Conservation Commission

CONSERVATION COMMISSION LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS March 12, 2025 Note: These minutes are not completed verbatim. For further detail, video recordings are available at the Pollard Library, second floor reference desk or online at www.LTC.org. This meeting was held both in person and virtually using Zoom. Members Present: Chairman Brad Buitenhuys, Vice Chair Kevin Dillon, Commissioner Perry Downs, Commissioner Stephen Laput, Commissioner Roberto Ciccarelli, Commissioner Paul Belley Members Absent: Commissioner Marie Burns Others Present: Peter Cutrumbes, Assistant Planner AGENDA CALL TO ORDER Chairman Buitenhuys called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. ORDER OF BUSINESS CONTINUED BUSINESS Enforcement Order Sy Dang 258 Varnum Avenue Lowell MA 01854 Violation Location: 258 Varnum Avenue, 01854 An Enforcement Order has been issued due to debris dumping within the 100-year floodplain. On Behalf: None Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: B. Buitenhuys said the photos did not look like much has been cleaned up. P. Downs noted the snow is gone and can make cleanup easier. Motion: K. Dillon motioned to continue the matter to the March 26 meeting. P. Downs seconded. The vote was unanimous (6-0). Notice of Intent 21 Century Mill LLC 291 Main Street, Suite 8 Northborough, MA 01532 DEP #: 206-0838 Project Location: 10 Toupi Lane, 01854 A Notice of Intent has been filed by 21 Century Mill LLC to construct 3 single-family homes at 10 Toupi Lane. The proposed work is located within the 100-foot buffer zone of a protect wetland. On Behalf: Scott Goddard, representing 21 Century Mill LLC, spoke. He presented plans that have been revised since the last meeting. He submitted a letter that covered any comments from DEP and DPD. They are currently in jurisdictional litigation with DEP regarding whether this is a resource area. DEP has asked them to be here and submit an NOI that could receive an OOC. This would cease the litigation activity. It would acknowledge the presence of a resource area on site from his end, but would also protect the wetlands. The letter was summarized. DEP said there was a lack of alternative analyses as to how wetlands alteration can be avoided. S. Goddard has now done those. Three possibilities: development rotated to the south, assume the wetland is not jurisdictional on lot 3 and shrink wetland impact on lot 2, or meeting DEP’s replication standards. They also retain the right to continue to proceed with the referenced litigation. If they won this litigation, the development could be done with no Conservation Commission oversight at all. Feels this would be bad for the Commission. S. Goddard said area 2 can be filled as it meets the definition of a finger-like projection. Noted DEP disagrees. S. Goddard said DEP had questions about whether some of the flagged area in the photos could qualify as Bank as apposed to BVW. He agreed with DEP’s determination that flags A1, A2, A28, A29, and A30 are bank. S. Goddard also discussed the comments from DPD. The Building Department expressed a desire to use flood protocols, but the site is not part of the FEMA flood plain. The Project Management team is seeking a way to inform future buyers about the border with the wetlands. Suggested the Conservation Commission could condition some kind of boundary marker (like a fence) be included. He noted that the revised plans mostly meet the requests the Commission made at the previous meeting. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: B. Buitenhuys noted that they had asked the applicant to submit the revised plans a week early but they only recently received them. He feels the Commission is being asked to go against DEP to wrap up litigation. Thinks they may need to hire a third party evaluator. Ask Law Department about how the litigation process with DEP works, and how the outcome of the case would affect the Commission. S. Goddard said they are not asking the Commission to go against DEP. DEP wants to take the position that this is a BVW. An OOC from the Commission would confirm that. B. Buitenhuys said there is a 25-foot no build zone. S. Goddard said this is not codified. B. Buitenhuys conceded it is not codified but it is a longstanding precedent. He understands it may add to litigation issues. The wetland boundary should be reviewed. S. Goddard said the requirement of peer review is only necessary if they are working towards an OOC. K. Dillon asked to confirm if they are still in litigation. S. Goddard said they are on a stay. K. Dillon said he would prefer DEP’s litigation plays out. B. Buitenhuys says that the deal being offered is the applicant will accept a ruling that there is a BVW, which protects these areas. The risk is that if the Commission votes no that the settlement between DEP and the applicant may result in the project going forward and no protections for the resource area at all. S. Laput said he visited the site recently and that there is a pond there. Difficult to think it is not a jurisdictional area. Asked about issues during construction. Basements would require excavations. Given that there is visible water there right now, the water table must be high. How do they plan to deal with dewatering? S. Goddard said the basements would be above the groundwater table. S. Laput asked if the driveway of Lot 3 on the southern side will be paved. How will it be graded? S. Goddard confirmed it will be paved and said it will be at grade. S. Laput said he does not believe that the construction process wouldn’t inadvertently do damage to the resource area. S. Goddard said they could do the driveway during low water conditions like in late summer. S. Laput asked about snow removal from the southern driveway. Will homeowners dump the snow into the resource area? S. Goddard said an O&M could be put in place. S. Laput said the entire project is within the 100-foot buffer zone, which both sides agree on. The project will clear cut much of the area, regrade the area, and modify the flow of water. It is completely changing the entire buffer area. Not just the 25 foot buffer zone. Eliminating trees and plants that contribute to wetland. B. Buitenhuys said that they requested plans a week in advance so they could fully review. He would like to wait on a vote. S. Goddard asked for a straw poll to assess if they should go forward with peer review. S. Goddard said that if the general feeling is the Commission is unsupportive, it may be a waste. P. Belley said he is unsupportive. R. Ciccarelli said he would like to wait for a determination from legal but right now at this moment he would say no. P. Downs agreed. S. Goddard said he is not sure that a peer review would convince the Commission. K. Dillon motioned to continue the 3/26 meeting. Seconded by R. Ciccarelli. The vote was unanimous (6- 0). Norice ce of Intent Franco American Holdings, LLC 357 Pawtucket Street Lowell MA 01854 DEP #: 206-0842 Project Location: 357 Pawtucket Street, 01854 A Notice of Intent has been filed by Franco American Holdings, LLC to construct an 80-unit mixed-use building at 357 Pawtucket Street. The project will include a new stormwater management system that will eventually discharge into the Northern Canal. A portion of the parking area improvements may be located in the 100-foot buffer zone of the Northern Canal. On Behalf: David Jordan, engineer for the applicant. He summarized the project. It is an 80 unit residential building. All proposed work on the paving and building is outside the 100-foot buffer zone. The only work within the buffer zone is to tie their stormwater systems into the drainage structures at the rear of the property that connect to a manhole. He summarized the proposed stormwater management. Much of the runoff will be infiltrated into the ground. There will be emergency overflow provisions. There will be a silt fence as an erosion control measure. Speaking in Favor: None Speaking in Opposition: None Discussion: B. Buitenhuys supports the project and does not believe it will significantly impact the resource area. P. Belley asked if the existing stormwater overflow system is currently functional. D. Jordan confirmed. Motion: P. Downs motioned to close the public hearing and K. Dillon seconded. The vote was unanimous (6-0). K. Dillon motioned to issue a City of Lowell Standard Order of conditions. S. Laput seconded. The vote was unanimous (6-0). OTHER BUSINESS B. Buitenhuys wants to talk to legal about codifying the 25 foot buffer zone no disturbance policy. P. Downs noted it could reduce flexibility. B. Buitenhuys asked if it can be drafted in a way as to grant an exception. 2/26/2025 meeting minutes P. Downs motioned to approve. S. Laput seconded. The vote was unanimous (6-0). ADJOURNMENT K. Dillon motioned to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 PM.