CONSERVATION AGENDA-February 8, 2010

Present: Carolyn Nielsen-Chair, Charles Berry-Vice Chair, Daniel Coughlin, Scott McIsaac, Robert Perry,
Nina Villanova, Cliff Prentiss-Conservation Officer

7:00 PM Old/New Business
Approve Draft Minutes - 01/25/10, 2/1/10

7:15 PM Requests for Extensions to Orders of Conditions
26 Summer Street – DEP 34 753
Applicant: John Kenny – B &K Enterprises

Baker Hill – Christina Estates – DEP 34 –569
Applicant: Intoccia Builders Corporation / Representative: Robert A. Shelmerdine, Esq.

Damon Farm – 1220, 1222, 1240 Main Street – DEP SE 34 0839
Applicant: Nicholas Trifone / Representative: James Burke, Decelle-Burke and Associates

7:30 PM Notices of Intent
Ward Street Turf Fields Project – DEP SE 34 1016
Applicant: The Ward Street Turf Fields Fund c/o Jeffrey A. Tocchio, Esq. / Rep.: Sterling Wall, Tetra Tech Rizzo

Foundry Pond – No DEP Number or comments as of 2/3/10
Applicant: Hingham Conservation Commission / Representative: Michele Simoneaux, GZA Geo Environmental

Old/New Business – Meeting called to order at 7:01 p.m.
1. Approve 1 /25/10, 2/1/10 draft minutes
Discussion: Edits were discussed and noted. It is noted that Commissioner Nielsen was not present for the 1/25/10 meeting.

Motion: Commissioner Villanova motioned to approve the 1/25/10 draft minutes as amended.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None

2. Motion: Commissioner Berry motioned to approve the 02/01/10 draft minutes for the Special Work Session.
Second: Commissioner Perry In Favor: All Opposed: None

Requests for Extensions to Orders of Conditions
1. 26 Summer Street – DEP 34 753
Applicant: John Kenny – B &K Enterprises
Presentation: Dana Baxter and John Kenny are now the new co-owners of 26 Summer Street. They acquired a partially completed project and are on hold now since determining their long term plans for the site. Considering a smaller scope to the permitted project presented by the former owner. Would like a three-year extension to the Order which has been amended.

Discussion:
It was noted to the new owners that if they are to expand the project, a new NOI would be needed. If they are considering a smaller scope as noted, an amendment to the Order needs to be filed. Extension request has been submitted 30 days before the Order expires.

Motion: Commissioner Coughlin motioned to approve a three year extension to 26 Summer Street - DEP 34 753.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
2. Baker Hill – Christina Estates – DEP 34 –569
Applicant: Intoccia Builders Corporation / Representative: Robert A. Shelmerdine, Esq.
Presentation: Helen Papoloski (sp) representing Intoccia. Due to current market conditions, the applicant is requesting a three-year extension.

Discussion:
Conservation Officer noted that the project is in compliance.

Motion: Commissioner Perry motioned to approve a three-year extension to Baker Hill-Christina Estates - DEP 34 569.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None

3. Damon Farm – 1220, 1222, 1240 Main Street – DEP SE 34 0839
Applicant: Nicholas Trifone / Representative: James Burke, Decelle-Burke and Associates
Presentation: Jim Burke, noted that this is a 40 B project. Given the economics, the work has not started. Planning on breaking ground this current spring.

Discussion: Conservation Officer reviewed the 40B project, which is in two towns, Hingham and Norwell. Most of the work is in Norwell. All of the work in Hingham is in the buffer zone.

Motion: Commissioner Coughlin motioned to approve a three year extension to Damon Farm - DEP SE 34 0839.
Second: Commissioner Villanova In Favor: All Opposed: None

Order of Conditions for 2 Pond Park Road was signed. It was approved and closed on 1/25/10.
The Conservation Officer noted that there shall be a condition stating that if the number of required parking spaces is reduced, a best effort must be made to move all activity out of the 50 foot buffer zone.

Commissioner Nielsen read the usual information regarding filings.
The Conservation Commission’s role was noted by Commissioner Nielsen for first time attendees, and she described the Commission’s role in the permitting process.

Notices of Intent
1. Ward Street Turf Fields Project – DEP SE 34 1016
Applicant: The Ward Street Turf Fields Fund c/o Jeffrey A. Tocchio, Esq., (Volunteer Attorney); Rep.: Sterling Wall, Tetra Tech Rizzo (Wetlands Scientist), D.J. Mckinnon-(Trustee), Rick Alphso, Tetra Tech Rizzo (Engineer), John Chapin? (Manufacturer of the Field Turf -North East Turf Hue, Inc.)
 Attorney Tocchio noted that he does not think that the Commission can close tonight, as they (applicant/rep) just received the peer review comments (John Chessia)
 Have just started to go through his comments and respond, will be a process
 Would like to present the general filing

Rick Alphso - Tetra Tech - Civil Engineer - Director of Land Development

Existing Conditions:
 2 Parcels working on - Selectmen’s parcel (@ 49 acres), Recreation Parcel (@6 acres)
 Adjacent Parcels - Plymouth River School (located to the North) and TOH Conservation Land (Southeast)
 Near Ward Street, Camelot Drive and Berkley Circle for orientation purposes
 Plymouth River is south of the development parcel, flows in a west to east direction, and is located several hundred feet south of where we are working
 Significant amount of wetlands on site and shown by yellow line on this plan - Plymouth River to the South, wetland along the east side of actual work area, intermittent stream located north of Field Number One, which is proposed in the area, another wetland located between open meadow area and Ward Street
 Important to note the wetland line is a revised line from walking the site with the Assistant Conservation Officer
 Existing lacrosse field is serviced by one driveway, which accesses a gravel parking area which can accommodate @ 75 vehicles
 Several walking trails in the Conservation Land,
 Have done test pits - found well drained soil, sands and gravel
 Field Work done has not been witnessed by the Town
 Doing exploratory investigations
 Understand that the TOH will need to see the test pits
 Not proposing a septic system, other than just a general location at this time
 Ultimately there will be a need for a septic system to service the concession stand building and the bathrooms
 Will be back for the septic system down the road

Proposed Conditions:
 Had meetings with staff, like to see a low impact design
 Two synthetic turf fields
 Concession Building - @ 1400 square feet and restrooms
 Entire facility is fenced
 Access into the facility would be through a breezeway that is located through the middle of the Concession Building
 Seating for about 300 spectators
 Three parking areas - south of the fields, one adjacent to Ward Street, north parking area
 Numbers for parking were counted at many local youth events
 155 vehicles, at the worst case, when one game is ending and people are coming in for a game following and built in a factor for safety - based on the Old Colony Foot Youth Games
 Circulation is difficult at the existing site
 Access to site will have a new driveway to the south, one way circulation through the site, egress at the North end of the parking area, dedicated drop off lane

What’s not in this proposal:
• Eliminated the Bubble, pedestrian access from the Plymouth River School, Seating down from 800 to 300, Team Rooms, no lighting at this point
 Low Impact Design
 Porous pavement in lieu of asphalt
 Gravel parking areas in lieu of pavement
 Grass swales provided along the edges of the development to capture run off away from the driveway and parking areas to detention basins which are infiltration basins
 Basins designed to accommodate the 100 year storm events, 10 year events all of the flow can be contained within the basins and in the larger storm events there are spillways that would allow for run off to spill out into the adjacent detention areas

Field Turf
 Designed to infiltrate storm water
 Fields can be used during inclement weather
 Mitigated for the storm events and runoff
 Rec’d Mr. Chessia’s letter today and look forward to working with him through the issues, most of which is what is the best way to approach the design
 Working in the 50-foot buffer - west side of the field - designed the fields so that they are proper sized for multi sports which need a certain width
 Need a certain amount of run off on the edges on the fields so the children playing on the fields, when approaching the sidelines, don’t run up onto the fence
 Driveway to reach the parking area - necessitated us to working within the 50-foot buffer
 Mitigation Plan has been proposed and want to work with the Commission
 Trail System – access path to trail system proposed

Sterling Wall - Environmental Natural Resources Manager - Tetra Tech
 Two parcels of property - existing lacrosse field and an adjacent portion which belongs to the Plymouth River School
 Margett’s Field Property is 6.1 acres in size, 5 acres are already the existing lacrosse field, entrance
 Largely the work we will be discussing is with respect to a new synthetic field and a synthetic field to replace the existing field
 Have an opportunity to take this existing open field, which extends in some instances into your 50 foot zone and create a 2nd field to serve school age recreation uses for the Town of Hingham
 File number DEP SE 34 1016
 Notification to all the abutters twice
 Wetlands flagging has been completed with bylaws and regulations
 Delineation did require some tweaking, developed a revised design that respects doing no work in wetland resource areas especially no work in BVW
 No direct impact to wetland resource areas
 There are impacts within the buffer zone
 Provided a complete NOI that addresses the site work, as well as the resource area sites, and have explicitly noted where we are not doing work
 Not doing any work: BVW, Land subject to Flooding, mapped priority site habitat, or habitat areas
 Depression wetland - c Flag that connects to B Flag series - does has the potential to function as a vernal pool. In developing the site design have continually maintained the Commission’s required 100 foot protection zone around this area

Project will be developed in two phases:
 First phase will be on the upland which has been selected for Field Number 1, associated parking area, associated storm water management area, and access road way coming in
 During period of the work on Field 1 - Field 2 - existing Margett’s field - will be continued to be in use
 As we provide for this use, change access location and construct roadway into the Field 1 area
 Roadway will consist of two different roadway types - porous pavement, then a gravel parking area in the Northern end, grading will be done and storm water management basin

Work here is proposed in the 50-foot buffer zone
 Thinking - avoid the area - if you can’t avoid the area, you minimize the impacts and attempt to mitigate
 A signification portion of this site is outside the buffer zone, size of the combined parcels provides for 500,000 square feet of 100 foot wide buffer zone and significant areas where we are not within the 100 foot buffer zone, or only within the outer portion within the 100 foot buffer zone
 237,000 square feet of area on combined sites in the 0–50 foot buffer to the BVW area
 Impact of the development of the project is that we will be 18,250 square feet in the 0 - 50 foot buffer zone
 Certain elements of the impact will be mitigated with some re-vegetation
 Important to do the road way coming into the site to allow for construction access and egress
 Important to be able to come back in here for staging area as we construct the 1st of the two synthetic field areas
 Gravel parking would be stabilized Turf fields - 225 feet wide by 395 feet long
 Currently the facility has no storm water management
 Proposing complete under drain of both fields, field areas are not solid impervious areas, they will be porous
 Swale areas and elements of underground pipe system discharging to two main storm water basins which are oversized

Mitigation plan:
 2 main areas - together the areas are 18, 250 square feet which will be impacted
 Proposing to plant along east side of field number 1, and north and west side of the parking area of field number 1 - which creates 18,250 square feet of plantings, plus some 2000 square feet of additional planting and can find a few other areas within the 50 foot that has been maintained as open field - can we go in and plant that area with trees to plant as a wooded buffer -would like to discuss with Commission at a future point

Three issues to consider this evening:
 Hydrology and how surrounding properties and wells will be effected - public and private water supply
 West, Northwest and North are in a discharge condition toward wetlands (D Flags) discharge into the intermittent stream channel (northern boundary of school surplus parcel) to the A Flag series (Camelot Drive to the Plymouth River)
 South side of the parcel - residential development - in a discharge condition to the Plymouth River
 Mapped public water supply that is at least 500 feet separate from where we are proposing work - hydraulically down gradient
 Abutters are concerned about public & private water supply-our site is draining away from those areas that people are concerned about
 Mapping of Public Water Supply and Fields and Plymouth River - we are separated from the public water supply

 Another concern, what is going to happen with the gravel parking areas?
 There is higher elevation between the wetlands and the gravel, concerned that gravel will migrate and fill the wetlands - this will not happen
 Road way is porous and will not shed gravel
 Other areas with gravel parking are greater than 100 feet from the wetlands, will not be displacing gravel
 No direct impacts to BVW’s from this project

Last concern is the quality of the synthetic materials to be used on the fields
Turn it over to John Chaffin (sp.?) - North East Turf Hue, Inc.
 12,000 fields world wide: 3,500 athletic fields, estimated 500 to 600 new fields will be done in the US - 40 to 50 in New England
 Harvard, MIT, Yale, New England Patriots, Bentley College, St. Sebastian’s and Archbishop Williams High School use our product
 Turf constructed of a polyethylene yarn which is tufted into a backing
 Infill mixture of silica sand and cryogenic processed rubber granules
 Tires are shattered, processed down into the exact size wanted
 Final process is that it goes into a cylinder and frozen at 350 degrees below zero with nitrogen
 When placed in the field it does not float
 Patented process by Field Turf
 Benefits - cleanest product going - many tests have been done for MERSA, leaching carcinogens, lead
 Nothing - rainwater goes into the turf and comes out as clean or cleaner
 Tested outflow pipes at Wayland High School and came through with flying colors
 Performance Basis - fields are extremely fast, play well, players get to play at their optimum
 Safety studies have been done - turf is safer than the best of natural grass fields, usable day and night

John Chessia - Chessia Consulting - reviewed his correspondence dated 2/8/10
 Work in 50 foot buffer - need to give applicant some direction
 Plan on file in the Conservation Office dealing with riverfront issues - done in 2007
 Details need to provide dealing with the 10 Storm water Standards
 Standard One - Untreated Storm water - more detail is needed with the 4 discharge pipes and how they will not cause erosion or sedimentation
 Standard 2 dealing with Post Development Peak Discharge Rates - technical questions on the modeling and design features and comments on some of the assumptions used
 Standard 3 - Recharge to Groundwater - Soils are highly pervious, which will allow recharge, there are certain standards still to be met with DEP - more testing and documentation may be necessary
 Standard 4 - TSS Removal - additional information needs to be provided to demonstrate compliance with this standard
 Standard 5, 6, 7 - standards not applicable
 Standard 8 - Erosion Sediment Control - additional info needs to be provided to questions
 Standard 9 - Operations and Maintenance Plan - more detail to be provided
 Standard 10 - No Illicit Discharges - Satisfactorily addressed
 Other Issues - proposed septic system should conform to the setback in Stormwater Manual Volume 2

Discussion among the Commissioners and working in the 50-foot buffer:
 Consensus is that the Commission does not want to see any building in the 50-foot buffer
 Question about land that may be riparian and the 200 foot river front with a 100-foot buffer
 Water is flowing adjacent to the river, mean annual high water is at the BVW line; the 200-foot river foot area may begin a lot closer than it is showing on the current plans

Commissioner Nielsen opened the hearing to the public for about 10 minutes due to time:

Jack McSheffrey - Cushing Street – sent in letter
• Represents some of the neighbors and our water wells and is concerned about pollution that may occur - 60 drinking wells
• Known throughout the country that crumb rubber does leach
• Water supply is valuable to us and do not want it contaminated
• Proponent indicated that crumb rubber will stay in the fields, that normally doesn’t happen, it gets kicked out at the sidelines, estimates 3000 lbs. of infill is lost per year

Jack Richman - Ward Street - sent in Executive Summary
• Concerned with animals and children with the use of this product
• Center for Disease Council issued a public health advisory on this
• Considering that you are putting in a product that has serious health issues that can leach through the soil
• Coastal Marine Resource Center had significant concerns with the leaching of zinc and its effect from crumb rubber on the environment

Ed Snape - 73 Clubhouse Drive
• Agree with comments from the previous two gentlemen
• Project is an outrageous assault on the wetlands and wildlife
• Increased traffic is a concern due to the turtles on Ward St. Turtles won’t make it.

Commissioner Nielsen noted that time is running out, if you didn’t get a chance to speak, make notes and share with the Commission. Public portion of this hearing is now closed.

Jeffrey Tocchio requested a continuance with the applicant’s consent to March 8, 2010 and the Conservation Commission is in agreement with that date. Applicant’s representatives will meet with John Chessia on Wednesday February 16, 2010.

2. Foundry Pond – No DEP Number or comments as of 2/3/10
Applicant: Hingham Conservation Commission / Representative: Michele Simoneaux, GZA Geo Environmental

Presentation: Michele Simoneaux, Project Manager, Wetland Scientist, & Tom Jenkins - Project Engineer
 Dredging and Restoration Project
 Foundry Pond is a shallow impoundment, 5.8 acres, flashy watershed of 15 square miles which feeds down
 Weir River is the main water source that runs into Foundry from the southern end, under the MBTA rail road tracks and through Foundry Pond and exits via a spillway and a fish ladder on the northern end of the pond
 Weir River is coastal or tidal up to the impoundment at Foundry Pond
 Pond is surrounded by Conservation Land and Aquarion Water Company
 Dewatering and staging will be located on Mr. Iaria’s property
 Pond was an open body of water 50 years ago
 Has been filled in with sedimentation that has come in from a variety of sources
 A dredging operation that took place in Triphammer Pond, before the regulations, a big flood of sediment made its way from the Weir River into Foundry Pond
 Resource areas: Perennial River-Weir River, pond bank, BVW, spring fed streams, Weir River ACEC near the parking lot
 Area to be dredged is 22,000 cubic yards
 Parking lot will have equipment delivered and staged here - fence will be erected for safety reasons
 Iaria property upland will be the dewatering area - this is already a disturbed area

Engineering Perspective - Tom Jenkins
 Showed slides of Paradise Pond similar to Foundry Pond in many ways
 Proposed hydraulic dredging which is not the least expensive method
 Done for environmental reasons
 Use a barge to dredge
 Huge sediment load come down when the water was high
 Don’t recommend drainage and excavate method, suggest hydraulic dredging when you don’t have control of the water level
 Weir River is flashy, can’t pull a plug out of the dam and hope for the best
 Use barge mounted dredging, with a cutter head that is below the water level
 Auger that loosens the sediment, pumps the slurry out of the pond
 How to get the water out of the sediment - done by three methods
 Gravity settlement/mechanical uses equipment to separate it/geotextile tubes
 Textile dewatering is the simplest - dredge slurry goes into the tube, water sweats out, sediment stays in the tube, slit the tube open and take the material to where ever
 Materials extracted will go to Bare Cove Park to cover foundations, working with Roger Fernandez on this

Process
 Two weeks to set up
 150 cubic yards a shift can be dredged - 120 working days or more - 6 months
 Uses a diesel motor which has a steady drone
 Can’t dredge in the winter

Commissioner Nielsen opened the hearing to the public.

Sam Manion - 103 Kilby Street - impact of equipment - will it disturb the property as the road is very tight?
Equipment will come in an assembled fashion - however it can come apart

Growth will be removed from the southern end.
Road improvements are not part of the plan, but hope to work with Public Works to re-grade.

10 Weir Street - Concerned about dust and his children during the summer and the pool
It is a wet process, no dust, however odor may be a concern in the beginning

Mr. Muzzulli – East Street - elevation questions and spillways, showed an engineering plan from the past

Commissioner Nielsen closed the public portion of the hearing.

Commissioner Coughlin made a motion to close and issue an order of Conditions for the dredging of Foundry Pond pending receipt of DEP number.
Second: Commissioner Perry In Favor: All Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

___________________________
Cliff Prentiss, Conservation Officer

Approved as amended on 2/22/2010