Hingham Conservation Commission
Meeting Minutes
Present: Carolyn Nielsen, Chairperson, Charles Berry, Vice-Chair, Robert Perry, Scott McIsaac, Nina Villanova, Daniel Coughlin and Abigail Childs, Assistant Conservation Officer
Absent: Cliff Prentiss, Conservation Officer
7:00 PM Old/New Business
Approve Draft Minutes - 3/8/10
Damde Meadows Tidal Restoration Project
Requests for Extension to Order of Conditions
5 Bare Cove Lane – DEP SE 34 0909 - Applicant: Richard Feldt / Rep.: John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting
Ward St.–Black Rock Residential Community - SE 34 0895 – App.: P. Crabtree, Northland Residential Corp.
7:30 PM Notices of Intent
10 Parker Driveway – DEP SE 34 1030
Applicant: Richard and Jill Blake / Representative: Gary James – James Engineering
Chief Justice Cushing Highway – DEP SE 34 1021 - Continuance
Applicant: Thomas Iaria / Representative: Gary James – James Engineering
9 Sharp Street – DEP SE 34 1025 - Continuance
Applicant: Erik Koplovsky, 9 Sharp Street LLC / Representative: David Kelly, Kelly Engineering
20 Derby Street – DEP SE 34 1024 – Continuance
Applicant: Carlos Perez – Old Colony Montessori School, Inc. / Representative: Kelly Killeen – Coler & Colantonio, Inc.
Ward Street Turf Fields Project – DEP SE 34 1016 – Continuance
Applicant: The Ward Street Turf Fields Fund c/o Jeffrey A. Tocchio, Esq. / Rep.: Sterling Wall, Tetra Tech Rizzo
Old/New Business - Meeting came to order at 7:10 p.m.
1. Approve 3/08/10 draft minutes
Discussion: Edits were discussed and noted.
Motion: Commissioner McIsaac motioned to approve the 3/08/10 minutes as amended.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
2. Damde Meadows Tidal Restoration Project
Letter of support written by Chair included in packets.
3. Requests for Extension to Order of Conditions
5 Bare Cove Lane – DEP SE 34 0909 - Applicant: Richard Feldt / Rep.: John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting
Discussion: Voted and approved at last meeting. Paperwork needs to be signed.
Ward St.–Black Rock Residential Community - SE 34 0895 – App.: P. Crabtree, Northland Residential Corp
Discussion: New owners would like 3-year extension. Assistant Conservation Officer provided a report.
Motion: Commissioner Berry motioned to approve a 3 year extension for Ward St.-Black Rock SE - 34 0895.
Second: Commissioner Villanova In Favor: All Opposed: None
Commissioner Nielsen read the usual information dealing with Notices and reminded the public to sign in.
Notices of Intent
1. 10 Parker Driveway – DEP SE 34 1030
Applicant: Richard and Jill Blake / Representative: Gary James – James Engineering
Presentation:
Patio stone sea wall opposite the home is damaged. Applicant proposes to implement repairs to the damaged wall that will consist of patching up holes, chipping out unsound mortar and then setting back in the stones. Tidal cycle determine daily timing of work. Tarps will be used. Anticipated work will be up to two weeks. Work will be done in May if that is okay with the Commission and fish spawning schedules. Applicant is requesting a continuing condition for routine maintenance by checking with the Conservation Officer. Any major work will involve a new filing.
Discussion:
Assistant Conservation Officer concurs with Representative’s scope of work. Applicant needs to be cautious since work will occur in the inter-tidal zone. Instead of granting a perpetual condition for repair maintenance may want to look at an extension.
Commissioner Coughlin asked about the definition of maintenance.
Motion: Commissioner Coughlin motioned to issue an Order of Conditions for 10 Parker Driveway. For maintenance the applicant may come back and request extensions.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
Chief Justice Cushing Highway – DEP SE 34 1021 - Continuance
Applicant: Thomas Iaria / Representative: Gary James – James Engineering
Presentation:
Discussed revised March 8th plan. Drafted response letter to Mr. Cushing’s correspondence. Passed out information dealing with data associated with the Organic Growers Cooperative. Majority of questions from abutter were dealing with herbicides and pesticides and impact on groundwater. No proposed herbicides or pesticides will be used. Fertilizer will be fish emulsion. Cranberry vines are very effective in their ability to take up nitrogen and phosphate - 85% efficiency rating.
Proposed bog has been rotated, moved back, and the access road now lines up with the site entrance off 3A. 50-foot buffer will remain vegetated except for the outfall. Detail for proposed irrigation well given and well house with electric pump motor is proposed. There will be no gas or carbon fuels on site. Harvest in the fall will be a dry pick. Bog will be flooded 3 times in growing season for bug population control by pumping ground water. Calculations for storm water have been filed.
Commission’s questions:
Bog is elevated, will there be any effect on the water table on the property or down gradient from pumping water into the bog. Response from Mr. James is that the water should recycle and will be no mounding in the bog area.
Assistant Conservation Officer:
Noted it is a dense till area and walked the site with the wetland scientist. Drainage ditch goes out to swamp area and not the river. Discharge channel is longer.
Commissioner Nielsen opened the hearing to the public.
Mike Cushing – 210 East Street - would like the opportunity to review the revised materials submitted.
Motion: Commissioner Coughlin motioned to request a continuance with the applicant’s permission till April 5, 2010 for C.J. Cushing Highway.
Second: Commissioner Villanova In Favor: All Opposed: None
Commissioner Nielsen asked for a motion to reopen the hearing for 10 Parker Driveway for public comments dealing with the repair of the seawall. Commissioner Berry made the motion.
Second: Commissioner McIsaac In Favor: All Opposed: None
No public comment was made on 10 Parker Driveway.
Motion was made by Commissioner Berry to close the hearing for 10 Parker Driveway.
Second: Commissioner Villanova In Favor: All Opposed: None
9 Sharp Street – DEP SE 34 1025 - Continuance
Applicant: Erik Koplovsky, 9 Sharp Street LLC / Representative: David Kelly, Kelly Engineering
Presentation:
David Kelly noted that NOI was first submitted in January, now working on the 2/25/10 revision. Applicant met with Conservation Officer and made signification revisions. Proposed project is on the Rockland/Hingham town line and is 5.5 acres; 1.5 acres is proposed for development with an estimated 16,000 square foot 1-story building with a mezzanine; along with parking and loading areas. Business is for refurbishing and selling mainframe computers.
• Development area is located on the northern portion of the site
• Line for wetlands has been agreed upon by the Conservation Officer
• Driveway does cross the wetlands
• Located the driveway on the very narrowest section of the wetlands
• Corrugated arch metal culvert will span the wetlands with margins for wildlife passage the sides
• Pulled the development as far back from the wetlands as practical
• Uplands on the site is left untouched since area is under Mass Natural Heritage – eastern box turtle
• Pulled everything out of the 50-foot area when working with the Conservation Officer with the redesign except for the entrance to the driveway on the property.
• Asking for a waiver from the Commission in this area
• Wooded site, to make storm drainage work will raise the site @ 4 feet
• O and M plan, pavement sweeping, storm ceptor inlets, catch basins, sub surface recharge system to handle peak storm water flow
• Utilities are all on site, well will be located on site
• Site is tight due to the Mass Heritage Restriction
• Everything except for the driveway is out of the 50-foot no disturb zone
• Received Mr. Chessia’s comments and have not been able to respond, feel we can deal with his comments
Assistant Conservation Officer
• Applicant worked with Conservation Officer to find the best way to have the proposal located to have the least impact on the wetlands on the site.
Commission questions:
• Asked to have parking reviewed
• How handled passage for wildlife? Sloped curbing for wildlife
• Questions about toxins
• Abington Street is an area of flooding. Storm water system should have an oversized culvert
Mr. Chessia reviewed his letter dated 3/18/10:
• Mass Heritage and Endangered Species should review revised plan
• More impact to the buffer zone
• More detail is needed on calculations, may be necessary to analyze culvert and flooding impact
• No erosion and controls, may want to see more documentation with the O and M document
• Test pits?
Commissioner Nielsen opened the hearing to the public. No public comment.
Applicant’s representative is requesting the April 5 date and realizes that the peer review comments may not be ready by that time. Commissioner Nielsen pointed out that it is a very short time to meet and then review information to be presented. Applicant is anxious to be on the agenda since started filing in Jan. 2010.
Motion: Commissioner Berry motioned to request a continuance with the applicant’s permission till April 5, 2010 for 9 Sharp Street.
Second: Commissioner Villanova In Favor: All Opposed: None
20 Derby Street – DEP SE 34 1024 – Continuance
Applicant: Carlos Perez – Old Colony Montessori School, Inc. / Rep. K. Killeen – Coler & Colantonio, Inc.
Discussion:
• Representative received Mr. Chessia’s comments on Monday last.
• Still a need to address storm water management regulations which we feel is excessive
• Has pulled out of 50 foot buffer
• Project now has a storm ceptor based on Mr. Chessia’s last review
• Need to meet again with Mr. Chessia and Conservation Officer
Mr. Chessia
• Dumpster pad is proposed in the 50-foot area – Commissioner Nielsen asked that they attempt to move out of the 50-foot buffer zone
• Mr. Chessia reviewed his letter of March 15, 2010
Assistant Conservation Officer
• Better design, suggest also that they get the dumpster pad out of the 50-foot buffer zone.
Motion: Commissioner Berry motioned to request a continuance with the applicant’s permission till May 3, 2010 for 20 Derby Street.
Second: Commissioner Villanova In Favor: All Opposed: None
Ward Street Turf Fields Project – DEP SE 34 1016 – Continuance
Applicant: The Ward Street Turf Fields Fund c/o Jeffrey A. Tocchio, Esq. / Rep.: Sterling Wall, Tetra Tech Rizzo
Presentation: Sterling Wall
Two issues - Riverfront and Wildlife
Chair and others on the Commission have indicated that they want some form of wildlife study. The applicant/rep. have a proposal for the Commission to consider.
Mr. Wall’s presentation:
Riverfront boundaries - Issue that has been of disagreement
• Initially had a riverfront boundary that was approximate to the edge of the river. Mr. Wall feels that this is where technically the river front boundary is and belongs. Attempted to have additional discussion of the riverfront boundary with members of the Commission staff, peer reviewer. Explored moving that boundary further in among the wooded wetland area. There was a line and then the line was revised. Line was presented to the Commission on 3/8/10 hearing. The Commission did not approve this line. Met on site next day, 3/9/10 and prepared a plan based on this meeting.
• Riverfront line has been moved significantly over 200 feet in some places, beyond the active channel limits of the Plymouth River into the active flat dispositional flood plain area. Technically, I cannot support this as a riverfront line. Have provided that line for the Commission for planning purposes.
• Establishment of that line creates the 200-foot boundary, which then becomes the riverfront area, which has been moving further, and further into the Margett’s Field within the cleared area that already exists.
• Friday afternoon – 3/19/10 two members of the Commission and Mr. Chessia had gone out to the site again. Informed in an email from Mr. Chessia that a point, near flag number A12, where that limit should be moved further landward.
• I went out that eve and the flag that was placed by Mr. Chessia was between two other flags that were 19 feet apart.
• The flag was placed 18 feet further landward was the proposed flag in a finger like projection, which was flooded.
• Conditions in the field, it was absolutely inappropriate to make that change.
• Don’t believe that it is supportable. When I went to the site, @ 4 hours since Mr. Chessia had been there, I could discern active groundwater flow into the wetlands at that point. This does not constitute any kind of MAHW line, bankful condition, any kind of indicator that we are dealing with, other than flooded flood plain
• Inundation that was observed had occurred in this area occurred after several inches of rainfall that started 3/13/10 – 3/15/10.
• To go back out on 3/19 and see an extended water level and justification for moving that flag 18 feet further landward – I do not support.
• What is on the plan before you is the riverfront boundary that has been established by members of the Commission who were in attendance on 3/9/10, Mr. Chessia, Mr. Daylor and myself. It was the collective understanding of all in the field that day, that we were going to establish a riverfront boundary based on a 49.7 elevation and extend that landward on the north side of the river. This is what Tetratech did using field survey techniques; it is flagged by orange and green flagging. This line is representative of any type of river front boundary. It is in the flat depositional flood plain area, predominately terrestrial area, shrub vegetation, canopy vegetation which defines an environment, which is not aquatic, associated with the river channel itself. There is a definite change in slope to the channel before it extends landward in a horizontal manner. This is consistent with the guidance that is provided by the USDA in assessing riverfront areas to determine bankful conditions. Consistent with the guidelines that were discussed with the DEP staffs that are experts in determining river front area boundaries.
• Have now provided the boundaries on the plans for the purpose of planning purposes, the effect of making the change in that boundary is that I now have to change my testimony to you that the project that is now proposed does include work within the riverfront area and the work that is to be performed is to be limited to the areas that have already been cleared as part of Margett’s Field. We will not cut any trees within the riverfront area.
• Will and are proposing to reuse portions of the grass area for the project in two ways- grass area will be excavated and will be used to use to create storm water management facilities. Facilities are in conformance with MASS DEP standards for storm water quality improvement, which is not provided at the site currently. Drainage from the field presently will be eliminated through a dug ditch flowing into the buffer zone and then into the wetlands.
• Nitrogen fertilization will be eliminated from the grass field areas. Some nitrogen discharges off site down to the Plymouth River. This is an improvement that results from doing work in this particular area.
• There is a portion of the southern end of the turf field that will be constructed in the outer portion of what is now defined as the River front area. This is appropriate as this area has been previously been disturbed.
• As work within the outer portion of the riverfront area would also be considered redevelopment of a previously disturbed area.
Wildlife
• It has been indicated that wildlife should be studied
• Both the Wetlands Protection Act and the By-law make provisions for studying wildlife when work is being done within the area subject to regulations and activities are being proposed in that area
• Bylaw – proposed activities that would be conducted in the outer portion of the 100 foot buffer and 3 areas, and in the newly defined outer portion of the riverfront area – subject to the Commission jurisdiction, where there is authority to request a wildlife study
• Proposed to do a wildlife study in 3 Tasks
Task 1
• Existing data review of what is in the area, and develop a preliminary assessment of the site’s ecological community
• Landscape analysis and use this to stratify survey transect placements
Task 2
• Onsite wildlife assessment – conduct a field visit to evaluate the site physical and biological habitats characteristics, follow the guidance of the Mass. Wildlife Habitat Protection for guidance for inland wetland. Based on current proposed project development on the plans before you – March 17 version
• Complete an Appendix A – Simplified Wildlife Evaluation
• Will do a Meander Survey throughout the development area, emphasis on areas to be altered in the 100-foot wide buffer zone to the BVW and the outer portion of the 200-foot river front area as shown on the plan
• Prioritize the survey areas and will be determined by an initial review by the development plan if we are in agreement tonight
• Provide detailed notes and photos of the habitat and will then prepare a written report to address the wildlife issues.
Discussion:
Commissioner Nielsen:
• Meeting in the field on March 9, 2010. It was a site visit. It was not a posted meeting of the Commission. It would be a violation of the open meeting law for us to make any decisions or agreements at that site. I was asked if we could agree on things in the field and my response was this was not a posted meeting. It is a site visit and we do not want to be in violation of the meeting law. Noting in the report that it was agreed in the field is inaccurate, and would put us in clear violation of state law.
• Would like the minutes to reflect that no decision of the Conservation Commission were made at that time, no agreements of the Conservation Commission were made at that time. This protects all of us to have the process remain clearly within the bounds of the open meeting law has been established for us to have a fair and open process.
• With regards to the wetlands line, Mr. Berry, Mr. Chessia and I were out in the field on Friday to observe the wetlands line that Mr. Wall had described. With the exception of two flags, they were placed accurately. On the day that we were out, there were flags near the culvert that indicated where mean annual high water was – and with exception of those two flags in question, the work by Tetratech reflected that. The one area in dispute is by flag A12. We observed two flags that were placed by Tetratech had water well beyond them. The water extended substantially towards more or less north from that area. Our observation was that area was potentially recharged, although there was a definite point that we felt that reflected the mean annual high water. A new flag was placed there.
• On that afternoon; took photos. Shows flagging at the culvert indicating that the water level was at what had been previously been agreed as representative as mean annual high water. Picture of the north bank and south bank and the water coming through the culvert and showing the staining. Took picture of a flag that indicates where the mean annual high water was accurately. Also reported that the two flags in question that indicate MAHW are well into the water. Those flags indicating MAHW are still well into the water this afternoon. I stand by the accuracy of the new flag that Mr. Berry and Mr. Chessia and I placed as the actual extent of the MAHW.
Mr. Wall points out for the record and the meeting:
• Subsequent to establishing the orange and green flags limits that we thought were done by agreement of consensus, we then had the extreme flood event of Saturday-Monday (March 13,14,15). Computed to 9.51 and 9.72 inches of rain during a 60-hour storm period.
• The residual flooding that you observed in the field on Friday, 3/19 was way in excess of anything that should be considered a 1.2 to 1.5 year recurrence level storm, which is the standard for establishing a MAHW line.
Commissioner Berry noted that the reason we went back out on Friday is the plan we rec’d following the visit on 3/9/10, showed the line at that point to be further South, than I had indicated that I felt is should be. Spot is relatively easy to determine compared to the area to the west, the slope of the land is quite steep. Drops off from the North to the South and there is a clear break where the water is still standing and the water level when we checked it on Friday was about an inch and ½ less than the level where it had been previously flagged by Tetratech at what was said to be the bankful level. It had receded by Friday.
Mr. Wall wanted to know how the recession was determined by Commissioner Berry?
Commissioner Berry noted that they went over to the bridge and the flags that were attached on the south side of the bank and north side of the bank, which were tied to sticks, were both out of the water by an inch and ½ and you had indicated to us that was the level of the water when you determined the bankful conditions at a prior visit.
Mr. Wall was able to recover all those flag locations. My personal observations were on Friday and Saturday eve and Sunday. Three consecutive days after you were at the site, each and every case those flag locations were underwater.
Commissioner Nielsen:
It had been a flood condition. Floods recede and at some point when a flood recedes you hit the point at MAHW.
Mr. Wall noted that it appears to be a misunderstanding.
I was told that when you went to field on Friday, it was the Co chairs observation that the flag location along the banks of the Plymouth River. Four points with sticks in the ground, with flags attached, that those points were sitting above the water.
Commissioner Nielsen:
These points were where you had flagged MAHW; the water is below that level. To say that we are trying to push something to above that level is not accurate.
Mr. Wall – the stick points – the flags locations on the sticks was never meant to represent a water level. The base of the stick where it penetrated the surface, which was a sphagnum layer, was meant to be the intersection point of the water level. My observation was that the water level on the stick was the flag above it, this intersection was still flooded on Friday – Sunday.
Mr. Chessia: Sticks were exposed.
Mr. Wall: The intersection point of the stick with the ground was not the same as what you observed.
Commissioner Berry
Have visited the project at least 10 times. Every time I have looked at this area, it has been wet. Not necessarily under water, but it’s been wet. Right where the banks drops off at that peak. There is a tree at the edge, and the flag we moved was south of that tree and standing water to the north of the tree. Land to the south of the tree is repeatedly underwater. It has been underwater this late winter and spring after the snows have melted. It’s not a ground water situation. The water is the same level as the water that goes right out to the river. I believe the elevation is essentially no different from where you had it flagged and where we put the flag.
Mr. Wall
Flooding within in the flood plain does not constitute a river channel.
Commissioner Berry
When river water repeatedly goes to an area where there is a bank slope; that abruptly ends there, when the river water repeatedly rises to that level that is the mean annual high water mark. When we visited that day, that was the area we were talking about specifically to that point. It’s no different from the area you had flagged some 18 feet to the south. It appears to me it’s all part of the same MAHW mark.
Mr. Wall
The green flag placed by Mr. Chessia, was 18 feet further to the north.
Commissioner Berry
Where that flag was placed, is the same elevation as where you had the two flags placed that you are disputing. It is a spot that is very inconvenient for the project.
I’m not a scientist, its river water and not ground water; it’s where the river flows repeatedly several times a year when it rains. It’s not flood, its MAHW.
Mr. Wall concurred that the spot was inconvenient.
Let it note for the record that what was flagged out in the field with the orange and green flags was an elevation, 49.7.
Commissioner Nielsen
Any scientific measurement has a margin of error. This area is so flat, this could be the explanation of why we are coming up with a different interpretation. There perhaps at the most an inch difference in elevation.
Mr. Chessia suggested that the point file be sent.
Assistant Conservation Officer read definitions of mean annual high water it concludes low flow channels or poorly defined or none existent banks. Cited Regulations in 10.58 (page 396.1?).
Commissioner Nielsen: It is noted that you need to use multiple factors in establishing this. We are looking at this using multiple pieces of information. I am reading the Regulations, to get a grasp on how this should be done. We should take as many of these determining factors as possible and doing that puts the line where we put it.
Mr. MacKinnon – Trustee
Essentially all of this moves the river front line. There is more work in the riverfront. The work is all in an area that has been previously disturbed. If we are to have a certain amount of work in the outer riparian zone and triggers a wildlife study.
Commissioner Nielsen
Legally it makes a difference on the type of wildlife study that needs to be done.
Mr. Wall
We are talking about an area that has been previously been disturbed to create the grass field. We have stipulated to the Commission that we are not going to enter into any of the tree area which is the riverfront area.
Commissioner Nielsen
It is important to the Commission that we are satisfied that the MAHW line which determines the boundary of the riverfront is accurate.
Mr. Wall - the wildlife considerations?
Assistant Conservation Officer – will need to go back and check the regulations on the Wildlife study.
Commissioner Berry
We have been discussing the river boundary and previously had discussion on the 50-foot buffer and you have changed the design and modified it to try and minimize intrusion into any of the jurisdiction areas which have been appreciated. I get the feeling you are trying to minimize the jurisdiction so that you can avoid a lot of the work that the Commission would like to see done.
I look at this as a piece of Town owned land surrounded by a good part of Conservation land, pond on another side, school property on another side. Its open space now, yes it is disturbed, but it’s a grass field with a gravel parking lot and what is proposed is something that is significantly different.
Entire area would be excavated, concrete poured, curbing, pervious pavement in some places and overall the impact is on the wildlife habitat for the whole area, not just the intersections where you just have to be in the 100 foot zone.
I think that saying you don’t have enough square footage to qualify for an Appendix B, and given the outpouring of public concern about health issues and wildlife that people have expressed about this property, you should go the extra mile to satisfy the people that own this land that this project will not have an adverse impact on it in any way.
Mr. Wall
• With respect to the health issues, there are two sides
• Commission has been presented with studies that suggest adverse health effect based on studies that are old and have been superseded
• The CT study is not accurate in its characterization.
• More information will be provided to the Commission with regards to the health effects – information will be remarkably different from what has been heard
• It will show a better representation of what has been presented up till now
• Not a question of minimizing our responsibility, it is a question of making a determination of what is appropriate under the wetland bylaws for evaluation of wildlife
• Existing field and existing gravel parking lot, grassed area is fertilized, area is open and wildlife travels through, along with a field to the North that is used by wildlife traveling
• Only portions of those areas are under the of the Commission’s jurisdiction bylaw
• We are asking you to recognize the limits that you have imposed upon yourself.
• Applicant is prepared to do a wildlife study, and is trying to determine what its focus should be and where it should be focused
Commissioner Berry’s opinions
• Erroneous assumption has been made that I have only listened to the negative information that has been presented to the Commission
• Researched the subject on both sides to satisfy myself
• Have three grandchildren that will be playing on this field and I want to make sure they will be okay if we go forward with this project
• Want to make sure the Applicant has a fair hearing
• Have not made a determination in my own mind on the health aspects on this
• You missed my point – I feel you are trying to narrow the sphere of the Commission’s jurisdiction to minimize the look that we take at this project
• It is town land; town people are concerned about the wildlife and drinking water
• Feel you should go the extra mile rather than saying we only need to do an Appendix A (abbreviated study)
• Would like to have you volunteer to do an Appendix B which is much more comprehensive and will give a better idea of the impact of the project on the wildlife
Mr. Wall
Thank you for not prejudging the health effects, which is very important to a fair hearing
Commissioner Coughlin
Concerned around the health effects as it relates to the drinking water, potential of leaching of any of the materials that have been corrupted by age and heat and other combined environmental conditions and does that present a danger to us in terms of the water supply.
Have any of the other sites that have been installed after 3 or 4 years found through active Phase II environmental monitoring any leeching of materials that would otherwise be harmful to the environment, drinking water.
Rich Alfonso – Tetra Tech
Will look into Commissioner’s Coughlin’s request, as he does not know if any exist and the question has been noted.
Commissioner Nielsen
Goals tonight
• Make a determination of what we will accept as MAHW line which generates the riverfront line so the applicant’s engineers can proceed with their work
• Substantial concern about the wildlife, want to give you a sense of what the Commission is looking for
Photos discussed dealing with flags, marks and distances.
Mr. Wall
• Presented plan that was prepared today which shows the 3/17/10 plan.
• Black dots which is the location of the green flag
• Extension of the riverfront area by that flag
• Appears that we are in agreement with respect to the difference shown with the change of the dot and what would happen with flag locations and how lines would be extended
Commissioner Perry
• Needed verification of what elevation the wetland line was at - @ 51 foot elevation
• Which notes a bank and a change in slope
• Agree that it is riverfront
• Went out and saw a defined bank, when you read the regulations and first see an area that is flooded consistently, it’s the same elevation and level with the rest of the river, discussing and pointing to lines on plan.
Mr. Wall
• Showing the difference between the channel flows
• Points out different channel slopes, horizontal depositional flood plane surface
• Look to the guidance that is available from DEP and USD and their River
• This is not a bank for the purposes of establishing a river front area, and this is where we differ in opinion.
Commissioner Perry
Regulations that I have researched do not say anything about river flow having anything to do with where the banks are
Banks are where the water goes to on a consistent basis over years that is the high level point
Sterling Wall - March 19, 2010 correspondence
Included in the cover letter above explained the back ground for our determination
Included comments on the guidance that was received, from Tom McGuire and Heidi Davis-River Specialist
This guidance is consistent with how riverfront determinations have been made in the past in my experience
We differ on what constitutes a riverfront boundary in the flood plain area
There is a difference of opinion and we note that for the record.
Rich Alfonso
Agree with Sterling Wall - there is no way the edge of the river on that side climbs that far up into the site
Commissioner Nielsen
We are seeing a uniform level in the river, it is the MAHW in this instance
Rich Alfonso
Looking at this river in one of the wettest springs we have had in a long time
We know where the 100 year flood plane is -just out again taking pictures
The limit of the flooding has exceeded where the 100 year flood plane is due to the rain we have had in the last couple of weeks
Commissioner Nielsen
Wishes to note that these questions arose prior to the extreme rains that we had
Need to open up the hearing to public comment
We can keep discussing each of our points of views all night,
Need to make a determination and move from there
Commissioner Nielsen opened hearing to the public.
Reminded public to sign in
Requesting that comments be made only to the matters at hand being discussed tonight
Location of MAHW on the river and to give guidance on the extent of wildlife study to be done.
Tom Burbank- 17 Andrews Isle
Will this study encompass the effects that lighting will have on nocturnal creatures?
Joan Iovino - 8 Berkley Circle
Would like the wildlife study to be extremely inclusive and detailed
Wildlife doesn’t just stay in the impacted area, how does the project impact the wildlife in the whole area?
Kate Manning – 231 Cushing Street
What would the impact be from the runoff on the trout that is stocked every year in the Plymouth River?
Would they even continue to stock the river?
Jason Ward -16 Harvard Drive
Moving of the flags have created suspicion and concern of what we believed had been an agreement by several engineers and scientists of where this line was prior to what I consider to be a massive rain storm
Was in Wompatuck State Park and several of the ponds were over, I don’t consider that to be a mean or average
People are suspect for the reason or rational for going out after the storm to try and redo flags that had been agreed to
Comes across as a predetermination of how this project should be or shouldn’t be
Two Commissioners have been the most vocal tonight
Grandchildren would be disappointed in the position you are taking
Commissioner Nielsen
Noted that the applicant does not have the authority to establish a flag line
It is presented to the Commission and the Commission has the final determination, accept the flag line and ask that be adjusted
This is done on a routine basis
Commissioner Berry
Went out on March 9, 2010 - Conservation Officer, Assistant Conservation Officer, 3 Commissioners and several members of Tetra tech
Reviewed the previous flagging and the area in question is an area, is quite well defined due to the slope of the bank
Surprised to see that the revised design that was submitted didn’t go far as I though it should in that area
Not just my opinion, there was discussion on where it should be on March 9th
Rec’d another plan that had a modified line, but did not move far enough in that spot in question
In the office on Fridays, as we always do, reviewing the agendas
Mr. Chessia was available and we went out to take another look
As stated, water level had receded considerably and in fact it receded back to the level previously marked from a visit prior to the March 9, 2010
This is all referenced back to that time
Not an attempt to pick a 100 year flood event and deny a project on that basis
Robert Blucke
Plymouth River Complex is the wildlife area that is in question and should be the definition of what the study should cover
Tom Hoffman - 3 Sherman Way
Difficult decision for the Commission - written a 5 page letter to leave with the Commission
I am a proponent
44 hundred acres of open space in Hingham, the project is 5-7 acres for the fields
What did the development of a 300-gated community do to the wildlife vs. what these fields will do?
Adjacent to this field is Moore Brewer park where I can snow shoe
Turkey Hill, Bare Cove Park, World’s End, Wompatuck, Town Forest - displacing 5-6 acres for turf fields will not displace wildlife
Health - Harvard is announcing that they are building their 5th turf field on the campus
Great success, have all the environmental studies and will share with us
7 ivy league schools also have artificial turf fields on campus
Mass Maritime has their turf field beside Cape Cod canal, additional schools mentioned and their locations
US Sports Marine Academy has their Turf Field on Long Island Sound
Naval Academy has turf fields right up to Chesapeake Bay
Towns - Concord put turf fields in Walden Woods with lights
Needham, Wellesley; Boston College H.S. has a turf field with lights up against Dorchester Bay
Please ask yourself if some of the great educational schools with some of the best engineering and public health programs and brain power, what did they all miss when it comes to the health of all these turf fields?
Lester Geary from Harvard noted they had a real drainage problem in Harvard with the natural fields, since we put in artificial turf we are amazed with the retention
Please keep this in mind, we are not the first ones to do this
No one has shown any problems
No one has the alleged problems that they are unhealthy for the children and the rubber pellets are toxic
Keep an open mind
Jack McSheffrey - Ward Street
Charge the scientists from Tetratech in proposing the studies that are out there, other studies that look at water quality and zinc and other elements in the health of the animals
Have provided handout on studies
No conclusive evidence to settle this debate for health of the environment and animals
Thousand of fields appear to be fine now, but then find out later, they affect the health and animals and wildlife
Some projects are on a moratorium; go on the principle of do no harm
Want the safety for all
Up to the proponents to have the burden of proof to establish clearly that they can show that their plan can do no harm to health and the environment and in my opinion that has not yet been satisfied
Commissions and all the boards represent us and are raising important questions
Rich Alfonso
Presented a signification amount of data, Mike Billa; LSP spoke at length about all of those things
Feel we are presenting appropriately
Recognize that no matter what is said, some people will not be satisfied by what is presented
Will be back again at the next meeting presenting more information
Steve Pesco - 33 Woodlock Road
Surveyed over 100 fields in NY study
Have no idea of where the lead came from - all but one normal - 1 out of 100 fields were the basis of the NY moratorium
Paula Certa - 133 Ward Street
Black Rock was a moon crater full of rusted cars before development
Black Rock and Boston Golf has improved the area
To compare the turf field to Black Rock is not appropriate
Claire St. Ledger - 44 Middle St.
Public land is going away, our land should be conserved, need to preserve the meadow
Not the right area for the turf fields
Faith Burbank - 17 Andrew Isles
Reminder that Weir River Water Shed is connected to the area, stressed basin
Climate changes - to say that this year is unusual, may be a whole new trend in global warming
Commissioner Nielsen closed the hearing to the public.
Commissioner Nielsen
The Commission needs to make a determination on what is the proper line for MAHW.
Discussion - Commissioner McIsaac
• Controversial issue
• Must be a flood plain in this stretch of the Weir River which would lie above MAHW in elevation
• Leaning toward pushing the proposed MAHW away from the riverbank as there does not appear to be any difference between the MAHW and the elevation of the flood plain
• By choosing either point proposed, what will be the associated change to the overall project, if any?
• Because the requirement for a more extensive Wildlife Study (Appendix B) is triggered based on square footage of area within 200 feet of riverfront, does the more conservative MAHW proposed actually trigger such a study? If not, then this discussion is essentially irrelevant
Commissioner Coughlin
Between the two areas, the amended area more appropriate based on several items
Recommendation of the peer reviewer
Site was inspected both before and after the storms
Delineation of these lines while it may make it more difficult for the proponents, the line is more conservative
Commissioner Perry
Take the more conservative view
Commissioner Villanova
Revised point
Commissioner Coughlin made a motion to adopt the amended line in the field with the green flag to determine MAHW.
Second: Commissioner Villanova In Favor: Unanimous Opposed - None
Wildlife Study
Have heard the questions and recommendations from the audience and it would be appropriate to address the lighting.
Mr. Wall
Lighting issues have been designed to have a cutoff point to eliminate light spilling into neighborhood properties or buffer zone
Commissioner Nielsen
Concern from the public as a whole of the impact of the entire project
Instead of looking at just the disturbed areas of the project, it would behoove you to satisfy public who have participated from the town to look at the full entire area, assessment of wildlife impact on everything - breeding, nesting, feeding, etc.
Commissioner Berry
Property boundaries are meaningless to wildlife
We are asking you to do the broadest study possible to protect the Conservation land, to address the entire area.
A comprehensive study of what is on that map would be a good start dealing with Ward Street, Plymouth River and the eastern portion.
D.J. MacKinnon - Trustee
Noted that they will do the whole disturbed area
Commissioner Perry
Very generous of the applicant to say that they will look at the disturbed area
Commissioner Coughlin
Good first step
The Commission and the applicant reached a consensus that the wildlife study would cover the entire disturbed area.
Commissioner Perry made a motion to continue the Ward Street hearing till May 3, 2010.
Second: Commissioner Villanova In favor: All Opposed: None
Other Business
Commissioner Coughlin noted that “Coach” Bob DeFelice from Bentley is willing to have the Commission come and look at their installed turf fields. The meeting was scheduled for Thursday March 25, pending availability of Coach DeFelice and will be posted.
Commissioner Nielsen noted that on Monday, March 29, 2010 @ 10:00 a.m. there is a meeting with Selectmen Rabuffo dealing with the Ward St. Fields.
Meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________
Linda Morash Defreitas, Conservation Secretary
Approved as amended on 04/05/10