Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20160321 - Conservation Commission - Meeting Minutes Hopkinton Conservation Commission 21 March 2016 Page 1 of 4 21 March 2016 Called to Order: 7:30 PM Town Hall, Room 215/216 Adjourned: 9:20 PM Members Present: Jeffrey Barnes, Jim Ciriello, Ed Harrow, Melissa Recos, Kerry Reed, Marcus Waldron, Jamie Wronka, Don MacAdam: Conservation Administrator, Bob Ingram: Conservation Scientist, Anna Rogers: Inspections Administrative Assistant Members Absent: none 7:30 PM Commission Business • The Commission reviewed the following documents which had signature pages signed at the 07 March 2016 meeting: - Lucas, 258 Pond St – Determination of Applicability (RDA 2016-5) - Reardon, 112 East Main St – Order of Conditions (188-1596) • The Commission signed the following documents: - Dominques, 128 Hayward St – Invalid Certificate of Compliance (188-516) - Nation, 18 Hunters Ridge Way – Certificate of Compliance (188-1543) – pending receipt of revised As-Built Plan showing medallion locations from Chris Nation. • A discussion was held with Mr. George Connors, representing Mr. Scott Miller, Equestrian Building Co., regarding the Conservation Restriction (CR) subject to Lot 19 South Mill Street for the following DEP File Numbers: 188-1378, 188-1379, 188-1380, 188-1381, 188-1382, 188- 1383. Mr. Connors noted the CR area would be surveyed and clearly marked on-site. Mr. Waldron made a motion to approve a Reservation of Easement document as discussed in order to allow Mr. Miller to start work on the properties while the CR is being finalized. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harrow and it passed unanimously. • A discussion was held with Mr. Dave Marquedant and Mr. Jason Andreola regarding a project change request for 90 Saddle Hill Rd (188-1542). Mr. Marquedant noted the single family home is still proposed outside the 100 foot buffer zone, that there would be less proposed disturbance and the limit of work would be smaller than originally designed. Ms. Recos made a motion to determine the proposed project change, as submitted on the site plan dated 08 March 2016, to be an insignificant project change. The motion was seconded by Mr. Waldron and it passed unanimously. 7:42 PM Aho, 42 West Elm Street DEP File No. 188-____ Notice of Intent Joseph P. Marquedant, JD Marquedant & Assoicates, Inc. Hopkinton Conservation Commission 21 March 2016 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Marquedant provided an overview of the Notice of Intent (NOI) application and site plans dated 14 February 2016 for a single family home. A discussion on the subject property, 42 West Elm Street, and the abutting property, 44 West Elm Street which is also owned by the applicant, was held regarding any proposed development on the abutting property and cumulative impacts for the two properties held in common ownership. Mr. Marquedant noted that the construction of a single family home on a proposed enlarged 44 West Elm Street parcel is being considered but soil testing is still ongoing for determining if the lot can support a septic system. The Commission noted that a cumulative review of proposed disturbance to the buffer zone, based on the subject NOI and a general scheme of the proposed development on the abutting property, needs to be submitted for review. A discussion was held regarding possible alternatives for accessing the subject property, such as narrowing or elevating the driveway, or if the subject property could be accessed off Old Farm Road to the north. Mr. Barnes noted the subject property is an undisturbed area and that he believes the amount of proposed disturbance within the 100-foot buffer zone, for a single family home with a septic system, is extensive. He noted, under the Hopkinton Wetlands Protection Bylaw (Bylaw), it is the applicant’s responsibility to identify that the proposed site work within the Buffer Zone is necessary, and that reasonable alternatives, including reducing the scale and scope of the project do not exist. A discussion was held regarding the construction of the driveway. Concerns with the feasibility of constructing a driveway so close to the wetland and the abutting parcel at 40 West Elm Street, any alteration to the existing drainage patterns to the wetland and the abutting parcel at 40 West Elm Street, and future management of snow were discussed. Mr. Roger Soucy, 40 West Elm Street, noted there is standing water adjacent to his driveway and is concerned that changes to the subject property would exacerbate the issue. He noted he is concerned with drainage off the property and disturbance to the wetland. He noted the subject property does not drain. Ms. Cheryl Soucy, 40 West Elm Street, noted the balance of nature on the property has been perfect for the 38 years they have lived next door and can’t see that continuing if it is allowed to be built on. Mr. Eric Domski, 10 Old Farm Road, noted there is significant existing grading on the subject parcel, including a significant retaining wall. He noted he even has standing water on his own property. He noted the subject property has significant drop offs. He asked how snow would be dealt with on site. He asked which utility would be under the driveway. He noted there is significant wildlife on the property and the property is currently undisturbed. Mr. Marquedant noted there would be water and gas lines under the driveway, with overhead electric pole and lines accessing the proposed house. Mr. Joshua Greenberg, 46 West Elm Street, asked how the presence of any “threatened” wildlife would be determined. The Commission noted that the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program (NHESP) makes such wildlife determinations. A discussion was held regarding NHESP procedures. Mr. Marquedant noted the proposed wall elevations are labeled on the plans and the site is designed to maintain water flow across the property into the wetland as it does currently in keeping with existing grading. A discussion was held regarding the Commission’s standard erosion control barrier inspection process. A discussion was held regarding how construction equipment will access the property given the driveway is proposed closely between the wetland and the abutting parcel at 40 West Elm Street. Matt Colleran, 8 Old Farm Road, noted that the Commission should visit the site. He noted there is a significant retaining wall at the property line adjacent to this property. He noted he has concerns about its stability if the 44 West Elm Street property is altered in the future. Hopkinton Conservation Commission 21 March 2016 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Domski noted it was his understanding that this entire property was set aside when Old Farm Road was developed due to the wetlands. Mr. Soucy noted there was a proposal for a berm on West Elm Street a number of years ago to help with any flooding from a 100 year storm, but the berm was not constructed. The e-mails dated 20 March 2016 and 21 March 2016 from Ms. Jodi Yocher and Mr. Robert Yocher, 4 Old Farm Road, regarding concerns about buffer zone disturbance and wildlife disturbance were noted for the record. The emails also noted their concerns regarding any future development on 44 West Elm Street potentially impacting the existing topography of their property and impacting their in-ground swimming pool. The Commission noted that the proposed residential driveway does not meet the 10-foot Limit of Work and 15-foot Limit of Structure under the Bylaw. The Commission determined to schedule a site walk for Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:00 AM. The public hearing was continued to 04 April 2016. 8:30 PM Gassett, 25 Ash Street RDA 2016-6 Request for Determination of Applicability Joseph P. Marquedant Mr. Marquedant provided an overview of the Request for Determination of Applicability application and site plans dated 14 December 2015 for a 3-lot subdivision. He noted they are proposing all site work to occur outside the 100-foot buffer zone and are seeking confirmation on the accuracy of the wetland delineation. It was determined that more time was needed to review the delineation. The hearing was continued to 04 April 2016. 8:35 PM Dominques, 128 Hayward Street DEP File No. 188-1595 Notice of Intent – continuation Peter Lavoie, Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.; Fatima Dominques Mr. Lavoie provided an overview of the revised site plan, dated 28 December 2015 with a final revision date of 07 March 2016, which was submitted at the last meeting. Ms. Colette Cronin, 129 Hayward Street, asked where the fence was going on the property. Mr. Lavoie identified the location of the fence on the site plan and noted the fence is intended to prevent encroachment towards the wetlands and the adjacent properties. Ms. Cynthia Esthimer, 118 Hayward Street, noted when her house was constructed, no equipment was allowed behind the house and asked if the same restrictions would apply here. Mr. Lavoie noted that no site work is proposed within the 50’ buffer zone, except for the installation of the fence. He noted the equipment would be working on the house from the street side of the property. Mr. Waldron made a motion to close the hearing and issue an Order of Conditions, subject to the standard and noted special conditions. The motion was seconded by Ms. Reed and it was approved by everyone except Mr. Ciriello and Mr. Harrow who opposed. Hopkinton Conservation Commission 21 March 2016 Page 4 of 4 8:44 PM Commission Business (continued) • A discussion was held with Mr. Robbie Bouchard regarding a minor project exemption request for 36 North Mill Street. He noted the property owner would like to tear down and replace the existing barn. The new barn would be located within the footprint of the existing barn. A portion of the existing barn rests on the bare ground. A small amount of associated grading is proposed to install a foundation underneath the new barn in order to provide separation from the ground. The proposed grading would be performed on the eastern side of the barn, furthest away from the resource area. The Commission determined the project qualified as a minor project exemption. • A brief discussion was held regarding the recent Notice of Intent (NOI) application filed by MassDOT for improvements to I-90. Mr. MacAdam noted that, in keeping with Commission past practice, he has requested scopes of services from BETA to perform a peer engineering review and from Lucas Environmental to perform a peer environmental review. It was noted that after the pending public hearing has been opened and the applicant has presented the NOI, the Commission will determine if they need to retain the services of BETA and Lucas Environmental to review the NOI. • Mr. Barnes noted that a local Girl Scout troop requested to add a geocache location at the College Rock parcel of land the Commission manages. The Commission determined that would be a permissible activity. • Mr. Barnes noted the Lake Maspenock Weed Management Committee is looking for ways to get residents more involved in weed management and asked if the Commission could come up with any suggestions. Approved: 25 April 2016