by Frank Schroth

The Conservation Commission(Con Comm) met last Tuesday and heard from two firms that are in the process of obtaining the necessary permits to construct 40B housing developments. One is at the corner of Central and Eliot; the other is at 711 Randolph Avenue. The Commission voiced concerns with both developments. Carrick Realty has two applications pending with the Con Comm: one for the demolition of the existing Hendries building and one for site development of a new building. H&W Apartments LLC has a site development application pending.

The Hendries property at the corner of Central and Eliot consists of two parcels, one owned by Carrick Realty and one owned by the town. The town parcel is essentially the parking area on Central and the portion of the building structure above it. Carrick owns the rest. Con Comm has applications before it from each party regarding demolition of their respective portions. The town has asked for a continuance and did not appear at the meeting. A team of engineers from Allan and Major Associates, Inc. the engineering firm retained by Carrick, presented their plans for managing and mitigating environmental impacts with regard to demolition and site development.

A key concern of the Conservation Commission is the presence of 5 monitoring wells. The wells have not been tested since 1997, and the commission wants to know what their current status is. Officials on both sides of the table referred to the “Rizzo Report” which, when issued, stated that the site was clean and there were no use restrictions, according to the Carrick Realty team. However, Commission member McNaught stated that the regulations have been revised 3 times in the intervening years. Chair Kiernan asked, “Is there a problem with testing it? The cost would be negligible.  .  .I don’t want contaminated soil covered up.” The Carrick team stated they wanted to take down the superstructure of the building (i.e. everything above ground), which is what they contend the demolition application pertains to. They said the issue of the wells would need to be addressed during the site development. Member McNaught was particularly pointed in his comments. He stated that, “Rizzo told you there’s oil. . . you have oil on that site.” Steve Connelly of Carrick Realty continued to argue that the wells are more appropriately handled during the site development phase. His priority is “getting the buildings down without disturbing the foundation.” Kiernan said, “You are asking us to defer a problem.” McNaught asked why he received no “support on an enforcement order to remove the oil tanks.” This went on for a while. Eventually Kiernan outlined 6 points:

• soil testing
• where pipes are discharging
• testing of water in wells
• contingency on a DPW storm water permit
• a response to comments from Dept of Environmental Protection
• water calculation (to be done with DPW)

He asked Mr. Connelly if he would agree to a continuance to address these issues. A break was taken and upon returning to the table, Mr. Connelly agreed to a continuance to address 5 of the 6 points. He wants the testing of wells to be a condition of site approval. They agreed to a continuance.

They then took up the matter of the site development application. The primary issue that the Commission had with this was the absence of open space at the corner of Eliot and Central and the outstanding enforcement order with regard to Carrick taking down a large black oak without proper authorization from the Commission. Member Michael Blute said, “I do not know how you are going to accommodate a large caliper tree.” Blute also had concerns with the proposed storm water system not having the capacity to deal with the volumes of water that could result given the amount of impervious surface.

Connelly introduced the option of planting a large tree off site to satisfy the enforcement order.  Member Judith Kemp pressed the issue saying that public funds were going into the project and that the public had an open space there for hundreds of years and would continue to expect it.

Mr. Connelly challenged the statement that pubic funds were going into the building, and his attorney Mr. Freeman said that despite what the expectation might be, the land is private property and that the tree had been taken down for safety issues.

With regard to storm water volumes, the engineer said that the difference between what the town system can handle and what is spillover would be managed.

The discussion of the application will be continued on December 9th.

The board then moved onto the discussion of a site development application from the H&W Apartment team. Their development, which is scheduled to go before the Board of Appeals on 12/2, is for 2 buildings that together will offer 90 apartment units, 23 of which will be affordable.

Several issues came up during the discussion of this development. They included:

• Serious concerns with the water management, given the wetland proximity, elevation, number of units, and amount of impervious surface.”That’s a LOT of water,” Kiernan said. James Burke of Decelle Burke, the engineering firm working on the development, said there would be 5 detention basins. He also discussed adding a header pipe to relieve water from flowing through a single point of contact and to a peer review.
• Member Blute raised an issue with the setbacks not being sufficient to allow equipment to actually do the work saying, “You can’t build what you have drawn without touching wetland.” Decelle thought they would be able to get the work done without risk to the wetlands.
• Kiernan asked where the they would be staging the equipment. The equipment will initially be on a driveway until the wetland is replicated and then moved accordingly as they build out the site.
• Member Kemp raised questions about wildlife, specifically the owls in the area. She also indicated she might want a tree survey. It was unclear whether their is any obligation on the part of the developer, given that it may not be within the wetland designation.

Neighbors of the development also raised questions. About half the questions related to traffic.  In addition, an emergency access road and the amount of parking were acknowledged to be the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals, which will be hearing the comprehensive permit application on 12/2. One resident, Richard Shea, asked what was going to be done about a den of coyotes, an animal he said was on the endangered species list. He also hoped that the town would be looking after how this development would affect the DPW yard. There was also some debate regarding the applicability of the local wetlands bylaw which was not resolved.

The continuation of the discussion of the application is scheduled for December 9th.