is literally the same signature, same date, but a different plan. I consider that unusual. Mr. Rose: There are a lot of things unusual about this. Bruce: Wasn't our plan contention that they proceeded past the line of repavement? Nancy: The area of the street hasn't changed from our plan to the superceding DEP plan. Correct? Mr. Rose: Correct. I submit what the city is executing is a significant departure from the Senier approved plan. As you can see there was a berm which curved in to meet the existing pavement which covers all the street except for a very tiny spot. And here was the swale. This swale no longer exists. Nancy: The second plan that we are talking about for the record is Lot 3, Maple Terrace, Site Plan, Dantona, 3 Maple Terrace, dated January 24, 1996. Nancy: This is the wetland buffer line which is a straight line compared to the wetland which is curved, which is actually 100 ft. It actually goes to the other side of the street here. David: It goes to the other side of the street with the exception of a tiny pit triangle across from Dantona's property where Ireson Court comes down. Mr. Rose: He has wetland right in his back yard. From that area you would end up having 100 ft. buffer zone that would take you approximately to the center of the street. So when you take all these buffer zones into effect, the whole street is within buffer zones. Nancy: Even though the DEP now has the Senier Order of Conditions in their hands, we still have to reach the other resource area which work is being done, the buffer zone, and we don't have an Order of Conditions, no plans, pertinent to that resource area. David: Unless DEP approved the plan that extended all the way to Ireson Court. Nancy: That doesn't make any sense. David: You are right because it is beyond what they would look at. Mr. Rose: You asked what I would like to see take place. I would to see three things. I would like to see a Cease and Desist Order such that part of that would be for the restoration of the swale that Mr. Petrella filled in, then that should become the baseline for the design of the new street, all those items taken into consideration. Bob: Which swale are we talking about now? Mr. Rose: The swale on Dantona property and the Petrella property that was filled in. That is supposed to feed this area of the wetlands. It no longer does. This is starting to dry up. Bob: That is not drying up in the point that we approved the plan for the basin that would replace the swale, which would have taken the water from there and dropped it into the wetland. David: We have two issues. First I haven't seen it was there. Bob: Right, and we can't make a decision because of that. David: That is the Dantona property. We never approved the filling and the wall on the Petrella property. Mr. Petrella talked about the fact that his slope along the swale was washing out and that is why he decided to build the wall, but he never came before us to ask about that. Nancy: I think this happened, but it was before my time, some change because he was having problems and has got to put his wall in. David: I suggested to him the proper thing to do is come before us to deal with his wall, but unless it happened at a meeting when I was on a 4 month leave, I never saw it in the minutes. Mr. Rose: One of the plans that Mr. Petrella has had and made this in court unfortunately in deposition is that the Conservation Commission blessed his filling of the land. Unfortunately, Mr. Conn is getting some of his information, so Mr. Conn is walking around right now, thinking that this Commission approved that. Nancy: So we need to review the Petrella file and see what correspondence what he has received from us from the Order of Conditions. Mr. Rose: Now that you mentioned it, I sent a letter to the Building Commissioner and the Building Commissioner responded to Mr. Gregorio because I found that he actually was required by statute to take action on this, and on 11/16/99 he sent a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Petrella and it appears that recent grading has been established between your structure and the northeast property line including the building of a retaining wall. "I am unable to find a record of permit allowing the filling and wall construction. In accordance with Mass General Law, Chapter 48, Section 7 and the Melrose Zoning Ordinances, I am requesting that you provide me with the following information: any and all documents that you have in your possession or that may be produced regarding building/site elevations and contours, chronometrically as built plans, Melrose Conservation Commission orders of records, and DEP orders of the Lot known as 3 Hemenway Ave. Having reviewed the minutes of the Melrose Conservation Commission of 10-21-99, it appears that both you and the abutter to the north have a record of wall on your shared northeast property line to solve a runoff problem. Mr. Boisselle of the Melrose Conservation Committee and Mr. Dantona recognized the need to bring the grade elevations to a new level to control the runoff. The proposed grading plans submitted when constructing your home appeared to differ from what is now is existing. I shall allow you 30 days to provide these requested documents. Very truly yours, John Gregorio, Building Commission." The thirty days, still counting from what we understand, there has never been a follow up to this letter. David: When was that dated? Mr. Rose: November 16, 1999, almost a year ago. Bob: We have that letter in our files. David: I think we have two courses of action we need to pursue. First is to get the city to stop working on the road until they either show that they have valid Order of Conditions in place from us or somebody that superceded, and that we also ask Mr. Petrella to appear before the Commission, that indicates he could have built that wall or provide to us the plan to remove it. Bob: That has already been forward by the Building Commissioner according to the letter. David: There has been no follow up as far as we know. Nancy: The issue is that Mr. Petrella appears to be out of compliance in his Order of Conditions and he needs to come forth to be either in compliance with us or provide information that we are not aware of, or show us how he is gong to get back to what we approved. Bob: That causes the problem with Dantona to the point that he put in a new drainage system to take care of the swale and it is all mute in the point that they put the granite curbing in. They are going to redirect it anyway. Paul: No they won't, if we tell them to stop that. David: If the city wants to come with a plan that indicates that those two retaining walls for the pool and for Mr. Petrella as part of their plan and that they have a pipe that goes under that directs a sufficient of water for what used to go through the swale, I think it covers both issues. You are suggesting that we issue a Cease and Desist Order. We really have to separate parties involved that we have to deal with until time that these issues can be resolved. Paul: Bob, you said that Dantona put in a drain to take care of that water from the swale. David: He had a drain on this plan. Paul: There is a drain that is in front of his house on Maple Terrace. Bob: No this is a drain on the wall itself or down the swale. Mr. Rose: The water flow starts up here on the hill on Ireson Court, flows down here and it goes this way. It never makes it to this drain. Paul: So that drain is irrelevant to this. Mr. Rose: Correct. David: There is two walls. One of them is on Petrella's property that curves in somewhere about here, and the other one on this property that curves into about the same point. In the Dantona's plan that we looked at before shows the drain with a pipe here. When I looked at it I wasn't aware of that plan so I never looked to see if there is a drain there. Commission now reviews Pot Plan of Land, 3 Maple Terrace, stamp date August 11, 1999. Bob's initials say October 21, 1999 and that would be when we received it and this is regarding putting in the retaining wall to the pool. David: And this is the wall on Dantona's property here. The other wall comes right into here, so this swale is entirely gone. Nancy: This is the existing retaining wall. Mr. Rose: That's the wall that was never approved. Paul: This is interesting because the existing catch basin right here drains going out there. Bob: He is replacing the swale with a drain. David: And a 4 " PVC perforated I doubt would carry any way near enough water from the stream to deal with what the swale did. Mr. Rose: Correct Nancy: But this is presented to us as an existing condition. The existing small catch base and the existing retaining wall, the existing 4" PVC perforated drain pipe, all running around the west side of the Dantona property. David: Do you have his as builts from when they built the house? Mr. Rose: That's when I started this with the definition of existing conditions. That is the existing condition. Nancy: Correct, but that doesn't match with the Order of Conditions required. Mr. Rose: Correct Mr. Rose: I would like this to be minimal impact on the Dantona's. I don't know that they have done anything except come before this commission. Nancy: They have been trying to do everything the right way. David: There is an interesting component on this though because the wall that we keep calling Petrella's wall, the one here is on the Dantona's property, so we might be looking at the wrong party that needs to explain that wall. The fill is on Petrella's and the way that holds up the fill is on Dantona's. David: Is that the as built? Okay. He has an existing catch basin. It is not on his built plan. Nancy: That happened afterwards when they put in the wall. Bob: When they put in the wall that was part of the agreement because of the removal of the swale, he is putting a catch basin to catch the water and dump it. Paul: Who's agreement? Bob: The Conservation Commission. Paul: When did we agree with that? David: That he could fill the swale and put in a 4" pipe? Paul: We didn't agree to that pipe and rate at this meeting. That is listed there as existing conditions. That was nothing to do with that. David: And the pipe he claims was already there. Bob: He never declared that was part of the pipe. The problem was that he was elevating the land and to do that he was raising the land and to compensate for the water coming down he was going to catch it in the basin and pipe it to the water, it's in the plan. David: His plan says existing small catch basin hooking into a 4 in. perforated pipe. It is saying an existing 4 in. PVC perforated pipe, that wasn't existing on any plan we have, nor was the wall that we have here. Paul: Note in the Order of Conditions. David: But it does in this plan clearly indicate that swale is going to disappear and be replaced with 4 in. PVC, which is no way near sufficient to take the volume of water that came through there before. Nancy: According to this plan, the plot plan, 3 Maple Terrace, last revision 8/99, the existing retaining wall that runs along its western property, the one we have been talking about, shown as existing on this map, extends not just in the buffer zone, but it extends at least 10 or more ft. into the wetland itself. David: Based on the scale, it's about 20 ft. What is interesting too, is the proposed retaining wall he has here does not match the retaining wall that I saw on site. He has got a curved wall that follows approximately to 83.3 contour, and he has got this a straight wall that is at 83.2. Nancy: As soon as you get to take a step back too and figure out when did this swale first go away, and where does that swale meet today, or was this 4" pipe a means of transporting that same water. David: You can tell me if I am wrong, but as I recall at this site, after the retaining wall was put up before the pool was done, there was still a swale there. Mr. Rose: Negative Nancy: That wall was there before the pool was done. Mr. Rose: Long before the pool was done. David: I know this wall was there, but the swale wasn't totally filled in at that point. Paul: At that point the water was coming out. It wasn't fully described here in front of the wall even pre-berm, because of elevations. David: The water comes down in this direction and it is supposed to turn down the swale. Mr. Rose: There was a natural flow of water through that area anyway coming down the hill. David: If you look at Ireson Court, you can tell that it was probably there even before Ireson Court because parts of Ireson Court has a ledge popping through it for whatever way they paved over it. Bruce: According to the as builts the swale is gone. Nancy: What about the Petrella file? Do we have as builts for them? Bob: Yes. Reviewing the Petrella as builts Nancy: The as builts has the swale. A good 4 ft. on the driveway. Two different contours. Paul: Does the swale exist? David: No, there is no swale there now. Paul: There is nothing in our records of discussion concurring with or having been presented with filling of that swale with or without a 4 in. perforated drain. Nancy: Datona's letter of compliance was based on this as built plan of land. But this plan does not reflect the way the conditions are today. David: We either have a gap in the record or we never approved the wall. Bob: Even the Building Department is saying the same thing. David: And we have missing minutes from the 80's, but this was not then. Nancy: This states "I certify that this plan is in substantial compliance with the plans referred to in the Order of Conditions." Signed by the record engineer 2/19/96. Paul: This is broader than what was in the Order of Conditions, but it is functional. Nancy: There is a swale, the land slopes away from the house to the garage. David: Could we take a five minute recess? I would like to speak to Bob about the records. Five minute recess David: Here's what I talked to Bob about. Before we do anything we need legal advice. Unfortunately, Bill is not here. We have a plan that was approved back in November 1999 for Mr. Dantona to put the pool on. Now there is a conflict of what was supposed to be existing based on our records and what is existing, and that is the retaining wall and the fill that happens both on the Petrella and Dantona property, and I think we need someone with more legal expertise than any of us here today to look at this and say have we created a bind by approving a plan that has something that may have been outside of the bounds of legality? Nancy: How high is the wall there? David: This wall is 83.1 down to 79.2. His wall substantially changed the flow of water for the wetland. Nancy: His wall is holding back all the dirt that the neighbors put in. If they take that dirt out, they can still leave his wall there. Paul: Right, even if legally, and I again don't have a law background to say, even if this did somehow inadvertently give the commission approval of this wall on the Dantona property, it says nothing about the Petrella property and the absence of the swale. David: You are right. So we could tell Mr. Petrella he has to remove the fill, but we need some kind of legal advice on what we can do in terms of the wall. If we issued an order today that says remove that wall without having clarification from legal counsel to tell us where we stand, we could make such a huge mess that we don't really want to go there. Bruce: It is a similar situation where we had two houses and one had fill and put in a wall, and the other was coming for certificate of compliance. You can only work on one house at a time. Nancy: We should do some follow up so that at the top of our agenda at the next meeting talk about Mr. Dantona's property. But in the meantime we can just simply say to Mr. Petrella the same thing that the building inspector said to him in November - you are not now in the same condition that you were when we approved your Order of Conditions. David: My first motion is that we ask legal counsel to review the files for the Dantona property and any issues concerning the approval of the plan for building a pool, and conditions that are listed or existing, but are not covered by any Order of Conditions that are prior approved by the Conservation Commission. Bruce: I second the motion David: I thought Bill was reluctant to offer legal opinion as a commissioner. Bob: He can review it for possible transfer to the City Solicitor for final judgement. If he finds that we are in a gray area, he would then refer it to the City Solicitor. David: And if we can, as a member of MACC, ask them to look at it as well as the City Solicitor if the chair could follow based on Bill's recommendation, I would appreciate it. Bob: What I am going to recommend as part of the discussion we are having here, is that you were taking a Dantona file to do a site review at this particular facility, what you may want to do is drop off the material at Bill's house. David: Actually, I had no intent to revisit the Dantona property until we have an as built plan. I can if you would like me to. Bob: Just to see if that basin is there. The basin basically is to remove the water coming down. David: Before I do that I would like to see the as built plans, because I would like to see the basin. Bob: You are still going to need to go back to see if it is there and tell Mr. Dantona this is what we are going to need. David: I can call Mr. Dantona and tell him I need an as built plan, because I am curious and would like to see it before I visit the site, if the 4 in. perforated pipe in the drain shows up on an as built as well as on this plan. Nancy: We are still getting ourselves into trouble here because that swale, there is 10 ft. of it, is on Mr. Dantona's property, at least along the 8 ft. contour. Bob: We have a motion, second, and open for discussion. Are we accepting the motion. David: Is everyone clear what I am asking us to do? Nancy: Table the Dantona issue until we can review it. David: I will follow this up with a motion on the Petrella's, but I don't want to combine the two motions because there are two separate properties involving two separate owners. Bob: All those in favor? Voted: The motion carried. David: The next motion is that we send a letter to Petrella, instructing him to appear before the Conservation Commission at our next regularly scheduled meeting which is October 19, at that time to show that he has a legal basis for the filling that was done on his property or offer a plan to remove the fill and start on a time table to do so. Paul: I second that motion. Bob: Before that goes before us I would like to have the Building Dept. answer the letter that Mr. Rose sent, get their information and their package. This man already somehow got a permit down the line and there was no follow up. Nancy: Have they responded to the November 1999 letter issued. Paul: If Mr. Petrella would have that information readily available in a package. David: I kind of view that as a separate issue because the Building Commissioner is primarily concerned about a building permit. We are concerned about conservation. There is potential he could have received the building permit, which I don't think should happened without getting conservation approval. Bob: If that is true then I think the legal individual should also see the second file for a tape determination. Nancy: Well, Bill always writes the letters. Bob: I would recommend that the two files go to Bill for review. Paul: I would modify the motion then to ask Bill to review that file and to draft that letter and send that letter unless he finds significant legal problems. Nancy: I am not understanding. Paul: Bob suggested that Bill should review those files. My concern would be that is going to put it off to another meeting. I think the default should be that the letter Bill will be drafting should go out. If he can review the file in the process of drafting that letter, the letter should not go out only if he finds significant legal obstacles/something that we missed in the file. Nancy: I don't see anything wrong with sending a letter asking for information. Bob: It has already been done. David: It hasn't been done by us. Paul: I think the letter should be specific to fill material and not the wall because if we are asking Petrella's for information about a wall which appears to be primarily on the Dantona property..... Nancy: I think simply a letter that states your as built plan dated February 1996 were approved by our letter of compliance. Those plans contain a swale which does not appear to be in existence any longer. What happened to the swale and where did you get our permission to take the swale away? Show us that. That can be the subject matter that we would like Bill to consider and write for us on behalf of the Conservation Commission and we can leave it up to Bill if he thinks we need strong words and time tables, etc. Paul: Well we are giving a timetable for Petrella to appear here on October 19 or to cite us information. David: Without speaking specifically to this, I think if we have an issue like this, the first thing we need to do is to ask the property owner to tell us what it is okay, and then if we disagree or agree we let them know why and what action we intend that they need to take, and then escalate it is necessary from there. That is what my motion is to start that in process by asking them to show why what they did is okay. Nancy: Could you state your motion, just reiterate it for us. David: My motion is that Mr. Petrella be sent a letter indicating that he should appear before the Conservation Commission on October 19 at our next regularly scheduled meeting and at that time to show documentations that shows he could legally fill or having no such documentation to provide the plan to return to his as built plan that we have. Nancy: And why does his current site not match his 1996 as built plan? David: Just to summarize it, prove it is okay or fix it. David: My third motion regards the street, and that is based on existing information we issue a Cease and Desist Order, stopping all action for reconstruction of the street and ask that the Melrose Public Works Dept. appear before us with a Notice of Intent, outlining all the plan work and any mitigation and other issues that they need to deal with regarding the wetlands and the water flow in that area. Nancy: I second that motion. Bob: Discussion? Nancy: As long as we clarify to them that we understand they have to sign the Order of Conditions that they went under the street which may or may not be sticking to by the letter, but that is not the strict issue we are bringing up now. It is the resource area from the other wetland. Paul: Well, I think it is clear in the letter that there are two concerns, one that the work that they are doing essentially under the Senier Order of Conditions is not consistent with the plan, and the second concern is that at the other end of the street the work says fall within the |