|
|
|
|
|
Minutes of November 2, 2000[Approved 11/16/00] Please Note: The tape used to record this meeting was defective and did not record. The following minutes are taken from notes only. Present: Robert Boisselle, Paul Locke, Peter Mortimer, Nancy Naslas, William Dailey, David Valade Voted: to pay the secretary's invoice for October for $235.50; and $9 for the MACC book. Conservation Budget as of October 1 was $19,175. Voted: to accept the minutes of October 5, 2000 as amended. The minutes of October 19 will be on hold until the next meeting. November 4, Saturday, is Ell Pond cleanup - meet at the knoll 9 a.m. Eagle Scout Service Project by Michael Festa. Bob went to his home to find out what was going on because they were talking about digging. Right now there is no digging or planting of trees, but a major cleanup. He has a whole project involving students. He is in the floodplain and the southern portion of the knoll will be within the buffer zone. MACC Conference Review Bob reported on attending a recent Conference and highlighted "Guiding Public Projects" which covered a wide area of discussion, opportunities to shape the project, jurisdiction and key laws. A new Article 97 replaced a newer Article 49, and states that land or easement and other resources of the commonwealth shall not be used for other purposes. There have been some interpretations of it. Giving away conservation land is a long process and has to go through four bodies of government to get to it. Bob made available the MACC Environmental handbook - 2000 update packet. Mt. Hood Golf Course - 12th Tee - Notice of Intent Continuation of Public Hearing Rich Amirault: I apologize missing the last meeting held during my vacation. I have reviewed your requests and notes, which we have incorporated into the plan. Dwight Dunk, Environmental Specialist from Camp Dresser & McKee, will inform you in detail what we are submitting to you tonight. Dwight Dunk: Pursuant to the discussions during the October 19, 2000 public hearing on the Mt. Hood Haul Road Notice of Intent - DEP File No. 217-117, we are submitting the following: · Revised Sheet 1 and 2 Mt. Hood Recreation Area Improvements - Conceptual Plan. This revised plan shows the limit of filing no closer than 20 from the wetland boundary and other detail you requested. · A revised haybale detail showing a double line of haybales with orange construction fence at the limit of fill. · Drainage calculations comparing pre- and post-construction flows to Wetlands 2 and 3 for the purpose of sizing the drain pipe. · Inlet and outlet details for the drain pipe with grates. The field drain inlet at approximately elevation 158 feet (outside of the 100-foot buffer zone) will be a standard catch basin grate inlet in the low spot within the depression. · Drain line operation and maintenance procedures. The procedures to maintain the proposed drain line as designed are: 1. Upon completion of construction, the contractor will remove all material (sediment, sand, construction material, leaves, branches, etc) that may have accumulated at the drain line inlet and outlet. This is needed to ensure the drain line is fully functional at the completion of construction. 2. The golf course maintenance staff will inspect the drain line inlet and outlet on a regular basis, a minimum of four times per year (once each season). Inspections will also be required after every rain storm of 1-inch or more. 3. Based on the results of inspections, the golf course maintenance crew will remove accumulated material (sediment, branches, leaves, etc) as needed to ensure free passage of stormwater into and out of the drain line. The grading plan (Sheet 1 and 2) provides adequate grading detail (contours and spot grades) to define the surface slope at all drain inlets, including the drain pipe flared end sections and the field drain at approximately elevation 158 feet. This field drain is located at the low point in a shallow depression to collect flow and prevent sheet flow over the proposed slope. This inlet will be a standard catch basin drop inlet with a grate. Also, to accommodate the grading setback of 20 feet from Wetland 2 and per standard sand bunker construction, a shallow field under drain system with field inlets are included in the revised design. This is needed to prevent sheet flow over the 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopes required to meet the 20-foot wetland setback, and is standard design for sand bunkers. Flow from this system will discharge to the 24-inch drain line. Manufacturer product information regarding this shallow field drain system is also provided with this correspondence. Nancy: What are you calling peak flow going out of Wetland 2 and Wetland 3? Mr. Dunk: This size is for the 100 yr. storm. David: Are you putting grates over it? Mr. Dunk - Yes, it is 24 in. evenly spaced. Rick: It is important to stress that going back 24 feet is going to be protected area. Nancy: So these plans that you submitted today are a conceptual plan for the details. Are the actual engineering designs planned to change? Also, I noticed that the professional engineer's stamp is on these plans, but his signature is not. Mr. Dunk: Those are the engineering design at this point. Mr. Dunk: We have to get the final permits to the point we can receive an OOC. Nancy: We would want to vote on a final plan that will not change. Mr. Dunk: If there are any changes they will be finalized before they are put out to bid. Bob: Did you want in the OOC that the final engineering plan is stamped and designed? Nancy: Yes that is something we can condition. Bob: You have submitted this from Regional Warehouses Co. This is showing the types of grates? Mr. Dunk: For the shallow field drain system, it is basically a shallow system to minimize over a bank flow. David: So you are going to use this one? Mr. Dunk: It is shown on Sheet 2. David: During some storm events where you didn't get a high enough level of water into Wetland 2, wouldn't that be diverting the water that would have gone there? Mr. Dunk: It probably does not change the water in field conditions. Any water that you still have is the large part of the drainage area to Wetland 2. Public Comment: Voted: to open for public comment. There were no public comments concerning this particular portion of the hearing. Voted: to close public comment. Voted: to approve this project subject to the Order of Conditions, which we will complete at the end of this meeting. Hemenway Ave. Bob: As of last Thursday the holes have been filled at Hemenway Ave. and have been made safe for the area, we are now waiting for clarification of DEP's initial letter. David: If they had filed an NOI with us they might be done the project right now. Bob: I received the Determination of Applicability. William Rose, 4 Hemenway Avenue Requests for Determination of Applicability are submitted as follows: I, the undersigned, hereby request that the Melrose Conservation Commission make a determination as to whether the area described below, or work to be performed on said area, also described below, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, S40: 1. Hemenway Ave., Melrose; Lot Number: Length and width. The work in said area is described as: Proposed construction of new street by the City of Melrose including installation of granite curbing. The owners of the area, if not the person making this request, has been given written notification of this request on 25 October, 2000. The owners, to the extent known, have been notified. I have filed a copy of this request with the appropriate regional office of the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection 25 October 2000. Signed: William Rose, 4 Hemenway Ave. 2. 3 Hemenway Ave., Melrose, Lot, No. 4: The work in said area is described as: Filling in of swale that existed on the northeasterly side of Lot #4 (3 Hemenway Ave) and otherwise placing fill on the aforementioned property so as to raise the elevation thereof. The fill was placed on their land without seeking review by the Melrose Conservation Commission. As a result of said filling, water no longer could drain over its former course towards the wetlands. The owners of the area, James J. Petrella and Katherine S. Petrella, 3 Hemenway Ave. have been given written notification of this request on 1 November, 2000. I have filed complete copy of this request with the appropriate regional office of the Mass Department of Environmental Protection 1 November, 2000. Signed: William Rose, 4 Hemenway Ave. David: Is Mr. Rose planning on doing work on the road? I am confused. Mr. Rose, 4 Hemenway Ave.: No it is not that I intend to do any work. I am just asking there be a NOI from whoever it is that is doing work. As a matter of fact I have another request to be delivered by hand. My goal has been to seek an honest, open and public review of this situation, no more, no less, no hidden agendas. That is all I have been asking. The request that I just handed you was triggered fundamentally by this deal with the fill that was done on Mr. Petrella's property and the reason why I am submitting a Request for Determination is in October 1999 I began writing this commission regarding the filling of the property. To my date there has been no action. Now I am asking for the Request of Determination for the removal of that swale and the subsequent direction of the wall. Bob: We have a picture in June of the water going down and there was water going to the left also. So the swale is not completely covered at this point. I have observed water going down the street and the slope. David: I think in essence you are requesting the fill be removed. Paul: I don't know if there is any benefit, legal or otherwise procedure to reinforce it, but by putting our Cease and Desist Order showed our feelings. Mr. Rose: Why is there being work in the street area? They delivered curbing and blocked my driveway. It would appear they are gong forward with this. Bob: They may be storing materials and dispersing them out of the DPW yard. Mr. Rose: They made a second delivery 2 days ago and put a whole bunch at the entrance of Hemenway Way and then the 2nd grouping is to the left of the telephone pole so that further exacerbates the problem. Bob: Basically it is a stock piling issue and they have to get it out of the DPW yard.
Paul: Does stockpiling that material fall under our jurisdiction? David: I don't think we told them they couldn't store materials on the site. If they start to install them then that crosses the line. Bob: If they do work then a decision has been made with DEP and I would like a copy. Paul: Mr. Rose, because of the Cease & Desist Order, do you want to continue with the Request for Determination of Applicability? Mr. Rose: To be frank, I am not sure, the reason why is the history of what the city has been doing in that area. It is not clear to me, I don't understand how a DEP ruling can say given the Senier plan, that they are going to extend up the roadway. The form says DEP cannot overrule a Cease and Desist Order. Bob: This was a superceding order, DEP has the jurisdiction. They have been on the site 2 or 3 times doing the superceding order and the meetings that occurred after, we are waiting clarification from the decision. The DEP is aware of the situation.
Paul: It couldn't hurt to have the continuance of Request of Determination. Bob: If you sent this to the DEP office, as far as we are concerned the commission is responding with a Cease & Desist Order. Mr. Rose: Linda , the individual who I spoke to regarding the OOC, advised me they have displaced the Senier file. She also told me as of my conversation with her she had not received any plans. The question I had for her was in the drainage calculations. Was there consideration for the runoff down in Maple Terrace? Apparently the city is relying on Mr. Senier's plan. The water no longer crosses the street. It is all going to go into the culvert. The city has been telling me not to worry about it. Mr. Cefalo's house is 4 ft. above the grade. Every house is higher than what it was supposed to be. All the water now goes to the lowest point. That is frustration. Bob: Until DEP gives us clearance for that particular project, right now they have clearance for construction of the street up to your property. Mr. Rose: My question would be if they have clearance to do it according to the Senier plan? Bob: That is what we are requesting from DEP. We will see. Mr. Rose: That request has been for Engineering. David: They only have plans to build the back of the street, in particular where the swale was. We do have pictures of it going across the grass there. The water should still continue to go down where the swale was between the Dantona and Petrella properties. I would want to review how the city was handling the water. My opinion is that the ideal situation would be for the City to get an easement to send the water via pipe through area where the swale was. Nancy: My recollection may not be correct, but I remember that after going through the pipe that is not functioning right now, the water will come out there and into the same wetland.
Mr. Rose: The key question is granite curbing was not in the original plan. Bob: The curbing is an issue by itself. It is a standard by the city I believe the Alderman have declared that any future improvement to roadways will include granite curbs. I have heard this many times at their meetings, "why are you not putting in granite curbing". As far as I know any new roadway coming in or being created in Melrose, granite curbing will be required. Paul: The Alderman cannot overule us. Bob: We are on hold until we get clearance from DEP. Nancy: We need to decide or Mr. Rose needs to decide. Mr. Rose: I absolutely want to remove the granite curbs. Bob: We need clarification from the city for the rest of that street. Paul: Regarding Determination of Applicability. Whether or not something is going to happen in the future they will have come before us with or without that Request for Determination (RFD). Any further work done on his property is still subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, so I think we have already established our jurisdiction, in fact our work being done there would be subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, if you want to reinforce that, it is up to you, but I do think it is independent whether they put the road in. David: It is new to me, a Request for Determination. Paul: Anybody can file a request for Determination, including the Conservation Commission. It is a way of establishing ground rules in jurisdiction. Nancy: Is a public hearing required for a Request for Determination of Applicability. Peter: Not abutters, just publication. It is a standard NOI. David: Did you give this to request to Mr. Dantona as well, because the wall is on the Dantona property. Mr. Rose: I will give it to him.
Paul: We have to have a meeting, but not a public hearing. It has to be advertised. We have to make a decision within 21 days, 7 days before the meeting. David: Which is why we asked it to be hand delivered. Voted: to open for public discussion. Terri Waugh, 357 Porter "Have you received that $5,000 donation from the Gaiter Corporation for your trails to be matched by the Park Dept.? Bob: I don't have it my hands, but it is in the funds, I was informed the money would be put aside. My question is part of the trail goes right through the work being done. Some of the trails are exiting out of the vernal pool area and I am trying to determine which way to go from that area. Priscilla Hook: 10 Elmcrest Circle - I am questioning the manifestation regarding the cleanliness of the fill at Mt. Hood. Bob: All the manifest goes to DPW. Nancy: I will go take a look. Priscilla: Thank you. Bob: You can go to look and see the manifest. What you may want to do is call where they were the day before. They may be at DPW or may be here, or they may be at the trailer on site. Priscilla: Terry and I were watching today and many different colors of things were coming out of that truck. Terri: It is not clean fill. Voted: to close the session for public comment. Bob spoke of Linda Benezra's concern at our last meeting regarding the volume of water in the 3rd pond at Mt. Hood. Bob will attempt to locate/research historical records to see if in the 80's it was specified that the pond could not be drawn below a certain point. 470 Lynn Fells Parkway - Dunkin Donuts Information was passed out regarding a Notice of Intent that will be discussed at our next meeting for Dunkin Donuts at 470 Lynn Fells Parkway. Pass-outs included 2 plans,along with document and drainage summaries. The map shows that the site is on the edge of the floodplain. The Order of Conditions were drawn up for the Mt. Hood Golf Course - 12th Tee. Voted to adjourn @ 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Pritchard Commission Secretary |
|
|
|