Minutes of October 19, 2000

[Approved 11/16/00]

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

Voted: To put a hold on the minutes of October 5, 2000 for review.

Correspondence:

Lake and Pond Grant Program

Dated 10/16/00

"Dear Sir or Madam,

I am pleased to announce that for the 8^th consecutive year, the Department of Environmental Management will be awarding grants for the protection, preservation and enhancement of public lakes and ponds in the Commonwealth. The program provides financial assistance to communities for cost-effective, comprehensive approaches to implementing lake/watershed management projects, and enhancing public education and public access. The Lake and Pond Grant Program provides up to fifty percent of the cost of the project, with a maximum grant of $10,000 available to eligible applicants. The applicant must provide cash funding at least equal to the amount of the grant. Attached is a guide and application form explaining the details of this grant program. Lake and Pond Grant applications must be postmarked by December 29, 2000. Grants will be awarded to the applicants who best meet the criteria listed in the program guide. Should you have any questions about the Lake and Pond Grant Program, please do not hesitate to contact Steven Asen at (617)973-8733. Very truly yours, Peter C. Webber, Commissioner

Nancy: I will check with Parks Dept., Planning Dept. and Ell Pond Restoration Committee, because I don't want two people from the city applying for the same grant.

Mt. Hood Golf Course DEP File #

From the Department of Environmental Protection, Metropolitan Boston Northeast Regional Office, the DEP File # for the Mt. Hood Golf Course is

217-117.

Volunteer Meeting with the Mayor

Nancy Naslas, Bill Dailey, Paul Locke and Peter Mortimer attended this meeting, representing the Conservation Commission. They reported that this meeting was very informative. The Mayor thanked all of the volunteer board members and commissioners for the city. It was nice to hear a little bit about each of the groups and what they have been up to. At the very end the city solicitor passed out the legislation on the open meeting laws and the conflict of interest information. Copies of these will be made for the conservation members.

Mt. Hood Golf Course Hearing

Dwight Dunk: This hearing is continued for a hand full of items. I think we have delivered everything this evening. Here is a letter with attached information, as well as revised plans. What we have provided here is revised sheets 1 & 2 that identifies the work that is a subject of this Notice of Intent to fully identify what work is proposed. The revised sheets 1 & 2 are stamped by professional engineers. The hay bale lines are shown on the revised sheet 1 & 2 at the bottom of slopes adjacent to wetlands 2 and 3. The drainage calculations are included attached to the letter. In the drainage calculations there are figures 1 and 2 that show the existing tributary drainage areas to the wetlands, as well as the two isolated lands subject to flooding and the proposed tributary areas to jurisdictional areas. Mr. Amirault delivered the proof of notification to abutters. I think those are all the items requested of the applicant for this continued hearing. Now just let me keep everything brief. As to clarify the work that is being requested to be authorized by the Conservation Commission is limited to the work of improving Fairway 12, specifically that work that is subject to review pursuant to the wetlands regulations being within 100 ft. of wetlands, 3 and 2. That work is limited to clearing, placing fill, grading the fill, installation of the drainage layer on top of the fill, basically grading and seeding the loam, and also installation of the drainage line to maintain on site drainage patterns. Also included in the drainage calculations is looking at the drainage to all of the five jurisdictional areas, the three wetlands and the two isolated lands subject to flooding. As you know there is no buffer zone to ILSF. There is no work proposed within the ILSF, but we do show the changes to that drainage. So that is to clarify what is and is not included to this project.

Dave: Is wetland #1 around 3^rd pond?

Mr. Dunk: It is around the 3^rd pond and it varies from areas being bank and the narrow border of vegetated wetland.

Dave: Have you seen the pond lately?

Mr. Dunk: I have not been out there since August.

David: Is it not a pond anymore? That is where the irrigation course comes from.

Mr. Dunk: But there is no work proposed within the 100 ft. buffer zone. Regarding the drainage calculations, just briefly, review the summary table that is included with that. Drainage area 1 is the northerly isolated land subject to flooding. The review of the two pre in post construction tributary areas show that drainage area for that isolated depression will increase, resulting in an increase in the runoff to that ILSF. The tributary area to the southerly ILSF decreases, basically what is not being directed, some of which was going here is now being directed here because of the proposed grading for the ball field. In any event, the change in the runoff is a little bit more geared to the northerly depression, and a little bit less in the southerly depression, will not change the functions of those isolated lands in terms of letting that be storage of flood lands. Wetlands 2 and 3 were not evaluated separated, mainly because Wetland 2 does drain to the fairway under drain to wetland 3 and basically you have one big water shed for wetlands 2 and 3. It all goes to wetland 3. There the tributary area remains about the same, and the model that predicts the rate of the peak rates of runoff for the various storms show that they were matching pre-construction and post construction flow rate to wetland 3 for the 1, 2, 5 and 10 year storm events. For the 25, 50 and 100 there is slight increase in the rate of runoff being 1 CFS 1 cu. ft. per second, for the 25, 50 and 2 cu. ft. per second., looking at unmitigated flows. That is based in the conceptual plan. Regarding the slight increase, #1 the regulations talk about the Commission has to determine whether or not the change will be a significant increase, whereas this flow coming into Wetland 3, continuing down towards Fairway 14, our opinion is that this minor change would not result in off site increase in flooding.

Bob: Is that including the swale's volume also.

Mr. Dunk: Yes, that includes the proposed contributory area to Wetland 3 as shown on this condition.

David: I am reading between the lines a little bit, but the fill that you propose to put in between the two wetlands naturally are part of the buffer zone. The calculations that you show is not going to displace the storage that happens there, and cause an adverse effect, I mean the Wetland 1, 2 or down to Wetland 3.

Mr. Dunk: Correct

Paul: You didn't look at the flow into Wetland 2.

Mr. Dunk: We looked at the flow into Wetland 2 and that is the contributory area that comes into Wetland 2 under existing conditions flows down center of the fairway into Wetland 3, and this point under existing conditions is essentially equal, and therefore this is one water shed for Wetland 3, of which Wetland 2 is within that water shed.

Paul: But the calculations will show what you didn't look at is the amount of water flowing into Wetland 3 at any point in time whether it is going to be what it is now or whether the swale is going to capture some of the water and divert that to Wetland 3 and deprive Wetland 2 of water.

Mr. Dunk: The tributary area for Wetland 2 really does not change. If anything, it gets slightly bigger and then you have the outlet pipe culvert that would match the invert at the same elevation at the existing outlet so that the wetland would drain down to the same level that drains down to now.

David: Wetland 2 would become pond if it no longer had the fairway to overflow into.

Mr. Dunk: It will always drain down to the same level that it does to now.

David: The three things that I am concerned about is Wetland 2 going to get more or less water; the fairway which stores a considerable amount of water right now, won't store that water as a result of the filling; and is Wetland 3 going to have more or less water as a result of the fairway being raised and it is going to push the water that stored there so it won't push it through Wetland 3, and is it going to stay there or overflow?

Mr. Dunk: #1, as far as storage on the fairway, it is essentially flat. When we are looking at it, that is the contours on a topographic map, the contours show it as flat with open field conditions, and based on the parameters that are used in the model to get storm flows, this has no storage capacity.

David: The water does flow in one of two directions, Wetland 2 or 3, and that model doesn't reflect this.

Mr. Dunk: I realize that. No matter what type of computer model is used, whether it be for storm water or any other purpose, there is always limitations to the number of parameters that we put into the model, and what we are seeing is how this storage will be accounted via the time that it takes water to flow through the fairway under drain to Wetland 2 under existing conditions which is based on soil, characteristics and slope, obviously would a big and shallow slope have a longer time concentration compared to a steep slope. So it has some storage in the time that it takes flow to move from Wetland 2 to Wetland 3. Obviously with the new proposed fairway, it does have a steeper slope and would have a shorter time for concentration compared to the time for flow to move between wetlands, and that flow change is probably why we are getting a slight increase for the larger stream storm events. The other thing is that, as you know, the soils out there are the bedrock controlled topography based on the soil conversation service. Soils tight with bedrock outcrop. Soil characteristics, the steep slopes, exposed ledge, leads to a hydrologic soil group of C/D. You have to make a professional judgement as to what you use. We chose more conservative C type soil. It has more infiltration than D, but when the city places filled out there on top of the hill is proposed to be a 12 in. drainage layer, basically crushed stone or gravel and on top of that 8 in. of loam, so you can effectively increase the infiltration of capacity into the top soil compared to existing conditions.

David: Does it have a place to store it under the fairway.

Mr. Dunk: Correct. And for the proposed conditions we still carry Class C soil, but we have slightly improved infiltration compared to the existing types of soil. The other component that is shown on the plan that it outside the buffer zone as you mentioned with the ILSF is the ball field and the parking lot. There will be an unmitigated increase in the rate of runoff. We did not model any detention time in this basin, however when this project goes further along in design, this basin will be evaluated and designed and sized to store a sufficient volume of water during storm events so that the existing rate of runoff to Wetland 1 will match the proposed condition. The calculations that you have show what would happen if this parking lot was filled with no basin and we are just down at that point, haven't had direction from the Park Dept. to move forward any further with the basin design to make those pre-and post-conditions match. If the commission decides to issue an Order of Conditions, we would expect to have a condition that before the construction of the parking lot that drainage calculations shall be prepared and submitted to show what that basin size is, what the flow rates are to mitigate impacts to that wetland.

David: Now is this the design of where the parking lot is going to go?

Mr. Dunk: The parking lot is still conceptual. Rick Amirault has some ideas about tees, some of the activities that are outside the buffer zone, and landscape the architects have to work together and develop a plan that they agree is mutually acceptable, and that would change the layout. This layout pretty much shows the grading and layout of the parking lot closest to Wetland 1. If anything, it will be pushed back in the future.

David: My concern is if that is still conceptual, this is all one project, and I have a hard time saying it is okay to do this without knowing the full impact of the project on the area of the parking lot.

Mr. Dunk: The grading that is shown on this plan of Fairway 12 is probably what the final grading is, but where it is sufficient that we have not been given to fill it in.

David: Your statement to say that this is probably the final grading, how can you tell us what effect there is going to be in drainage and everything?

Nancy: This is what we have under review, and that plan would be sufficient. Any changes occurred going from this plan to the final that would require additional submittals.

Bob: What page was showing the storm water summary flowing?

Mr. Dunk: That's the table.

Bob: You are saying that Wetland #2, the water going into there, will also be the same going out to Wetland #3, an equal amount, and won't be any impact on Wetland 3?

Mr. Dunk: There is the rate of runoff for the 1, 2, 5, and 10 year storm events.

Bob: I am sort of confused here concerning drainage areas 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Review of drawings.

Mr. Dunk: This is the existing tributary areas for Wetland 3, which is over here. It discharges via the stream and it continues down on to Fairway 14 and continues off the site, specifically location of Wetland 3. The area here is the tributary drainage area to Wetland 3. Wetland 2 is down in here, and because of the grading shown on here there is really no divide along the fairway between Wetland 2 and 3 to show a discreet tributary drainage area to Wetland 2. That is why it is showing one big drainage area. It is essentially the same under pre and post conditions, about an acre difference.

Bob: Is this chart also showing the volume that the swale is receiving?

Mr. Dunk: The drainage calculations are particularly developed to show and evaluate the peak rates of discharge, so it will be showing no increase in the rate of runoff.

Bob: It is interesting where you are showing Wetland 2 in the drainage area 3, but most of that water is coming from outside of that drainage area, isn't that coming from what was the other tee on the opposite side, on the lower portion here.

Paul: You are looking at the existing conditions.

Mr. Dunk: Yes, this is the existing conditions.

Paul: May I have the drainage area for the condition's map?

Mr. Dunk: The grading is at a 1 inch equals 40 ft. proposed grading in order to evaluate the drainage areas. This is the existing condition we looked at1 inch equals 100 ft., and what we did was to evaluate the drainage areas on here and then transpose it onto the existing conditions to get the area so that is why you don't see the proposed conditions grading on that sheet too, but it does show the tributary area because we have to measure the area that is tributary to the receiving.

Nancy: Did the coefficients for surface conditions and runoff volumes change?

Mr. Dunk: The surface topography changed, the runoff co-efficient changed slightly, and also the time of concentrations, they changed slightly because in areas we have steeper slopes than current.

David: So roughly speaking, 3 stayed the same, 1 doubled in size, 2 were cut in half and 4 is slightly larger.

Mr. Dunk: You talk about one-half acre. The summary table will give you the areas and runoff rates.

Nancy: Does the existing 12^th Fairway come right up next to the wetlands, the Wetlands 2 and 3, the way it is now?

Mr. Dunk: Yes

Nancy: So it already is within the 100 ft. buffer zone. I was just wondering why in the proposed plan this one has to be so close. It doesn't leave any buffer zone to the wetlands. It looks like currently there isn't a buffer zone to the wetland anyway.

Mr. Dunk: Currently, no.

David:: The way it has been playing, you are teeing off from up here which is well above the fairway, down below here, and literally if you miss you can end up here, you don't want to be there. If you miss the green, the green is right up here, if you miss the green to the right short you end up in it. If you block this fairway, and you probably got the same opinion, before they built this golf course this was probably a wetland the whole way which was filled in to put the hole there. It looks like it. You can't say for sure, but this is a natural boulder, all the water runs there. There are problems frequently with the runoff that does fill it up.

Nancy: What will the slope look like? Will it just be a golfer's rough?

Mr. Dunk: This slope here will be rough.

Nancy: But it will be mowed?

Mr. Dunk: It will be seeded, if it is mowed at all, it will be mowed here.

Nancy: Otherwise, it will eat a lot of golf balls.

Bob: Are you doing some sort of terracing up here? I notice the lines are sort of close together.

Mr. Dunk: No, what happens is from this point here, it will go down to 3 to 1 and then rather than showing all the grades, it is just a rough presentation, then at this point here right now it is showing 2 to 1, this slope may be revised as far as its actual grading, but it will go no closer than ILSF shown on this point.

Bob: Nancy brought up a point too, if you look at Wetland #2, it looks like it is going to be a very steep hill down to the wetlands. Shouldn't that be pushed back at least 20 ft. to be smoother?

Mr. Dunk: We have kept about a 10 ft. of undisturbed area between this wetland. It would require either steepening the slope more because where this is a public golf course, the intent is to have it playable for all levels of golfers.

Nancy: In your designs were you attempting to move the fairway as far a way from the wetlands as you could?

Mr. Dunk: In our design we need to place the fill in the fairway and grading this slope from existing contours down and maintaining a slope that we can develop a golf cart path that is not too steep. We are taking all those considerations into account and tried to keep this to of the slope as close to the wetlands as possible.

Bob: I think you are going to have problems filling. Right now I am recommending a 20 ft. buffer zone where the hay bales are going to be located. In your ILSF up here, you went over a 3 ft. orange fence, and then the fill went over the hay bales below that, and the contractor's record is not good for moving this dirt around. There will be two hay bales zones that will be recommended. One zone at least will be a 2 level hay bale, the 2^nd will be a 1 as you get closer to the water what may be reversed depending on what we look at, and possibly another storm fence up also because your track record for moving this dirt around is not good for these particular projects.

David: This is an interesting design challenge because roughly from where you are located, tee #2 to the beginning of the fairway is about 150 yds. of tee #12 and your average golfer is only going to be carry it about 150 to 180, so you can't really extend it, move it that way without making it unplayable, and you can't move it that way without coming in blasting ledger.

Mr. Dunk: That leaves us with the option 2 to 1.

Bob: Are you presenting the drawings for the inlets and outlets of these pipelines you are putting in.

Mr. Dunk: Right now we have not developed drawings for inlet and outlets. They will either be flared inlets, flared outlets or head walls. The design will be to match at the invert in Wetland 2 at the existing invert of the field drain and the outlet at 3 the invert will match the existing ground surface.

Bob: How are you preventing animals from getting into these pipes? How big is the pipe going to be?

Dunk: Right now probably a 24 in. pipe. That would be large enough to convey the flows.

David: How do you prevent 8 year olds from getting in it?

Dwight: You can put racks on it.

Bob: I would like to see the plans for that and the Engineering Department would like to see that too.

Mr. Dunk: Can you make that a condition?

Bob: No, frankly I don't think we should be issuing any Order of Conditions at this point, because there are still conditions on the specs on the inlets and outlets itself, how that is going to be treated.

Mr. Dunk: I will have to talk to Rich Amirault.

Bob: That's my view. It is up for discussion here.

David: I agree unless we know how you are building the inlet and outlets to the drainage system, it really is not a complete plan.

Bob: That is correct. And all plans submitted to us in the past will be showing the entrance and outlets of any particular type of pipe plans that have been designed. I consider that deficient at this point and you may want to talk about the 20 ft. buffer and the single and double hay bale lines that we are talking about with the bright orange storm fence.

David: Are there any other things that we can think that we would want to ask for, because if I were standing where you are right now, I would be saying "what didn't they ask for this last week", because we did ask for more stuff and I would prefer not to have you come back next time.

Bob: I was assuming for the calculations you were going to get some of the engineering for the drainage aspect for that and I don't see it in here, so I don't know the size of the pipes that you are talking about that you are using, that if they are single or double. You are going to be under 20 ft. of dirt I believe.

Mr. Dunk: It will be a single pipe. The cals will show it will be a 24 in. pipe.

Bob: Is that a cast iron that we are looking at?

Mr. Dunk: We will have to ask our structural folks.

Bob: At this point I think you are deficient on that aspect of it.

Bob: Any other comments, questions? Do I hear a motion to put this on hold?

David: Before we put it on hold, do you want to come back in two weeks or do you need more time?

Mr. Dunk: Where Rick won't be here tonight, I obviously have to meet with Rick, I can probably do it in two weeks.

David: If you want, we can table it to put it back at the Chairman's discretion after you notify him you are ready.

Mr. Dunk: If that can be done and still be here in two weeks.

Bob: If it is within two weeks, don't call me. If you need more time call me.

Mr. Dunk: I think it is something that can be done in two weeks provided we get authorization from our client.

Bob: You may want to talk to him concerning the 20 ft. buffer for the hay bale area at both Wetlands 2 and 3, and the details on the pipeline entry and exit, how you are going to handle that.

Mr. Dunk: We can certainly put racks on either end.

David: We have always conditioned that it be cleaned and maintained, so if someone has an idea how they plan to do that it might be worth including.

Bob: Does the Parks Dept. take care of that, or the city, which group within the city?

Mr. Dunk: Where this is from Fairway 12, it is on the golf course and it is the golf course manager who maintains the wall.

Bob: We also talked about going around Wetland 3, there was supposed to be some sort of addition, showing what that looked like as it went around.

Mr. Dunk: The 100 scale plans show a large area that shows what the discharge is.

Bob: There was some public concern in the meeting on the amount of water, and backing up of the water in that particular area, and there has been some concern about opening it up and cleaning it.

Mr. Dunk: I understand that was a separate item, that he would have to come back.

Bob: But I want to see what the extent of that drainage area and if this project stops there.

Paul: It is on these maps.

Bob: Okay, I will have a look at them. This may be a good time to talk to us and while he has all the equipment out there, you may want to look into doing something at the same time instead of coming back for another go around. Let's do it all at once.

Nancy: Could you summarize again what we are looking at.

Bob: He is going to be discussing with Rick Amirault concerning the Wetlands 2 and 3 area or 20 ft. buffer zone, or a one layer hay bale and a two layer hay bale, plus an orange 3 ft. snow fence. Also the plans for the inlet and outlet of the water from Wetlands 2 and 3 and the pipeline information.

Nancy: I don't understand why we couldn't make those conditions if we decided to approve the project.

Bob: Right now according to discussion here, if we put a 20 ft. buffer zone in there it is going to change the scale are you saying?

Mr. Dunk: It will change the slope to accommodate that. As far as playability, we need to maintain the width of the fairway so the hole is playable for all levels of golfers.

Nancy: Isn't it wider there now from the existing?

Mr. Dunk: It is wider. We are going to narrow it though.

Voted: to table this until the next meeting, November 2.

Roosevelt School Drainage Calculations

Nancy: I took home the package on the Roosevelt School drainage calculations. I have taken a look at them and they do appear to agree with the conditions that we sent to them with our negative determination that included requirements for flood storage.. What they are doing in essence is lowering the elevation of a portion of the baseball fields. It seems to make sense, they do list the ground water elevation which is one of my concerns, but they are still above that. Four weeks ago we replied by saying we needed this information.

Bob: They haven't come back with a request.

Public Hearing

Bob: I open the meeting up for the public for any concern on the wetland activity in Melrose.

Linda Benezra, 340 Porter Street: I just wanted to express my concern is that low, low level on Pond 3 at Mt. Hood. I don't remember that I have ever seen it so low and I

thought that in the conditions way back when they were allowed to use it for watering that there was a certain level that they could not go down beyond, but I don't have a copy of any documents.

Bob: Last year the 3^rd pond ran dry to my understanding, and I am not sure if there is any draw down. They are actually putting water into the 3^rd pond at times from the irrigation system, so they are probably getting ready for the winter season.

David: I haven't seen it this year, but I have seen it in prior years where it didn't look like a pond. I don't know if a commissioner at some point said you couldn't draw it down below a certain point. Do you know when the commission might have acted on that?

Linda Benezra: Probably back in the mid 80's. That was when I was on the Park Commission.

David: The hard part is part of the records from that period are not around anymore. City Hall moved them during the renovation and we lost about 2 years of records.

Linda Benezra: I would appreciate it if somebody would check. Just because it has been low the last couple of years doesn't mean it is right.

Bob: I will check the Mt. Hood Historical records that we have and see if there is anything regarding the Park Department and Conservation concerning the level of water in the ponds itself.

Nancy: I will research on the Wetland Protection Act.. Ponds naturally get lower, raise up, depending on the season, but some of the lower ends of pond is not natural. I will look at the regulations and call the Massachusetts hot line.

Richard Magown: Do you know if they pulled any of the planks out of the dam to let the water out or is it just evaporating?

Linda Benezra: The planks haven't been pulled out.

David: No, I think it is primarily because they pump the water out of the pond that you have problems. They pump the water from the well into the pond and then from the pond for irrigation.

3 Maple Terrace/Dantona

Mr. Dantona: I believe this gentleman was out at my house the other week for the pool and you said everything was alright?

David: We had a couple of issues out there. Before we can approve it, we need a set of as built plans from you.

Mr. Dantona: As you stated the pool is not in my Order of Conditions. I know what is going on. You gentlemen know what is going on. I am not going to get stuck in the middle of a battle between Enginerring, between the City, it is a pool. The way you said it to my wife. It is built to the plans I gave you, everything is good for the plans I gave you above and beyond. I would like to know does any other pool in Melrose have a dry well. I have a dry well to drain my water, so I am not going to get stuck in the middle of a battle. That pool is built according to plans, like you told my wife, it is a pool. If you want to take it above and beyond, we will go above and beyond.

David: You have a wall, it was built prior to those plans. We have no record of ever approving it. Your neighbor has a swale.

James Petrella, 3 Hemenway: Time out. The swale you guys are talking about, I presented photographs here, I went to Joe Lynch, I presented him with my photographs.

David: Do you have an Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission, authorizing filling of the swale?

Mr. Petrella: No swale was ever filled there. It has never been filled. I put loam to resod my lawn which was washed away. Bob Boisselle visited the site many times and he was consulted and it was loam. I have the receipts if you would like to see it. There was no trucks there. There was no fill, it was never filled. End of story.

David: We have the as built plans for when your house was built and it has no plans when your house was built. It shows the fill level approximately 4 ft. above a swale on the as built plans. We don't have record of authorizing that fill.

Mr. Dantona: You have plans of the wall. The wall didn't require a permit. The wall protected the wetlands.

David: I was on that commission. Actually, I said something to Mr. Petrella when it was happening, when you came to the commission before, that if you were building something illegally that wasn't okay, you should bring it before us.

Mr. Dantona: I did bring it before you.

Mr. Petrella: The swale was never filled. The swale was washed away.

Paul: If the swale was never filled. Is the swale there?

Mr. Petrella: The swale is there. When the water drains from the hill, the water goes one way right down the roadway, right to where the swale is, right into the wetland.

Bob: I have monitored the site a number of times and as the rain comes down the hill, the rain goes right across the street, goes into the swale and a certain portion goes down the roadway. As the road started deteriorating, some of that water started veering to the left, so you were getting half of the flow down street and you are getting half of the flow down the swale area. The water at the swale was still receiving water as of almost five or six months ago, maybe even less than that, so water was going into that swale area.

Nancy: I have a question. At a previous meeting we issued a Cease and Desist Order on the work the city was doing on the street, to make sure they were working on a valid Order of Conditions, and Bob I just heard briefly that Cease and Desist Order has been overturned. Have you?

Bob: I haven't heard that. As of 5 p.m. today, they are clarifying the Cease and Desist Order.

Mr. Petrella: Again, that is the city, that is not us. We didn't ask for a betterment. The city came in and did the betterment. So that swale is going to cease to exist because when the city came in and tore the street up and changed the flow of water.

Bob: The flow of the water will change when the curbs are up.

David: Are the curbs up now?

Mr. Petrella: It is a dangerous situation.

Bob: They put out the orange cones.

Mr. Petrella: That is not the issue. We are not out to ruin things. When I built my house I pulled tons of tires out of there. I pulled oil drained. We have neighbors up the street that changed their grates. They didn't have conservation's permission.

David: I am not saying we wouldn't have said it is okay to do it. I am just saying we don't have a record.

Mr. Dantona: The reason you are saying that now, it is highly coincidental that I got a call from the Building Inspector today saying that somebody was putting the factor of the wall up again.

Mr. Dantona: It is not because the wall is there, it is because there are outside forces instigating the problem. If you guys are covering your own butt, that is fine too, but be advised the wall wasn't there. It is on my print for the pump for the pool. It was accepted by here. Mr. Boisselle, you knew of the wall. The wall isn't even a solid wall. There are no footings. It is a stone wall. It is safe for the wetlands. Now when I ask for my Order of Conditions, it is an issue. It wasn't an issue when I was submitting it. I know why it is an issue. It is not because the wall is there because we had a meeting here and we brought up the wall, and the wall was a new point at that meeting and if you want to pull the minutes if they are still here, you will see the wall was a new point then. I will be honest with you. I am at the end. I am at superior court all day. I know the way the system works. It is no big deal. If you want to go to court, being reasonable doesn't seem to be working. I am not asking the city to do anything for me.

Mr. Petrella: We didn't ask for the betterment. We didn't ask for the road to be widened. We didn't ask to have more taxes. We weren't asked to give $20,000 for a certain party or else get harassed. That is why I am here tonight. To let you know that I had it in writing somebody wants $20,000 other than harassment with conservation. It has nothing to do with you guys. It was an offer made through the court system. If we have to go to court, then we will go to court with this. I want to end it and get on with my life. The city started it. Mr. Boisselle has been excellent over the last 4 years. I didn't start this fight. I didn't ask the trees to be cut down. It's probably illegal. The City Engineering Dept. started it. They were looking for a way out. I have to spend $10,000 for the way out. I don't want to spend $10,000. Now I feel like he is being harassed because of us. It is obvious what is going on. We are all human beings here. We did nothing but help those wetlands back there. We increased the flow of water on our property so it would not infringe on any of our neighbors. And Bob Boisselle admitted, right Bob? Nobody would help us. I contacted the City Engineer, I contacted Mr. Guerriero, I asked the city for help. Do you know what they told me? You are on your own, it is a private way. You paved the street yourself. You are on your own. That is all we heard. Nobody told us to come to Conservation. Why have I paved my driveway? I asked permission. Conversation said no problem, go ahead and do it Jimmy, you are all set. I asked Bob to come down. Bob came down. Am I correct Bob? A neighbor of mine said "Oh I have all kinds of water problems now. I videotaped it. I waited out there through two storms. Mr. Boisselle came down and I was being harassed by a certain neighbor, okay? There was no water damage to anybody's property. The Mayor knows what is going on. Everybody in this whole City Hall knows, except for us. It is not fair to us. Somebody should notify us about what is going on.

David: The question that we're asking is the pool itself. Your wall comes to the pool and joins the other wall and the appearance from walking and looking at it, the water that used to flow in between your house has been lifted up.

Mr. Datona: That is the initial grade that was there. Now the only thing that happens where the stones are, instead of taking dirt down with it, it has a hard flat surface.

Mr. Dantona: Which wall are you talking about?

David: The wall that is about 3 ft. into your yard. The plans that we have.

Mr. Dantona: The retaining wall. The grade height, from when the as built was built is the same right across.

David: But there is a slope that used to come down that we see in the as built plans.

Mr. Dantona: Because now instead of a gradual slope coming down to that swale, the wall would be here, but the original grading on my property is the same height, so that water runs down between the two properties the same as it always did, comes over, down the wall and right where the swale always was.

Bob: Tony, you submitted a map in 1989 - What we are looking for is a finished map now to agree with this map that we have as built now.

Tony: It is there. That is $600 I do not have for no apparent reason. If it was in my Order of Conditions when I built my house, you guys would have had it, but it is a pool.

James Petrella: Have you seen these pictures of the conservation swale. If you want, I am going to convert my video cassette. I am a pretty intelligent person. I learned a long time ago to photograph and also to videotape, you know from watching TV. I videotaped it and I photographed it. If you would like I will personally make you a copy of that in VHS format so you can see the damage that was done. We have had two or three huge storms where my entire yard washed into his yard. You can ask Joe Lynch. I called Joe Lynch for help. He said there is nothing we can do for you. You are on your own. It is a private way. Nobody would help us. What would you do if your yard was in his yard. Would you picket? I apologized to him and said I am sorry. I paid for it because I felt bad. I asked the Conservation's help three years ago. I presented photographs. I asked the Building Inspector. He said there is nothing you can do, the street is rotted away. Now we have a new street. That street is gone for obvious reasons. The only reason water flowed down there was because all of the neighbors up hill in the last three years are directing it down to our way. And the only reason why certain parties want the water to continue to flow there is this purely harassment. The city knows it is a problem. They have known it from Day 1. They knew it before the houses were built there.

Mr. Dantona: I know people have brought up claims of civil rights violation. Civil rights just doesn't cover race, my constitutional rights, they are using my land the way I see fit according to law, and that is exactly what I did.

Mr. Petrella: Do you want to drag everybody into court?

David: I think you both know what's right, but there is no absolute. I am not saying what you did is right or wrong. There is an area in a buffer zone and

Mr. Dantona: What we did was right for us, but maybe a little niche to you, but you have to have common sense too. The world is run on common sense, not black and white. You know that and I know that.

David: I am not saying what you did is right or wrong. I am just saying we don't have a record. There is an area in a buffer zone and it has a different elevation than on your as built plan.

Mr. Petrella: God and mother nature did that.

Mr. Dantona: There is no different elevation there. I see what you are going to show me. All we did was carry that slope straight up.

Mr. Petrella: What is your solution to the problem? Should we take it to court? Tell me what to do.

David: It is 78 here and goes further down.

Mr. Dantona: Who resurveyed it?

David: This was surveyed by Medford Engineering and this is the as built plans.

Mr. Dantona: Understand that these elevations, the wall is right about here, it is off the top of the grade and it is 80 ft. right here.

David: But it was 78 ft. and in here it flows at 78 ft.

Mr. Petrella: Mother nature comes down. I told you before. I videotaped it. I photographed it. If they come down and do that I am not an engineer. Nobody from City Hall would help me. Private way. You are on your own, they told me.

David: The point I am trying to make if you did something that is good for the wetland, that is not a bad thing, but we need documentation showing that it complied with wetlands regulations.

Mr. Petrella: But you know what, we told Mr. Boisselle that we are taking on a lot more water than we should be. Prior to this, all of this grade here was changed. I called Conservation to put a complaint in. Nobody wanted to listen to me. Somebody removed all the trees and ground up everything and changed all that grading. I had $2,000 in water damage to my house. Nobody wanted to say a word to me in Conservation when I came for help. So all you can do is talk to my attorney. I am not trying to pressure anybody. I feel you guys have been overly pressured in this situation, and it is not right. The City knows what is going on. Talk to the City about this situation. They know.

Mr. Dantona: I think we assumed we had a gentleman's agreement. I thought maybe of honorable people, that was good enough. If I tell you I am going to do something, I am going to do the best I can. If you guys acknowledged that something was going on, I mean if you wanted it stopped back then, we would have said stop it, we would have done so. It went up. It's a block wall, it is not a solid wall.

Mr. Petrella: It doesn't affect the water fall at all. It never did.

Bob: I stopped by several times and I saw the water going down the swale at times, depending upon the storm and the conditions of the roadway. The swale was accepting water before the fence went up and I haven't seen it since the fence is up there now.

Mr. Dantona: That is going to be a mute point anyway, because once the roading is done...

Bob: Again, that situation is being appealed at DEP and a decision is expected by Wednesday of next week.

Nancy: This is a separate issue. The Conservation Commission told the Department of Public Works to stop work on the road and now they are appealing that with the DEP. Then we will have a better idea as to what does or does not need to be done.

Mr. Petrella: If you drive down there while it rains, you can see the water flow, it is still there, the water flow when they put the curbing up, there were 2 drains that Mr. Senier was forced to put in, which are virtually useless and worthless, and we were told that was where the water was supposed to flow .

Bob: When the road is completed, those drains will be opened. The drains are protected at this point to protect the inners of the pipes under the roadway from the tarring up or the debris of rock and asphalt. Those will be cut out when the road is in place and ready to go and the actual grading will be put in at that time.

Mr. Petrella: And I expect more water flow on my side. The water flow was always on our side of the street. Apparently it wasn't flowing into the drains and it wasn't flowing into the sewer, it was flowing onto my driveway. Everybody in this room knew it. Mr. Boisselle knew it.

Bob: That is what the Engineering Dept., when the road is completed and upon approval, have to work on the upper portion of Hemenway, that is the area that the road will continue to be completed within three days I understand, when the cease is lifted.

Mr. Petrella: City Engineering. I totally trusted the city. I am not a road person. I am not a conservation person. We totally trusted the city to do the betterment. I figured they have city engineers here. We didn't chose that road. That was chose by the City of Melrose. They chose the road that was proper for the street. Mr. Lynch drew it, the alderman knew about it, the alderman approved it. I said that is fine. It is going to help the water flow. That is fine by me. We accepted it without question. You knew the wall was there. Bob, you gentleman knew the wall was there when I gave you the print for the pool.

Bob: That is a question. We are getting legal counsel concerning the wall on your property.

Mr. Dantona: Both the walls are on my property, and that is why I included it in the print and was accepted from Conservation, and were getting to issue an Order of Conditions, which I did and met everything on the Order of Conditions, and now it is a point, and today it happened to be a point with the Building Inspector too, because there is an outside source. I don't know if that outside source has an influence in here. I would hate to think it did.

Mr. Rose: I would hate to think that either. The outside source, that's me. I was looking for paperwork involved.

Mr. Dantona: You knew the wall paperwork did exist.

Mr. Rose: Well, I was trying to get that confirmed.

David: What we are asking is. We have no records saying that the wall was okay. What we are asking is did we implicitly say it is okay.

Mr. Dantona: I think by acknowledging the fact that what was being built that you didn't shut us down, by acknowledging the fact that I presented my plan that it was on the plan, that you scrutinized my plan, that it is reasonably fair to say that there was knowledgeable existence of the wall.

David: We are asking someone to clarify that for us.

Mr. Petrella: The main problem that I have here tonight is that I have a six year old and two year old and we have a telephone pole stuck in the middle of the street which is dangerous, which we cannot get moved, because you people slapped a Cease and

Desist Order. I would encourage you to drive by, take a look, picture yourself living there. Picture yourself with two children, he has two young children, I do, we all live on that street. Picture yourself in the same situation and then ask yourself if you would come up here and speak to you people as human beings and say please let the city finish and don't be pressured by any outside sources.

David: I put it in this different context. When we approved your building, that came in with a plan that would involve the betterment about ½ of the land of the road. What we have asked the city to do is to show us the rest of the road that they are including is in the buffer zone and if there is an issue, we have no record of ever approving the rest of the road. DEP might have said it was okay. I know they have issued a superceding Order of Conditions.

Mr. Petrella: That wasn't approved.

David: Your issue really shouldn't be with us for issuing a Cease and Desist Order. It should be with someone for going ahead and developing and changing in a buffer zone without having a valid Order of Conditions.

Paul: The Cease and Desist Order very clearly directs the city to take care of any safety hazards.

Mr. Petrella: Before I came up here, I contacted the building inspector. I contacted Mr. Senier, because I can't speak to Mr. Lynch anymore. I contacted the Mayor. I contacted them all and they all said the same thing that we are working on the problem. They took the street under a Mass Shuttle Law. They took the street for the betterment. I assumed that the city did all the proper procedures with you. We didn't know. You understand why we are so irate.

Bob: That's the reason that when we found out about it, we stepped in at that point.

Mr. Petrella: I totally understand, but you stepped in at the wrong time because we had an unsafe street out there, and now we are bringing up old issues, we are bringing up stuff that is four years old and let me make a statement to you. I sat here one night before the board when he was building his house, and this was what started the whole problem, when he built his house he presented some plans to you. Unbeknownst to anybody else, he was ordered to change those plans by the city, not once, but twice, and the final plan, you guys didn't approve that either because it was changed by the Building Inspector under pressure from an outside source. The city knows it, I am going to be out and frank with you, it is obvious what happened, and they pulled Mr. Lynch off the project. This man right here who sat quietly by. You guys didn't know about. Nobody knew about. I didn't know about it. But twice the plans were changed and that is what started this whole situation on Hemenway Ave., and you guys I am sure are well aware of it.

David: Depending on when the plans were changed, was it after the DEP had issued a superceding order of conditions?

Nancy: This project is not in our hands any more, but in the DEP's.

Mr. Petrella: Bob was quite shocked. I told him there was no drain pipe put in, the ground wasn't filled in. We had this huge swale put in. What you get is in danger. Come by and take a look. I asked him that a year ago. Come by and take a look at it and see if you would like to live there with a big huge whole beside your house, there is no water flowing in, it is useless.

Bob Senier, 5 Hemenway Ave.: It still an issue because I don't have my Certificate of Compliance. The Cease and Desist, I mean the city to make it safe is the big issue that I see where these holes are, they put some cones and tapes up. The two ft. ditches, and what has happened every time it rains, it is undermining the street now so somebody is going to drive by and because it is getting under undermined, they are going right into this ditch. By putting cones and hot top, that is not going to do the trick. You can see the hot top is just falling right into the holes because it is getting undermined. By putting some caution tape up today, that doesn't solve the problem. Now you are getting into putting curbing in, back fill and concrete, you are coming into the elements cold. Are they going to be able to do it? You know how these things get dragged out. It is a public safety issue.

Bob: What we are basically saying once the Cease and Desist Order is appealed, has been lifted, it will take them three days. The crews are ready to do it. As long as they get 24 hours notice, they will be out there in three days.

Paul: The alternative would have been for the city to come to us today with plans.

Mr. Petrella: They gave us a set of plans. Why didn't they give it to you guys? I don't know why they didn't do it. I had a copy of it. It's not a actual plan, but it was a drawing showing grades, etc. It was done by Joseph Lynch who has not been taken off the project for obvious reasons.

Mr. Senier: When cities do their own project, they tend to have their own set of rules. I am sure Tony sees it where he is working, they don't need the details, they don't need these rules, they have their own set of rules.

Paul: That is why the city has received several Cease and Desist Orders.

David: In my five years on the commission, we have only issued a Cease and Desist Order to one body or person, and that is the City of Melrose.

Mr. Petrella: I will gladly convert my videotape at my cost, show you the so called grading in the street. This is before the committee came in and repaved it. I would be more than happy to show it to you and you would say to yourself what a disaster. We lived it, you didn't live it, and you know what when I am responsible for tar on my side of the street on a private way and there is a 4 ft. hole there, I am liable for that 4 ft. hole. The city does come down once in a while to help out. I am not going to deny that.

Bob: This is a picture that was taken in April this year and I will pass it to the commission. You can see the water going down where the two houses were developed.

Mr. Dantona: It runs down like a sun of a gun. It is such a mute point.

Mr. Petrella: The city's swale is going to take the water on my side of my street, where I am assuming by the gutters and into the conservation swale that he was forced to build and that is what Joe Lynch told me the drains were there for when I looked at his plans. I didn't approve of his plans, but you know what I didn't want to fight them because the man was building a house. I didn't like his plans at all, but who am I to stop a man from building on his property, and I knew the plans that he had were illegal. The city admitted they shouldn't even have been drawn up with those plans. But I am a nice person.

Bill Dailey: Does the Cease and Desist prohibit moving the telephone pole?

Bob: Yes, with the Cease and Desist Order against the city no utility would actually do anything unless there was an actual emergency.

Nancy: I think a safety hazard would override.

Mr. Petrella: There is definitely a safety hazard. We are concerned somebody falling in there. They aren't going to sue you, they are going to sue the abutters.

Mr. Dantona: They'll sue everybody.

Mr. Petrella: What is happening is like you said, the water is coming up in those holes and it is draining underneath our property and it is causing more damage. The city's betterment which everybody in the neighborhood said was the best thing to do for the street.....

Bob: I will give Joe Lynch a call tomorrow to see if any other statement that is issued. Do you think the pole is a definite issue.

Nancy: I think it's a big issue. I don't know if you need to call a different city department, such as Public Health.

William Rose, 4 Hemenway Ave.: I don't even know where to begin. First of all my primary reason for coming here tonight was to again ask this commission about the issue of safety. I brought this issue up last week when you people considered the Cease and Desist Order, and at that time I believe, I don't know what the minutes say, but there was verbiage that was supposedly going to be inserted in the order which would allow the city to fill in the trenches that they had created for safety sake, and as far as I can see that language didn't make it into the order because the city has not filled in. Those ditches do exist and they are now dangerous as I raised two weeks ago. I am extremely concerned that they still remain open pits to this day. And now with the rain there is an issue for erosion, it is now eroding the base layer of the street and it is also caving in on the side. Mr. Petrella is sitting over there with all his accusations saying "he started it, he started it". Just a few issues of clarification just to get these random dispersions he has thrown out for the record, I have no idea and I would like to see evidence of this $20,000 through the courts, I don't know what kind of implications that there is, there are no private suits in place right now, harassment, I don't understand that. There has never been and there is not contemplating any civil rights violations at all, there hasn't even been mention, unless somebody is banging it about, police records. For some reason the police record that Mr. Petrella refers to is on record with the police department and it is a statement made by himself and his wife, no one else. Mr. Petrella talks about right to protect property. I couldn't agree with him more. But you do not protect your property at the expense of someone else, like bringing water away from your property on to somebody else's as was done with the filling in of the swale which was there long before Mr. Petrella came into the city and by further putting a berm in the middle of the road to further direct even more water. He mentioned about the trees being removed and changing of the grading. The trees were removed and they were not removed with the city's permission as he put. As a matter of act the city was dragged kicking and screaming over that, they fought us with that as did the Petrella's and the court records do show that, and no grading was changed at all. The trees were just removed and that was it. The stumps weren't even ground off at that point. He talked about water pulling into his driveway. Yes, that occurred. It occurred shortly after he filled in the swale which redirected the water further down the street. It hit the lowest point which at that time happened to be his driveway. He tried to rectify that by putting move pavement on his driveway.

Mr. Petrella: Why didn't you complain about it four years ago?

Bob: He gave you the respect to speak. Let him speak.

Mr. Rose: The telephone pole that is in the middle of the street is, in fact, a hazard, and I am sure most of the senior members on this board know that is a hazard I have been trying to get removed for well over ten years, and so Mr. Petrella says that I am holding that up. I have one question for him through the chair, and that is the telephone company has attempted a number of times to get permission from all the residents on the street to remove that pole by way of an easement. Last I spoke with the gentleman from the telephone company, which was less than two weeks ago, as of that time Mr. Petrella had not signed an easement to allow the telephone company to remove the pole, so if there is any hold up, and point of fact and evidence will show that it is Mr. Petrella that is stopping that pole from being moved. Now it may very well be that the Cease and Desist Order has also contributed to that, but again I would ask this board that for the purposes of safety to get that pole out of the middle of the street. It is a safety hazard as are the trenches. Mr. Petrella made the statement that the city took the street under a Mass General Law. That has not occurred. Don't know when it occurred. No abutters have been notified of it. Again, I repeat the city did not take the street under any Mass General Law. It didn't occur. I don't know about prints being changed by the Building Inspector by a "outside source". I hope he is not referring to me. I have no contact with the Building Inspector, never have. He mentions the drawings the city allowed people to view at the one aldermanic meeting that I was at and at meetings in front of this board, and I think this board has confirmed, that were not at that time any topos at all of the street, either before or what it would like after the grading was done. I am not sure those exist at this point. If they do, I haven't seen them.

Bob: Was that topo a map used at the meeting?

Mr. Rose: At the one aldermanic meeting, the only one that we were notified of, by the way I include myself and the Donovan family. Unfortunately, Mr. Donovan couldn't make it here tonight. He wanted to be here tonight, but he had to work. I spoke with both he and his wife yesterday. There was a map presented at that hearing, and they only presented at that hearing was an artist rendition of what the street would look like. There were no topos at all shown. There was no engineering progress shown. There was nothing shown about what the composition of the street was going to be. There were no drainage calculations discussed, nothing of that sort was discussed. The only thing that was shown was an artist rendition of what it was going to look like. The issue was then fast and forwarded up to the full board and the discussion continued and there was supposed to be a meeting on January 3 and everybody was on that page, including a document from Mr. Petrella's lawyer stating that the expectation was that there was a January 3 meeting at which time everyone could come and voice their opinion. At the first meeting both myself and Mr. Donovan expressed reservations about the betterment and also expressed our objection to the betterment. So once I again, I made the statement before, there appears to be a rumor around that everybody on the street is for this betterment. That could not be further from the truth. To this day, two families are against this betterment and are fighting it. The other issue is that Mr. Petrella spoke something about the betterment putting water on his side of the street. Once again if you go out and check the grading, all you have to do is go there, look at the grading, how it got changed when the city put down their base layer and you will see that the water is being directed to Mr. Donovan's side of the street and right down our side of the street, and once again if you went out there when it was raining yesterday and today, you would see where a vast majority of the water is, and all that water is in fact, running down the trench that exists on our side of the street, whereas on the other side of the street is dry. So they are trying to tilt it and I did explain, and I think in all fairness, what was explained to us the reason why which was they are trying to avoid an ice dam. Everybody in the neighborhood is not for this betterment. I am sorry.

Mr. Petrella: It can't be stopped here.

Mr. Rose: Nobody is trying to stop the betterment here. That is the other point of issue.

The other question I have is I believe the chair mentioned that DEP can overturn the enforcement order. When you said that it rung a bell. I just happened to look at this. The last paragraph as the 2^nd page here, Enforcement Order IND. It says an enforcement order issued by a conservation commission cannot be appealed to the Department of Environmental Protection, but may be filed n superior court. Is that the route the city is following now?

Bob: The DEP is getting an interpretation of the superceding order, and basically doing that they were under the assumption that the entire roadway was going to be completed, and that is getting clarified for the Commission.

David: What we based our Cease and Desist Order was the last knowledge we had, and that was the betterment of the road that was part of the design for your properties about halfway down Hemenway, and not aware whether or not for the superceding order of conditions DEP talked about the road all the way to the end of Hemenway. They were issued Cease and Desist Order until they either came before us with the Notice of Intent for the work that we don't believe is on the order of conditions or show the chairman that DEP had allowed the work under the superceding of conditions.

Bob: This will not be an appeal process but a clarification of the superceding order.

Mr. Rose: I apologize for going off in that tangent. The primary reason that I came here tonight is my concern that the trenches are still non-existent and for elderly people that come to my house. One of them has inner ear infections, suffers from vertigo, and I am very concerned that it is very easy for him to fall in that ditch. My understanding two weeks ago was that the language was going to be in there and hopefully the city would understand that it was a safety condition and within a day or so fill in those ditches. Apparently, that has not occurred.

Mr. Petrella: We suggest they hay bale them, rather than fill them in at this point. It is only going to add additional money to the betterment. If they can hay bale them, we accept them. By filling them in, you are going to have water all over the place. At least the water is draining into the gullies. It is an unsafe situation where water comes down now.

Bob: I will inform Mr. Lynch, the city engineer, who will have this option to fill in hay bales or to whatever extent he makes, that his expertise and staff make a decision on how to secure the area for safety purposes.

Mr. Petrella: I oppose to that. I am going to call my attorney tonight. Mr. Lynch has been taken off the street. He is the problem with the street. He knows it, Mayor Guerriero know it. Mr. Lynch started this whole problem. He has been taken off the project. I do not want him back on. I don't want him to make any decisions. I have a problem with that.

Bob: I have a problem in the point that I have to go through the appropriate department.

Mr. Petrella: Mr. Scenna has been assigned to the street now, from what I understand.

Bob: I have to go through his boss to get him to do that. I have to go through the city engineer which is Mr. Lynch.

Mr. Petrella: It is kind of ironic that Mr. Rose wants to fill the ditches in, but he is not too concerned with that roadway being put in, and going forth and finishing the betterment. Some of the issues he talked about is what has been going on in court, so you people are hearing something that is totally not for you to hear. This has been before a judge for three years now.

Bob: Gentleman, concerning discussion on putting in the edging, roadway, etc., we don't have to do that right now. I am more concerned about the safety issue, the city is appealing or getting clarification upon the extension of the original superceding order. Decision is pending, hopefully by Tuesday or Wednesday next week, that will be decided one way or the other. If you gentleman want to call me Wednesday or Thursday morning, I can try to give you the decision, if I received it or not. I have told Mr. Lynch and DEP to send me a copy of their written decision so I can get it out to the appropriate parties.

David: The City should have filed an NOI with us. If they had done that instead of asking for clarification from DEP then we could have resolved it all tonight.

Mr. Petrella: That is fine by me. I can live with it for another week.

David: If a kid falls into one of those ditches, it won't be fine.

Mr. Dantona: I just need to get back to know what I need to do for my end of it, for my certificate. I can't afford $600 for an as built. If it was the foundation, I would say yes. If you just not want to give me one, then I guess when I sell my house if I sell my house, I will have to clear it up then.

Bob: We will discuss this and an alternative for this. There does seem to be a point on what your observation at the site that seems to be some area of grading that is the problem, and we will have to look again in that aspect.

David: We didn't say in the Order of Conditions he had to do an as built plan. We need a clarification for someone if we gave some kind of explicit rule to a wall that was not under any other plan or a compliance (certificate of compliance? order of conditions?), so we just have to ask a question about that. Until it is resolved, he doesn't need to do anything.

Mr. Dantona: That road, I don't travel up and down it. I wanted to stay neutral in this, now my kid's safety is in it. It is to the point it is ridiculous.

Mr. Petrella: We trusted the city. I trust the city, I trust the mayor. I trust you people will make the right decisions and not be influenced by outside sources. I just want to clarify two points and then I am going to leave because this is bantering. I have the police reports that Joe Lynch from the city did give permission for Mr. Rose to remove the trees

without anybody's approval. Obviously when you cut trees and locust down you change grades in the street. So I want to clarify that and I have a copy of the police report. I don't want to influence you, but I feel like you are being influenced. It has been ongoing for four years. I talked to Fred Cefalo and his brothers who built the property and they told me it has been a constant fight and battle down there.

David: I am unsure which trees you referred to. The big oak trees?

Mr. Petrella: Yes

David: If you recalled when you came in and they were talking about that, about how old are those trees, at least to 100 - 150 years. As part of the plan that we did say that those trees would be removed for the road betterment.

Mr. Petrella: Those plans were illegal. It shows Mr. Senier doing work outside his property lines basically without the neighbor's consent or permission. Would you like me to come and build a house next to you and call your trees down? I said don't do it. I didn't agree to cut the trees down. I did agree to move the telephone pole. I will give you Mr. Brian's phone number. Call him and ask him who is stopping the move of the telephone?

Nancy: That is outside our jurisdiction.

David: What we can do is if he has a plan that says he has to build a huge drainage ditch right through your house, we can say it is okay if that meets wetland regulations, but that does absolutely not give anybody permission to do something on anyone else's property. All we are saying is that meets wetland regulations.

Mr. Petrella: It abuts my property. The man needed to put his house up and whether hiring an attorney to fight him because he had a pregnant wife, etc., I said just put it up, we will go to conservation and worry about it later. If you come down and look at it, it doesn't function, it is a waste of his money, a waste of his time, it is unsightly. Come look at the trees. They were uprooted in the storm that I tried to preserve. It is on the opposite side of my house between Mr. Senier's house. Come look at that swale. By putting that swale there, that caused all the water to change the flow of direction and Bob saw it, it is all dried up now. I am the one that waters it. Everything is dead in there. That was the issue I had before. I agreed to cut down the trees 2 ½ years ago. I agreed to widen the street. All parties in court agreed to wait for the city betterment.

Bob: There are exceptions on the street for the betterment.

Mr. Dantona: Can I ask you a totally unrelated question?

Bob: Yes, sir.

Mr. Dantona: The stuff that you guys put in Towners Pond & Swains Pond to keep the weeds down,is there any residual effect? Because all of that water eventually does drain up to the back of our property.

Bob: There should not be any residual effects to you.

Nancy: We have the ecology reports on the residuals as a result from the treatment and the actual elements are very short, within 24 to 72 hours.

Mr. Petrella: If you want to see any paperwork or anything from the court for any of the accusations I have made here tonight, feel free to knock on my door at 3 Hemenway, I have a box for you. Feel free to come by. You will see the damage done by local and huge storms, and you will see why our concern was to make the water flow properly down in a storm. We only sought to help, not to hurt.

Voted: to close the public participation portion of our meeting.

Voted: To adjourn at 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Pritchard

Conservation Secretary