The URL can be used to link to this page

10B-061 12 water st permits issued formPERMITS ISSUED BOARD/ COMMISSION: PLANNING BOARD TYPE OF PERMIT DATE ISSUED DATE EXPIRES SPECIAL CONDITIONS PAGE 1 OF 1 R(�M :«FT'Y DONALD ABEL August 11, 2000 FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 DONALD W. ABEL.,, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 749 203 NORTHAMPTON STREET EASTHAMPTON, MA 01027 Tel: (413) 527_6966 Fax (413) 527 -9314 Benjamin A. Barnes, Esq. 64 Gothic Street Northampton, MA 01060 Re: 18 Mulberry Sbmt/Roberts Meadow Brook Dear Attorney Barnes: This letter is in response to yours ofAugust 3, 2000. Aug. 11 2000 04:52PM P2 PkAw be aware that my client tools title to her rssidence at Mulberry Street by deed dated June 2, 1976. Any additions to the residence were conAnj&ead prior to her ownership. The eta Mory limitation periods provided in a L_ c. 131, §40 and G L. c. 40A, §7 have long since expired.. Even if the facts are as outlined in your correspondence, my client has done nothing in violation of any law, and done nothing to shift responsibility for thi matter from your client. Furthermore, there is nothing to support your Position, contrary to tray Of the Conservati,pn Commission, that it is my client's house that has sansei this situation, and not your client's negligence in allowing his bridge to deteriorate and Collapse. Your client is cunentiy under an Enforcement Order to take innmediate action to stabilize my client's house, Pursuant to correspondence from the Norman Co ion Commission dated July 12, 2000. My client has again offered to participate in the cost of Stabilization on a one third basis, notwithstanding your client's negligcnce and y et ain we are Aced with another denial of respongibility, and further dela you also svgge�s�t that you Continue to be willing to work with my client to reach s long term solution, yet we have never seen arty indication of this willingness. When previously asked on what basis, if arty, your client was willing to eater an agreement to pmcced with stabilii�t your response was your conespondCnce of June 7, 2000, indicath* that he had no such inclination to proceed. Please be advised that my client awaits your compliance with the Enforcement Order o f the Conservation Commission, and is willing to provide acr stab oss and cooperate with any stabilization c$oris to her home and t bank. She flocs not accept re'sponsi'bility for the conditions caused by your cliciv, and will not mdenus,{fy him. rl R�" :,, TY DONALD ABEL FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 '4ug. 11 2000 04:53PM P3 NV.. .n/ Benjamin A. Barnes, Esq. 08/11/00 Page 2 of 2 Please call should you wish to proceed with developing a solution to this situation. it wor ld be MY Percept that if all the time, energy and money spent to avoid responsibility had instead been channeled to stabilization, this problem would well be on the way to being resolved.. Y Ab l, Jr- P -c. Wayne Feiden Wafacstmfle only (413) 587 -1264 Susan Carbin M RUI AtTY DONALD ABEL FAX N0. : 413 527 8314 BOnjamin A. Barnes, pc. LAW OMCES 64 Gothic Street N om. Netts 01060 (413) ss4-o3ds FAX ( 41 3) , 585-6125 babObamimem August 3, 2000 `w Donald Abel, Jr., Esquire 203 Northampton Street Easthampton, Massachusetts 01427 R.e: l8 Mulberry StreetJRoberts Meadow gook Dear Attorney Abet: Following our conversation, a review of Massachusetts statutes, my review of the I 'ortha M tnpton Str Conservation Commission Minutes, as well as the picture of the home at ulberry eet, as shown in the August 1968 G4x ette photograph, and your restatement to me of your clie&s position that she would pa only 113 of any work to be done on this matter, i reviewed the situation with my client. I present his position to you now. The Northampton Conservation Commission was established when the City, in February of 1964, adopted Massachusem General Law Chapter 40, Section 8C. In 1967, Massachusetts passed its Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, §40). The Wetlands Regulations in the C.M.R. followed shortly after that. The Gmette picture from 1968 shows a shed -rmf stmeture attached to the main building at 18 lviulberry Street. It does not show the portion of the buildi et risk of collapse. Zoning as it is cutrerat2y configured I''° that is currently sagging and established by an ordinance adopted on July 22, 1975, ch established the tide back n as and rear Set -backs in neighborhood business zones at six (6) feet. The portion of 18 Mulberry Street currently at issue was added after 1968; it was added at a time w$en it would have come within the .jurisdiction of the Northampton Conservation Coanmtssion, the Northampton Zoning ordinances, and the Nord'am ton Building The rules and regulations then in place would have precluded construction on the riverb or in the wetlands buffer zone without appropriate filings and permits. I could find no evidence in the Conservation Commission Minutes or files, or in the Building Department files, that the portion of the structure currently at issue was constructed consistent with the requirements of law. Possibly your client has evidence to the contrary; but absent documentation &corn her, it is my assumption that this portion of the building was w1 . -M-W PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON CitN Hall • 2 z o Main Street, Room ii • Northampton, MA o i o60 -3198 • (4 -Fax. 587 -1264 warvne Feiden,Director - email:p fanning @citV.northampton.ma.us - internet :www.northamptonplanning.org July 12, 2000 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Enforcement Order Map IOB Parcel 69 Dear Mr. Bernstein: Based upon the circumstances that were viewed by the Conservation Commission on July 5, 2000 and recommendations from Alec MacLeod of Almer Huntley, Jr. & Associates, Inc., the Conservation Commission voted July 10, 2000 to require immediate action to ameliorate the situation on your property and Susan Carbin's property on Mulberry Road. The commission has ordered interim work to be performed, under the purview of the existing Enforcement Order, to stabilize Susan Carbin's House in order to prevent the foundation from deteriorating further. Such action must be taken within 30 calendar days. The commission also voted to require a Notice of Intent to be filed, for work that will result in a long -term solution, within 90 calendar days. The deadline will be October 9, 2000 for this filing. If these actions are not undertaken as prescribed, the Commission will reinstate fines of $100 per week until the work commences or until the Notice of Intent is filed respectively. If you have any questions regarding the Commission's actions, please contact me. Sincerely, Carolyn Misch, AICP Senior Land Use Planner /Permits Manager cc: Susan Carbin Alec MacLeod Donald Abel Benjamin Barnes planning board -conservation commission -zoning board of appeals - housing partnership - redevelopment authoritV - northampton GIS economicdevelopment - communitS development - historic district commission - historicaIcommission - centralbusinessarchitecture original printedon m xNded paper "kin— �t4 -00 11:14A BENJAMIN A. BARNES, P.C. 413 585 5125 P.01 Benjamin A. Barnes, p.c. LAW OFFICES 64 Gothic Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 (413) 584 -0368 FAX (413) 555 -5125 EMAIL: bab( )ba=9iaw.wm June 14, 2000 Mr. Wayne Feiden Via Facsimile Only Director of Planning &. Development 587 -1264 City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Re: 18 Mulberry Street/Roberts Meadow Brook (Carbin and Bernstein) Dear Mr. Feiden: Tuesday morning, I spoke by telephone with Caroline Misch. She reported to me the actions of the Conservation Commission directing Mr. Bernstein to file a notice of intent on or before June 26 or face a fine of $100 per week until filed, and the Commission's decision to be available for a site visit Thursday, June 14, 2000, and not Wednesday, which was the evening proposed and the only evening Mr. McLeod was available this week. Given our prior conversations about the Monday meeting and whether I needed to be there, the Monday decision calls into question the accuracy of your perceptions of the Commission. Had I had even the slightest inkling that the Commission might take the action it did, I would have appeared. You knew I was scheduled to be out of the country from June 19 to July 10. You knew I had taken some trouble to propose a date for a view when I and my client might be present. Knowing how organized you can be, I assume Caroline had these facts before her as well. I am not accustomed to being sandbagged by employees of this City and have for years taken you at your word with respect to matters we had under negotiation. Our prior informal communication and assessment of situations has, in my mind, lead to optimum solutions to complex problems. 1 regret that this matter is now off this track. My position continues to be that a site visit with an engineer is an important step in educating the Commission, and that causation of and responsibility for the condition of the bank are not clear. From my review of the file, no professional opinions were expressed as to cause and much has been stated to indicate that cause and responsibility are anything but straightforward. N On Donald Abel_ P:squirc !1unust �, 200o Page 2 FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 constructed without permit, outside the law, and certainly without review or authorization of the Conservation Commission, which had jurisdiction over the entire lot. It would be my further perception that had this structure been built acc:ordialg It) the rules and regulation.% then in place, it would have been built differently, if at all, and that we would not now be facing the current risk. Accordingly, upon the facts set forth above, Mr. Bernstein takes the position that Protection of your client's property is her responsibility, and that she should take action to protect her prOperty in the near term. The direction from. the Conservation. Commi i sson to file No tice 01 Intent is directed toward the options set forth in the Huntle letter Of June 7, 20(10. 'lfiesc pure not the options to be undertaken immediately to protect your client's ro rt We continue to be willing to work with you and your client to reach a long term Solution for stabilization of the bay & in the near terra, however, your client must act and must assume full responsibility for her structure. assuming that conditions are as I have outlined above. With that said, I recommend that your client Proposal to her of what is necesfary to �'�t her h engage is M the sh incer Ryan Iiellwig to make a developm solution is under develo ort term while a long term Fn addition, I request on behalf of Mr. Bernstein a letter from ur client accepting responsibility for the protection of her structure on her property, which would include a statement or indemnification of Mr. Bernstein during the period of developmont and execution of a long term solution_ I would be pleased to discuss this matter with you further. Sincerely, t omniamin ernes BAl3lijm cc: Mark Bernstein h '�s OU-0SDi.doe ■ lun -l* -00 11:14A BENJAMIN A. BARNES, P.C. 413 585 5125 P.02 Mr. Wayne V. Feiden June 14, 2000 Page 2 I would appreciate hearing from you as to how we might re- establish an effective working relationship on this matter. In the meantime, I am requesting that the date for filing be postponed until after a site visit and until such a date as I can be present at the Commission to present the matter. That would be after July 10. Sincerely, t ni: ViA.Barnes lbab L I ROM : ATTY DONALD ABEL N` W June 12, 2000 Benjamin A. Barnes, Esq. 64 Gothic Street Northampton, MA 01060 FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 DONALD W. ABEL, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 749 203 NORTHAMPTON STREET EASTHA VTON, MA 01027 Tel: (413) 527 -6966 Fax: (413) 527 -8314 Tun. 12 200 01 :35PM P2 •.1 BY and FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (413 ) 585 -5125 Re: IS Mulberry Street/Roberts Meadow Brook Dear Benjamin: This letter is in response to yours ofJune 7, 2000. I wish to review this matter briefly before responding to your client's current positions raised. therein. By your corcespondce of May S, 2000, you proposed a meeting between our clients and the emgineering firm, of Almer Huntley, Jr. & Associates (hereafter "Huntley' ). The purported purpose of the meeting was to "discuss the magnitude of the work needed to stabilize this situation and then discuss both fi rther action and an equitable sharing of costs." This proposed moving was requested by your client only alter enforcement action was instituted against your client by the Northampton Conservation Commission for failure to comply with their longstar dleg orders to remove your client's bridge and restore the bank. In an effort to resolve this situation my client agreed to attend, a meeting with Huntley, the cost of which was equably shared.. At that meeting, various proposals and estimates were presented by Huntley regarding stabilization of the bank and long range permanent solutions. Your client specifically raised the issue&of immediate stabilization of the batik to prevext the corpse of my client's residence. Also discussed was possible government firnding of some of the solutions. As a result of that meeting, your client proposed retaining Alec McLeod of Huntley to appear before the Conservation Commission to request permission to proceed with stabilization. on an emergency basis. My client's response was not to wait until the next meeting to request permission to proceed, but rather to propose an agreement between the Parties to proceed immediately with developing tt Noti,ce ofIntent to address stabilization of the bank, and to proceed with those repairs The costs of this project were proposed to be shared two thirds by your client and one third by mine. My client felt this offer to be more then fair based on your client's negligence in allowing his Fridge to conalm and N ROM : ATTY DONALD ABEL Page 2 of 3 Benjamin A. Barnes, Esc}. 06/12100 FAX NO. : 413 527 6314 Tun. 12 2009 01:36PM P3 r./' thereby causing the collapse of the adjacent mtaining wall. This position would appear to be supported by the correspondence, notices and orders of the Northampton Conservation Commission and Office of Planning and Development. Your client refused this proposal, and indicated that he wished to proceed with a naming with Huntley and the Conservation Commiamn in order to further investigate the cause of the damages and liability for costs of repair. I inquired, without proposing, whether your client had any interest or intent of sharing stabilization costs on any basis, and you responded with your client's current positions as reflected in your correspondence of June 7, 2000, stating that he had no such intention at this time. Your client has been under direction of the Conservation Commission to remove his b l* ,and stabilize the bank for ,nearly a decade, and nothing has been. Only after Enforcement Orders were issued did your client request a meeting to explore stabilization options and costs. and has now indicated that he has no intention of agreeing to implement those options. Your client has now offered to allow my client access to his property to unilaterally perform repairs, and to convey his property to her in exchange for a release of all liability. These offers are hollow, as your client is fully aware that any solution to the bank's stabilization will require work to both properties. He is now offing to allow my client to make repairs to both his and her property required due to his own negligence. Alternatively, he is offering to convey his property, currently the subject *fan Enforcement Order, so as to allow my client to assume his obligations and liability. Needless to say, my client rejects this offer. Your client has suggested that seasonal and storm water flows have had an adverse impact on the north bank of the Robert's Meadow Brook along our clients' property. My client does not dh agree with this ate. However, the erosion to the bank initially deteriorated the easterly side of the north abutment of your cut's bridge, causing the bridge to begin to collapse toward the easterly side, away from my client's residence. This caused the retaining wall along the rear of my client's residence to crack. Your client was ordered at that time to remove the bridge and stabilize the bank to avoid further damage, specifically refecrbV to the potential threat to my client's residence. Your client ignored this order, which may have prevented, or at least significantly decreased, the ensuuag destruction, and allowed his bridge to collapse pulling down the retaining wall. My client remains interested in pursuing a joint solution to the immediate repairs necessary to stabilize the bsnic and prevent the collapse of her home into the brook. As was discussed at the meeting with Huntley, time is running short before the next storm season, the results of which may be disastrous. Your client's apparent intention since the Enforcement Order was issued has been one of delay, as he has expressed no intention of adopting any of Hu ntley's recommendations for stabilization, except for the pursuit of state or federal support, the potential for which has only vaguely been addressed. my client has indicated her support of locating potential state or federal sources of fin s ■ ROM : AM DONALD ABEL FAX NO. . 413 527 8314 Tun. 12 200 01:37PM P4 Page 3 of 3 Bcnjarnin A. Barnes, Esq. 06/12/00 but in conjunction with developing and implementing plans for immediate stabilization, which plans will be beneficial in the effort to obtain that governmental fining. It would appear that the purpose of your proposed meeting with the Conservation Commission is for the purpose of convincing the Commission that liability for this problem does not rest with your client, and to remove any fintheir Enforcement Orders and &vs. By copy of this letter my client strongly urges the Conservation Commission to continue its Enforoemew Order against Mr. Bemstein, as it has been exhibited that whbovt such a tbreat no action will be taken to stabilize this situation. As noted, my client supports state and federal support of a long term sohiraon to this problem, but in conduction with efforts to immediately stabilize the bank and Ameture. My client agrees to allow access to her property for the purpose of an inspection and meeting with the Conservation Commission on Wednesday, June 14, 2000 at 6:00 p.m She will be unable to personally attend the meeting, but will have a representative or representatives present on her behalf She will not share any of the expense of Mr. McLeod's time, as she does not support the need or kftntion of the meeting at this time. I also wish to remind you that we had discussed Huntley's future involvement in this process on behalf of one cif the parties in the evern of any adversarial proceedings, as a POtCRW conflict of interest. Al this time my client does not oppose ?&. Mel eod involvement in this meeti n& providing it does not conflict with his obligation to Ads. Carbin as Huntley's client. Please conflrm the meeting of June 14, 2000, or at such other time that it will be held. Thank you. Sin y , r Donald �.AZI dr. p.c. ayne Feiden via facsimile only (413) 5871264 Susan Carbin lun -06 -00 01 :26P BENJAMIN A. BARNES, P.C. 413 585 5125 P.01 `.► ..� Benjamin A. Barnes, P.C, LAW OFFICES 64 Gothic Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 (413) 584 -0368 FAX (413) 585 -5125 EMAIL: bab(�,8,hamestaw.com June 6, 2000 Mr, Wayne Feiden Via Facsimile Only Director of Planning; & Development 587 -1264 City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Re: 18 Mulberry Street/Roberts Meadow Brook ( Carbin and Bernstein) Dear Mr. Feiden: Pursuant to our prior conversation, please consider this letter a request for the Conservation Commission to take a view of the banks, stream bed, and lots at the confluence of the Roberts Meadow Brook and the Mill River in Leeds. These are the properties belonging to Susan Carbin and Mark Bernstein. Alec MacLeod of Almer Huntley, who conducted a joint meeting of the parties at his office, would be present to present his observations and findings concerning the condition of the site. I understand that evenings at 6:00 p.m. are often convenient. Wednesday, June 14, is open for Mr. MacLeod, Mr. Bernstein and me. I have left word for Mr. Abel and have sent a copy of this letter to him by fax to expedite matters. After next week, I will not be available until the week of July 10 to 14. Evenings in that week that are open are Monday, July 10, Wednesday, July 13, and Thursday, July 14. 1 have a standing commitment the second Tuesday evening of the month, as well as the third Wednesday. Mr. Bernstein has a standing commitment the third Thursday. Please let me know the date and 1 will notify Attorney Abel, Alec MacLeod and Mark Bernstein. Thank you for your assistance in this matter, Very truly yours, 9 01 jamin arnes BAB /rjm cc: Mark Bernstein (via facsimile only) Donald Abel, Jr.. Esq. (via facsimile only) Alec MacLeod (via facsimile only) h ?.sh »>�1sabW�:mstcint'ciclen -W Q606. duc ■ 4ay -08 -00 03 :39P BENJAMIN A. BARNES, P.C. 413 585 5125 P.01 `%NW Benjamin A. Barnes, P.c. LAW OFFICES 64 Gothic Strut Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 (413) 584 -0368 FAX (413) 585 -5125 EMAIL: bab@bamestaw.com May 8, 2000 Mr. Wayne Feiden Director of Planning & Development City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Re: 18 Mulberry Street/Roberts Meadow Brook Dear Wayne: -"w Via Facsimile Only 587 -1264 By this letter, I confirm prior voicemail messages left for you earlier today. In telephone conversation with Attorney Abel, we have agreed that both parties are interested in a face -to -face meeting with Almer Huntley. The best day of the week for this to occur is on a Tuesday. We are currently working to have such a meeting on May 16; if not then, then on May 23. Following that meeting, I would anticipate making a report to the Conservation Commission, through letter or in person. Because this face -to -face meeting was agreed upon this morning and is now in the process of being scheduled, I plan not to appear this evening. I have directed my client that he need not be present in Northampton this evening. I am standing by and on call if you determine prior to 4:00 p.m. this afternoon that you need my presence at the meeting. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. BAB /rjm cc: Mark Bernstein Donald Abel, Jr., Esq. h: Aaredlbob\bemsicinifei den- 0D.0508.doc Very truly yours, I/ j mi . Barnes ■ 4aay- 10 --00 11 :18A BENJAMIN A. BARNES, P.C. 413 585 5125 P.01 Benjamin A. Barnes, P.c. LAW OFFICES 64 Gothic Street Northampton, Massachusetts 41060 (413) 584 -0368 FAX(413)595-5125 EMAIL - bab r@bsrr"aw.com May 10, 2000 Donald Abel, Jr., Esquire Via Facsimile Only 203 Northampton Street 527 -8314 Easthampton, Massachusetts 01027 Re: 18 Mulberry Street/Roberts Meadow Brook Dear Attorney Abel: by this fax, I confirm the meeting at Almer Huntley on Tuesday, May 16, at 1:30 p.m. Alrner Huntley will issue a contract to both parties. The cost of the meeting is estimated not to exceed $600.00, which we will divide equally. Please confirm the availability of your client. Upon receipt of the contract, I will sign for my client and forward it to you for signature and return to Huntley. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, enjamin A. Barnes BAB /rjm cc: Mark Bernstein Wayne Feiden h:'4&mP- babtibem 1cin\abe100- 051O.&L ■ M ROM : ATT( DONALD ABEL May 9, 2000 Benjamin A. Barnes, Esq. 64 Gothic Street Northampton, MA 01060 FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 DONALD W. ABEL, JR ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 749 203 NORTHAMPTON STREET EASTHAMPTON, MA 01027 Teh (413) 527 -6966 Fax. (413) 527 -8314 - " i y. 09 2600 64 : 39PM P1 BY'MAIL and FACSIMILE rRANSMIS.SION (413) 585 -5125 Re: 18 Mulberry Street/Roberts Meadow Brook Dear Benjamin: I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated May 5, 2000, and our telephone conversation of May 8, 2000. We have agreed to meet jointly with the representative from Almer Huntley, Jr. & Associates (hereafter ` Huntley"), with the expense of the meeting to be shared. It is my understanding that you will be coordinating this meeting with Huntley, hopefxilly to be scheduled for May 16, 2000. As discussed, if my client is to share the cost of this meeting then she will be a party to the contract and a client of Huntley. In response to your correspondence I wish to refer your attention to Sections 365 and 366 Of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provide for liability for disrcpanr of a structure or other artificial condition thereon, and to Comment a to §365 which provides that disrepair includes "dilapidation caused by the usual forces of nature, by wear and tear, or by a sudden and previously unexpactable change caused by an unusual and unexpectable natural force, such as a cyclone or flood... I look forward to hearing from you with regard to the meeting schedule, and ask that you have Huntley forward a contract to me at their earliest convenience for my review. Tbowmk y r your ttention in this matter. S" I , t Do d W. Abel, Jr. p.c. Wayne Feiden Yzafacsimde only (413) 587- -1264 Susan Carlin 0 4ay -05 -00 02:17P BENJAMIN A. BARNES, P.C. 413 585 5125 P.01 Benjamin A. Barnes, P.c. LAW OFFICES 64 Gothic Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 (413) 584 -0368 FAX (913) 585 -5125 EMAIL: bab@bwmlaw.com May 5, 2000 Donald Abel, Jr., Esquire 203 Northampton Street Easthampton, Massachusetts 01027 Re: 18 Mulberry Street/Roberts Meadow Brook Dear Attorney Abel: Von Via Facsimile Only 527 -8314 I have reviewed your letter of April 24, 2000. Thank you for the articulation of Ms. Carbin's position with respect to both the facts and the law. Facts: With respect to the facts, your letter assumes causation. My review of the historical record and conversations with Almer Huntley suggests that causation is not quite so clear. Whatever the original path of the Roberts Meadow Brook, was at some point in the late W h century channeled and straightened. This probably occurred at the time of the construction of the Roberts Meadow Reservoirs. In addition, for a number of years, water impounded behind the now breeched dam across the Mill River provided water power to a mill on the site now owned by Mr. Bernstein. During the period of time that the Mill River and Roberts Meadow Brook were impounded behind that dam, the water at the confluence of the Roberts Meadow Brook and the Mill River was both at a higher level than it is today and for all practical purposes without flow. On the shores of a still body of water, it is possible to maintain a steep and stable bank. It is my view that the impoundment of the water behind the dam permitted the type of fill and construction found on Ms. Carbin's lot. In 1955, during Hurricane Diane and its backlash, a one hundred foot section of the Roberts Meadow Reservoir dike upstream breeched. The resulting flood required the evacuation of that portion of Leeds and, although I have been unable to establish this, in all likelihood caused the breech of the dam on the Mill River. Following that breech, the water level in the Roberts Meadow Brook dropped. The dam was never repaired. The condition of Roberts Meadow Brook adjacent to our clients' property became that of a flowing stream. 4ay -05 -00 02 :18P BENJAMIN A. BARNES, P.C. 413 585 5125 P.02 Donald Abel, Esquire May 5, 2000 Page 2 Almer Huntley has suggested that the natural characteristic of a flowing stream is to meander. The ebb and flow of the water over the forty seasons between 1955 and 1995 certainly is the most probable natural cause of any changes to or undermining of the banks. The natural progress of erosion as the stream sought to meander back and forth at its junction with the Mill River may also have been influenced by the construction undertaken by the City when it rebuilt the Mulberry Street bridge some years ago. Most recently, the process started with Hurricane Diane was further exaggerated during Tropical Storm Floyd in the late fall of 1999. It will require the attention of an expert to determine what most likely caused the current condition of the bank. I address briefly here the relationship between Mr. Bernstein and the Carbins, as neighbors. In 1992, following receipt of the Foresight report, Mr. Bernstein recalls several meetings with Susan Carbin's mother, Dorothea M. Carbin. At least one of these meetings took place in the house at 18 Mulberry Street and possibly Susan was present. At that meeting, Mr. Bernstein shared the results of the Foresight survey and sought the cooperation of Mrs. Carbin and her agreement that she would release him from any liability should he go forward with the work. Dorothea Carbin refused to let Mr. Bernstein or his workers come on the property for any purpose and refused to provide him with any release or cooperation. At that point, Mr. Bernstein went back to Wayne Feiden in the Planning Department for the purposes of withdrawing his proposals for action. Although these meetings ended in an unsatisfactory position for Mr. Bernstein, there was communication between the parties concerning the 1955 flood. Mr. Bernstein was shown by Dorothea Carbin pictures of the 1955 flood of the Roberts Meadow Brook and Mill River, and several letters seeking public relief for Leeds at that time. I am unable to tell from the record whether the City of Northampton received any public funds for the repair of the Roberts Meadow reservoir dike or for the damage done as a result of its breach and the resulting flooding in the Village of Leeds. Th Law With respect to the law, you rely on the Restatement of Torts 2d §819 and assert that my client has been negligent in the maintenance of his property. A negligent maintenance theory would be a case of first impression in Massachusetts. The cases that I have reviewed involve excavation by the Defendant property owner which excavation has resulted in the failure of lateral support. In Mr. Bernstein's case, the actors are the waters released by Hurricane Diane and Tropical Storm Floyd coursing down the Roberts Meadow Brook, combined with the natural cycle of seasonal flow. These would appear to me to be acts of God and ones for which the law provides no recovery. In addition, it is my understanding that your client, with adequate notice as to what she perceives to be a failure of lateral support of her property, should take action to protect her property. Absent such action on her part, her contributory negligence would bar any recovery. With this said, it remains my view that we have a complicated factual and legal situation here which calls for a reasoned solution. Accordingly, I again propose that our clients share N a . 4ay -05 -00 02:18P BENJAMIN A. BARNES, P.C. 413 585 5125 P.03 Donald Abel, Esquire May 5, 2000 Page 3 `%nr 1.r/ equally the cost of the first meeting with Almer Huntley to discuss the magnitude of the work needed to stabilize this situation and then discuss both further action and an equitable sharing of costs. Please contact me after you have had an opportunity to review this correspondence and clarify our next steps. Sincerely, li Benj A. Barnes BAB /dm cc: Wayne Feiden Mark Bernstein h: Xshared %babibematein%abe1004)129.doc ■ kpr- 24 - -00 04:28P BENJAMIN A. BARNES, P.C. Benjamin A. Barnes, P.c. LAW OFFICES 64 Gothic Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 (413) 584 -0368 FAX (413) 585 -5125 EMAIL: bab@,.bameslaw.com 413 585 5125 April 24, 2000 Mr. Wayne Feiden Via Facsimile Only Director of Planning & Development 587_1264 City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Re: Roberts Meadow Brook, Leeds Dear Mr. Feiden: By this fax, I confirm our telephone conversation of Monday afternoon, April 24, 2000. I am awaiting a letter from Attorney Don Abel. Upon receipt of that letter, I anticipate a meeting between my client and the abutters or their representative. I will make a report to you prior to the May 8 meeting and, as of this time, anticipate appearing before the Conservation Commission on that date. Sincerely, /Bt4n.A Barnes BAB /rim h' bentsteinlfeiden- 00- 0424.ekic P.O1 17 ROM ATTY DONALD ABEL DATE: 4/24/00 N%... FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 DONALD W. ABEL, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 749 203 NORTHAMPTON STREET EASTHAMPTON, MA 01027 Tel: (413) 527-6966 Fax: (413) 527 -8314 qpr. 24 2000 05:48PM P1 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: Wayne Feiden, Planning and Development FAX NUMBER: 587 -1264 NUMBER OF PAGES (inhaling this cover) RE: Roberts Meadow Brook 18 Mulberry Street PIease find attached a copy of my correspondence to Attorney Barnes with regard to the above referenced matter. Thank you for your time and attention Don Abel F ROM.: ATTY DONALD ABEL N%.- April 24, 2000 Benjamin A Barnes, Esq. 64 Gothic Street Northampton, MA 01050 FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 DONALD W. ABEL, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. BOX 749 203 NORTHAMPTON STREET EASTHAMPTON, MAO 1027 Tel: (413) 527 -6966 Fax: (413) 527 -8314 qpr. 24 2000 05:49PM P2 ...- BY MAIL and FACS TRANSMISSION (413) 585 -5125 Re: 18 Mulberry Street/Roberts Meadow Brook Dear Benjamin: I acknowledge your correspondence of April 11, 2000 and our conversation ofAlrril 24, 2000. As we discussed, I informed Wayne Feiden ofthe status of our discusg o ns and that you were awaiting this correspondence from me to firther outline Ms. Carbin's position. It is my understanding that the easterly side of the north abutment of your client's bridge began to deteriorate sometime in the ]ate 1960'x. As a result of this deterioration, tlae bridge began to collapse, dropping toward the easterly s id e, he deterioration continued westerly along the abutment and bank toward;ny client's residence at 18 Mulberry Street. This cOntimuing deterioration furthered the bridge's co deterioration ofthe abutment and bank. In 1990 and 1991 the No m turn hastening o the Planning and Development advised your client that the condition ofthe bridge and of abutment posed a threat to the river and river bank, as well as to the Carbin residence. Your client was instructed to file a Notice of Intent with the Northampton Conservation Commission, detailing his plans to remove the collapsing bridge and to stabilize the bank and abutment. The Notice of intent was filed, but an Order of Conditions prohibiting the work was issued due to insufficient engineering detail. An indefinite continuance was requested by your client, purportedly to resolve issues of finarreiai responsibility with my client. No Anther work or activity was conducted until the bridge actually collapsed into Robert's Meadow Brook, causing furthe extensive damage to the reta wall and residence at 18 Mulberry Street As a reutt, the City of Nortimmpton issued an Enforcement Order on September 27, 1999, ordering your client to remove the bridge fie, repair the =Wniag wall and to stabilize: the resource area. It is my client's position that Mr. Bernstein had a. duty to maintain his property and bridge so as not to umvasonably harm my client's property, and that he to do so. The Enfarcemem Order outlines the extent of notice negligently failed Provided to Mr. Bernstein N ROM ATTY DONALD ABEL FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 Apr. 24 2000 05 :49PM P3 'Page 2 of Benjamin A. Barnes, Esq. 04/24/00 as to the risk his bridge created, and further provides that, ",!s u result of the owner's inactivity, the bridge fe11 and damaged the resource area retaining wall, and i"rectly, a house." 1 also refer your attention to the Memorandum dated October 22, 1991, from the Northampton City Solicitor to Wayne Feidert, Senior Planner, a copy of which is attached hereto, wherein the City Solicitor states that, "... if the ahuaing structure is damaged by the bank being removed by a collapse of the bridge, the liability resxs with Mr_ Bernstein. Hic poor malntenanrce of the bridge, nor the 00's activities, would be the P M.- cause of the damage.' Furthermore, Mr. Bernstein negligently failed to continkle to provide support to the Carbin property. You have suggested that the duty to provide support to an adjacent property is for the benefit of that property in its natural condition. This essay be true for the imposition of strict liability, Garton v. Schofield, 311 Mass. 352 (1942). However where the supporting landowner has failed to excrvse reason able cane which results in the removal of lateral support, then that supporting landowner is liable far the removal of that Port, and any resulting harm to that land or any artificial additions to it New York Cent... Co v. lVarinucci Bros. & Co., 337 Mass. 469 (1958), Restate (Second) of Torts § 819. The deterioration to the bridge abutment began some time ago. The resulting daffier to the bridge and the Carbin property were obvious, and your client was specif'caLly k4truaed by the City to take action to remedy the situation_ Your client did not exercise reasonable care and ignored the City's direction, which resulted in the ultimate collapse of the bridge and a significantly greater degree of deterioration to the bank, and risk to xny client's property. At your recommendation I reviewed the Foresight Land Services Report primed for Your client in 1992. The report appears to be consistent with my client's position that the retaining wall supporting her property was comrnon to that which at one time supported the collapsed midge, and that the photos reflect that the area. ofdeteriaration Deegan at the easterly side of the abutment, away from nay client's property, causing the bridge to collapse to its erly side. 1 also reviewed the case Df Fefnaig v Fichsman, 42 Mass.App.Q. 113(1996). in that case the plaintiff had encroached onto the defenda Property and constructed s retaining wall. The cord held that the plsintitl'couid not now compel the defendant to maintain and repair that walL The present situation is distinguishable from those facts and would not appear to be controlled by the holding in that case. The court does refer to the "classic&]" right of support of properly in its natural condition. Whether the classical rigk or not, your clients obligation to the Carbirr Property remains. ifI understmd carrnectly, it is your client's position that now that the bridge has fallen, his duty is Only to stabilize the bank in its c rent condit ion, and only in the direct area of the Old abutment, ignoring the fact that it was the bridge's deterioration and collapse caused the damage to my client's property. Additioualiy, you have suggested that the Conserv Commission and the MassachuseM Department of Environments[ Protection have no authority to order restoration of the resource area, and the aiTeeted N ROM-: ATTY DONALD ABEL FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 ')pr. 24 2000 05:50PM P4 Page 3 of 3 Benjamin A. Barnes, Esq. 44/24/00 bank and retaining wall. I would suggest that as a result of your chent failure to exercise reasonable care to maintain his bridge, that he bas caused damage to my client's Property for which he is responsible, together with restoration of the bank and retaining wall to prevent fu t'= damage. Additionally, he has created a very real possibility that my client's residence located on top ofthe protected resource may impact the resource area, and therefore stabiliz=tion ofthe retaining wall would rest within the authority of the Conservation Commission and the DER You have previously suggested a meeting, between our clients and an engineer from Abner Huntley, Jr. & ,Associates, and that the expense of this meeting be shared. My client is interested in meeting in as effort to find a negotiated resolution to this situation, However, as outlined above, my client feels that a greaW degree of respowlbility rests with your client than he is apparently willing to ap Please contact me after you have had an opportunity to review this correspondence, to see if we may further clarify our resti positions, and hopefully move to a resolution. rA W, Abel, Jr. P•c- Wayne Feiden (413) 587 -1264 Susan Carbin M ROM-: ATTY DONALD ABEL � City of Northampton FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 ''I Apr. 24 2000 05:51PM P5 � 1 Law Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM- SO BJECT: DATE: Wayne Feiden, senior Planner Kathleen G. Failan, City Solicitor"`i.4,� Private Bridge- Mulberry St., Leeds October 22, 1991 I understand that you have some concerns related to the private bridge owned by Mark Bernstein adjacent to 18 Mulberry Street. Apparently this private bridge if is in a very deteriorated condition. it collapses on its own or during any removal. process, pull away part of the bank of it may in turn, may affect the e stream on which it rests. This, str structure at 18 Mulberry Street whose foundation rests on that bank, and nearby resource areas within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Bernstein has now filed a 1 - 40 ' t - ice of Intent with trs Conservatism Com�issian. Sam Brindis has indicated that a detailed engineering study is needed to insure that any removal activities do not adversely affect the adjacent structure and areas, Bernstein has not submitted such a study with his application. Mr. I do not foresee any serious ohance of liability on the part of the City if the Conservation Commission denies the permit on the basis Of inadequate information. However, Mr. Bernstein should be informed in writing of the exact information heeded to process the Permit. The Commission should process the application with all due expediency once the information is received. Nor is there any foreseeable liability if the permit is without the engineering study. In that case, however, gxanted include language on the permit that all necessar I would e taken for the protection of adjacent Y Precautions must b ' F all engineering studies and data.nstruct onof he Mulberry Street a ny an Bridge affects Nis. Bernstein's bridge_ 4_ It is Mr. Berns�eints duty to M aintain the bridge so as not to endanger public or private property. As long as the City does not unreasonably interfere with his efforts to so maintain structure, the City wig l the riot be liable for any damage caused by the bridge. Similarly, • Y i� the abutting structure i$ damaged by the bank being removed by a Collapse of the bridge, the liability rests with Mr. N ROM': AT.TY DONALD ABEL FAX NO. : 413 527 8314 Apr. 24 2000 05:51PM P6 aernstein. His poOr maintenance of the bridge, not the City activities, would be the proximate cause of the damage. a M Benjamin A. Barnes, P.c. LAW OFFICES 64 Gothic Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 (413) 584 -0368 FAX (413) 585 -5125 EMAIL: bab@bameslaw.com bameslaw.com April 11, 2000. Donald Abel, Jr., Esq. 203 Northampton Street Easthampton, Massachusetts 01027 Re: 18 Mulberry Street/Roberts Meadow Brook Dear Don: ' 2000 Via Facsimile Only 527 -8314 By this facsimile, I confirm our conversation of Tuesday, April 11, 2000, in which we agreed that it was premature for the parties to meet with Almer Huntley. We agreed that further clarification of our clients' positions and the range of actions they are willing to consider was necessary prior to a face -to -face meeting. Following our conversation, I left a message for Alec MacLeod that the meeting for Tuesday the 11 cn was postponed. I have left similar word with my client, Mr. Bernstein. Consistent with our conversation, I look forward to receiving your letter outlining your client's position. In the meantime, I call your attention to the Forsythe Land Services report and its attachments (3), details (2), and photos (4), as well as to the case of Feinzig v. Fichsman, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 113 (1997). The Northam ons is expecting a communication from Mr. prior rior to its mee in o g equently, I would request that I receive your letter prior to that time, so that prior to the 24 we might have scheduled the face -to -face meeting between the parties, although the meeting itself may be held after the 24 By copy of this letter, I am updating Wayne Feiden as to the current status of our proceedings. It was good to talk to you this morning, and I look forward to receiving your letter. Sincerely, 1� enjamin A. Barnes BAB /rjm cc: Wayne Feiden Mark Bernstein h:\shared \bab \bernste in \abe l 00-041 I . doc i.'•. t,,.,,,,mpshire County's Dams 1Iavt► lampshire County officials been fulfillin obligations entrusted them by the citizens? It seems that nothing is being done to preserve dams for recreation, • beauty and safety. It must be quite disturbing to the citizens of Hampshire County to see potential recreation areas and places of beauty and historic• significance being left to decay and fall apart. It seems that no one is willing to accept the responsibility for these. dams unless they can be used to make money for a particular business. Most of the businesses in the county are willing to take on civic responsibilities and it is hoped the persons responsible for these damn will do the same.. Let us not just take from the land and rivers, let us conserve and improve and give back part of the beauty we are fortunate enough to h — Statement by Northampton City Councillor John Rockett sommmiN a wvj 8 rzR'g MtLI.. LEEDS NEJ[T TO CRAM -PAR, INC., LEEDS NEAR NOBLE MF6. CO., RAYDENVILLE iRESIGHT LAND it ICES oivision of Brown Associates, Inc. 1496 West Housatonic Street PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201 (413) 499-1560 . ... . ......... .. . ........ . ........ . IL E jog Lit SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED 13Y CYS Z DATE CHECKED 13Y DATE SCALE . ... . ......... .. . ........ . ........ . IL E -- My 1- - aMM w- & w mm m•n - ---- ----- - N Lit ....... . .... ..... -Ad .... ... . ...... . -- My 1- - aMM w- & w mm m•n - ---- ----- - - HUNTLEY ALMER HUNTLEY, JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYORS • ENGINEERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS July 7, 2000 Northampton Conservation Commission City Hall 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Bunk erosion behind #1 8 Mulberry St. in Leeds, Northampton, MA Huntley File #99 -220 Dear Commission Members: On three occasions over the last eight months, Almer Huntley, Jr. & Associates, Inc. (Huntley Associates) has visited the site of stream bank erosion behind and adjacent to a house owned by Susan Carbin and located at 918 Mulberry Street in Leeds, Northampton, MA. It is apparent that the situation is serious and quick action is necessary to preserve the house. In this letter, I describe the present situation and offer some alternative solutions for stabilization, though it should be recognized that a more permanent solution will likely require engineering design supported by a hydrologic study. Further, descriptions of these alternative solutions do not represent a commitment on the part of the landowners to follow a particular course of action; rather, this letter presents information intended to contribute to a solution mutually agreed upon by both landowners and the Conservation Commission. In November, 1999, the situation was as follows: An old bridge abutment on the northeast side of the stream has collapsed following changes in current patterns and direction over a very long period of time and recent high flows associated with Tropical Storm Floyd, a storm of at least a one hundred year statistical rourn interral. Following undermining of the structure, large rocks and other material have collapsed into the stream, taking with them a significant portion of the bank, located some fifteen or so feet above the water level, including a portion of the bank that was directly beneath the addition on the rear of the house at 918 Mulberry Street. Several large rocks are now held in place by the stems and roots of a couple of small diameter elms; one rock appears to be held up by a small Bittersweet vine. It is very likely that more material will fall from beneath the house soon, perhaps very soon. When this happens, the addition is likely to be severely undermined, perhaps as far back as the original foundation, given that the angle of repose from the stream's edge to the top of bank appears to reach the old foundation. This will render the house uninhabitable. During a site visit on July 5, 2000 with the two property owners and members of the Northampton Conservation Commission, it was observed that more material has fallen away from the embankment below the house, leaving the addition on the back of the house cantilevered over open space above the stream. Clearly, the need for stabilization is urgent. O:\PROJINFO\PROJECTS\99- 220 \Report to CmCom 7.6- 00.doc (800) 227 -7723 • (413) 584 -7444 • FAX (413) 586 -9159 0 30 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE EAST • P.O. BOX 568 • NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061 �. ALMER FN t JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYORS • ENGINEERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS There are a number of potential approaches to temporary stabilization of the stream bank below the house. These are noted below with their various pros and cons. It is obvious that the usual "no- action" alternative is not feasible in this instance. ➢ Poured Concrete To adequately support the bank with poured concrete, it would be necessary to excavate a footing to a depth such that the wall would be safe from undermining. This would be impractical given that the stream is narrow and flow could not be excluded. Further, the wall would be subject to strains likely to crack it and render it once again vulnerable to erosion by stream flow. Wooden Cribbing Wooden cribbing consists of frames made of railroad tie -sized timbers and filled with rock. This is a reasonable option in areas subject to relatively gentle wave erosion, but unlikely to withstand erosive flows capable of moving heavy boulders. Construction of the cribbing is labor and time intensive, neither of which are desirable features. It would be necessary to tie the cribbing into the existing slope, an activity likely to create additional destabilization. ➢ Rebuild and Extend an Angular Stone Wall This may eventually be a reasonable solution to the erosion. However, this approach requires fairly extensive engineering, and may only be realistic in the context of a solution involving dismantling of the south abutment to allow the stream to flow along a more southerly path. This would be an expensive project, and as such would require time to assemble the necessary funding. ➢ Gabion Embankment Construction of a gabion embankment would likely be the preferred solution. Gabions are galvanized steel mesh baskets fill with stone and laced together with galvanized steel wire. They can be accommodated to uneven surfaces and are highly resilient to both the force of stream flow and the pressure from the embankment behind them. To place the gabions would require placement of a large piece of equipment actually into the stream (access is available from the south bank), removal of some boulders at the base of the streambank and delivery• of material, both rock to fill the baskets and material to back -fill behind the gabions. This is a relatively inexpensive approach, though the term "relatively" is relative indeed, since stabilization of this area would require between 100 and 150 cubic yards of gabion at $120 to $150 per cubic yard, plus the cost of back -fill, plus the cost of a heavy machine at $150 to $250 per hour for a few days. The long term benefit to this approach is that it would likely not have to be dismantled when the more permanent solution is constructed. Please be aware that these solutions have not been reviewed by our chief engineer (now on vacation) and may be subject to revision. However, I have discussed the situation and various approaches with other engineers in this office, and feel reasonably confidant that the options have been presented accurately. Further, I have shown this letter to both Mark Bernstein and Susan Carbin, the two landowners, who have had the opportunity to review and comment on its contents. It is also important to note that any solution will include addressing the condition and G:\PROJINFO\PROJECTS\99- 220 \Report to CmCom 7- 6-00.doc (800) 227 -7723 • (413) 584 -7444 • FAX (413) 586 -9159 0 30 I ND U9IRIAL DRIVE E AST • P.O. Box 568 • NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061 ALMER FtC14TLEY, JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYORS • ENGINEERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS stability of the addition on the back of the house. I will be pleased to discuss these issues with you Monday evening; however, I have prior meeting commitments in Easthampton during this evening and may not make it to Northampton in time. None the less, I am very interested in your comments, and look forward to working with you and the landowners to stabilize the situation to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. Sincerely, ALMER HUNTLEY, JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC. M 4 MM M e , It ffl Alec MacLeod Environmental Scientist cc: Susan Carbin Mark Bernstein Atty. Don Abel Atty. Benjamin Barnes O. \PEOJINFO\PEOJECrS\99- 220\Report W CmCom 7- 6- 00.doc (800) 227 -7723 • (413) 584 -7444 • FAX (413) 586 -9159 0 30 I NDUsmAL DRNVE EAsr • P.O. Box 568 • NoRTHAMPToN, MA 01061 X r� 214 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, MA 02760 3 -30 -00 Mr. Wayne Feiden Conservation Commission City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 Re: Violation #02802 Dear Mr. Feiden: Ift.. As per your verbal agreement with Atty. Barnes, I am forwarding a check in the amount of $100.00 to cover the above referenced violation and withdraw my hearing request which was scheduled for April 5, 2000 @ 11:OOAM. I called the Clerk Magistrates Office to advise them of this change but they indicated notification must be from your office. In that regard, I also left a message today fof:. Laura Ktutzler did-not hear back, franc her >., f . This letter will also confirm that we are planning to be on the Conservation Commission agenda for A . Mr MacLeod of Almer Huntley Associates will not be available before 8:30PM. We therefuLe would appreciate it if you could accommodate his schedule. Sincerely yours, w.... Mark F. Bernste APP 3 20M s t la-r— 13 —Oq OF : 26P 1 i BENJAMIN A. BARNES, P.C. 413 585 512.5 V w Benjamin A. Barnes, P.c.- LAW OFFICES 64 Gothic Street Northampton, Massacbuselts 01060 (413) 594-W68 FAX (413) 585 -5125 EMAIL: bakigbwwslawxom March 13, 2000 ---a ,cam, I S` ri115 Mr. Wayne Feiden Via Facsimile Otdv Director of Planning & Development 587 -1264 City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Re: Roberts Meadow Brook, seeds Dear Mr. Feiden: Consistent with our telephone conversation, of late this afternoon I am requesting a thirty day continuance of the above enforcement matter in favor of the opportunity to proceed on this matter in conjunction with Ms. Cardin at 18 Mulberry Street upon these terms: 1. Mr. Bernstein will pay the S i 00 fine and withdraw his request for a Show Cause heating in the Northampton District Court. 2. Mr. Bernstein will confer with Ms. Cardin and his consultant at Almer Huntley, Alec MacLeod concerning the condition of the bank in the resource area and the butter zone, the likely causes of these conditions and possible courses of remedial action. 3. The Conservation Commission will agree to take no further enforcement action for thirty days. 4. You will receive within the thirty day continuance a written communication from myself as Mr. Bernstein's representative summarizing the actions taken during this period which communication will be directed towards private resolution of the matter of the bank consistent with wetlands protection principles. I appreciate the courtesy - of your assent and anticipate a rigorous negotiation to resolve this polycentric matter. In reliance upon our prior conversation and your receipt of 0 P. 01 lar- 13- 00 = 2GP BENJAMIN A, BAfZNES , P _ C . 413 565 5125 P. O2 M Mr. Wayne V. Feidon March 13, 2000 Page 2 Mr, MacLeod's letter previously sent to you by fax 1 will not appear at the Conservation Commission Commission meeting tonight, but will speak with you Wednesday upon my return to the office. Tuesday I will be in Boston, Sincerely, Benjami A. ] �, nes Cc: Mark Bernstein (faX) Ibab h.' �shascd' . bablbrnislri�i�iciticp- UU- (} ;13.d6c IN olar 13 -0Ci► 05:09P BENJAMIN A. 6AF2NE5 a P.C. 413 585 5125 PIAR — � 3-- ® io3 : 1 ryl rri Wa..i-cR �.. �� .........� - HU1 TL, Maich 13, 2000 Atty. Benjamin Barnes tit Gothic Street Northampton, MA 01060 P.01 Y ALMER HUNTLE'Y, JR. & .MATES,'NC. SURVEYORS . - LAN06CAPE AROMEM RE. 004 &,OWIVA on Plr#pery oj'lh[erk Betxswn, Lm*, MA Hwuley Fite #0--220 Dear Attorney Barnes: it is my understeae►dvig that an opinion has been exptessed ragard"Ing tht cause of st mambaak erosion at propcM b urging to Mr. Mark gertlst:;a; specifically that the emsibn was caused by the presc= of a metal e &Mi hi$b BQws > eyed by Tmpic W Storm Floyd. Last November, Mr. Bcmdeill hited Almer. HmltleY, Jr- # AssocWM lW. ("ts3e3► Associates) to review the site and the weambank erosion. I vow the W4cutim who examined the sift and ptovWal an on 40 to the cause Of ** Problem 10 Mr. BemsWa. After observing'tbee site and the streausflow,ehwWAclistir -I tft, it WAS MY opiaiort that the erosion was due to a fluyial dynpmics poon that has bOm &VdcOft . for some time. it is part of their neural evolution that SWOOM menodet. and it apps that tiu strtarnt in 41uotioa Mks bbm men*dng to meander sawtbwsrd, but-im mountowd the south W$Od a0utmcnt. 1 believe the rtbotrnding of the tbslwcg (the lonotudinal focus of flow within the staomin) from the souk a�utment to the north beak is the, mog likely explanation fat d* undermining of the north bank SW Aut _ 1 hope this infemutiob is uWW to you. I would be happy to disc= it f=IW v►`itlt YOU in the future. 5iaccrely, Abr" trtlticy, Yr. Associates, Inc. / l y � e L Alec MacLeod, M.S. HydrdkW Ewdronciantal Stich ist 227 -7723 (4I3} 58�e•7444 • FAlc (+1x13} 566 -�CI84 4 �JO e�ae. L)R1VE ��SZ' - P.{7. $tJX 56$ N�O�t17LAM['I4�. V[A OfObl E l l . q SHOW CAUSE 0045 SH 0155 FEB 2 4 2000 Trial Court of the Commonwealth District Court Department Northampton Division Clerk Magistrate's Office 15 Gothic Street Northampton, MA 01060 DATE: February 22, 2000 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 You are hereby notified that an application for a showcause hearing for alleged Wetlands violation has been received and a hearing thereon will be heard in the Clerk Magistrate's Office on: Wednesday, April 5, 2000 @ 11:00am . at which time you may present such evidence as you desire to have considered. Failure to appear could result in the issuance of a criminal complaint. Genevieve L. Keller Clerk/Magistrate Conservation Commission City of Northam 1/ CC: Co �' ton P 210 Main Street, Northampton, MA 01060 This hearing was rescheduled from 03/02/00 at the request of the accused cao FROM -*.aJ I LDERS HARMWE 214 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, IAA 02760 (508) 699-9.1 1-21 PHONE NO, : 508 543 9100 Jan. 21 2000 01:01PM P2 V Mr. Wayne Feiden Director of Plannitng & Development City of Northmipton 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 Re: Roberts Meadow Brook, Leeds Dear Mr. Feiden: I am writing in response to your letter of January 11, 2000 cog the resins of food damage *om Ht mkahe flood at -tlp above referenced location and the - Conwrvation Cone OW s, desire to "restore the damaged bank" as qukkly as PowlAe. Aa you know, in 1992 I worked with an vagiecr and the conservation Commission to amass concerns regarding the stability of the same bank only to be stymied by the umuilli ness of the abutter to cooperate and take responsibility for their up -str6m bank and the emoachment of a rear addition to their house on the bank. Based on the current coind� the 4buatter now seems somewhat mare cooperative and I ,am cautiously opftstjC that we co work out a comprd"ive cooperative pla4 to addrrtss� all of the ism involved including; tank tabitizatior�, strwtuxal support for the louse, sewer haxVe and legal respoosibilkies. Since receramng the Conserva4oa Commission's recent arceEnent order I have taken the following actions; 1) Removed the two Plafe girders of the former bridge from across the brook. 2) Engaged the firm of A lmer Handy & Associates to evaluate existing bank oo *ioos and recommend appropriate course of action, ongoing. 3) Held nurn6r6ous discussions with.tbe abutter to try and establish a cooperative approach to the probloms, ongoing. 4) Engaged an attorney to advise on property rights and responsibilities, ongoing. 5) Discussed issues and possible work program with anrrtrsctQrs v++ leave visited the site and are £ammliar with work in wateroys, ongoing. 6) Begun smirch for public resources for rivedmnk stp4fIiztion to extent they are avabble after being noticed by the Msyor's office th* the City of Northwqoon did not qualify for flood damage repair f Wa ff6w State or Federal sources, ongoing. It is my understanding the abutter is Ong to also engage Hu tly & Assocides to work on enjoweritng for their portion of the bank. I see this as a. very positive indication of an intent to deal with the situation which heretofore did not exist. It is my intetltion to continue working on the above :fronts to be able to come before the Conservation Commission as soon as t possible with a response to your order and plan of action to cormt the existing problom. a FROM :- .BU I LDE1 HARMIARE Conservation Commission 1 -21 -00 Page 2 PHONE NO. : 508 643 9100 Jan. 21 2000 01:01FIM P3 In the interim if you could send me copies of the 1992 filing and subsequent withdrawal, as we discussed earlier this week, I would appreciate it. I will also plan on reporting to you or Mr. //t -` Dennett of our progress on regular basis to keep you better informed as we work toward resolving this n tier. Sincerely yours Iviark F. Bernstein I N W" IN Om 214 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, MA 02760 (508) 699 -9322 2 -6 -00 Mr. Wayne Feiden Director of Planning & Development City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 Re: Roberts Meadow Brook, Leeds Dear Mr.Feiden; Thank you for sending the copy of my 1992 engineering report of work I proposed for the former bridge abutment in Leeds. To get a more complete understanding of the prior effort my attorney has asked me to also obtain copies of any Conservation Co 'ssion fo which were filed and actions taken by the Commission in 1992 as part of the that process. Thank you in advance for your help. Sincerel Mark F, Bernstein A L ,,f �-- `up- ..Poe PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON City HA • 2 i o Main Street • No4ampton, MA o r o 6 o • 4 1 3)5 8 7 -1266 • Fax: 4 Wayner-e iden,Director • email:p fanning @citg.northampton.ma.us • internet :wwwcitg.northampton.ma.us January 11, 2000 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 Dear Mr. Bernstein: As you know, the Northampton Conservation Commission issued you an enforcement order ordering you to remove your collapsed bridge, under the direction of a PE, to file a Notice of Intent to restore the damaged bank caused by the bridge, and, upon approval of the Notice to restore the bank. You have removed the bridge but not done the other work requested. To encourage you to move forward, last night, the Conservation Commission issued a single $100 ticket for one day of this violation. They also indicated that if we did not hear from you with your Notice of Intent or a clear written commitment that said work we be done within 30 days, they will start issuing up to one ticket per day. Please contact me if you have any questions. We would like to resolve this as soon as possible. C\. 0 1 1 planning board • conservation commission • zonrng boara of appea is • i ousrng purtnerogip • reae I UPni — . el economic development • community development • historic district commission •historicaIcommission • northamptonGIS • i • original printed on regcted paper a 11 O b e z z C3 W "q a N b H pp O 1 +� ✓ E $ f IU • s O +� 4 'L! " + N P4 t: 1 b 0 41 a H > 41 IV • 2 w g � a E o a Y S i & C N M a CA d 0.1 a .t3�� a to 66 8 6 $�b OW oI Uca ''' a uj t a < U 14 U j o 0 16 ■ �� s LU planning board • conservation commission • zonrng boara of appea is • i ousrng purtnerogip • reae I UPni — . el economic development • community development • historic district commission •historicaIcommission • northamptonGIS • i • original printed on regcted paper f 214 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, MA 02760 (508) 699 -9322 1 -21 -00 Mr. Wayne Feiden Director of Planning & Development City of Northampton JAN 2 6 SO 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 Re: Roberts Meadow Brook, Leeds Dear Mr. Feiden: I am writing in response to your letter of January 11, 2000 concerning the results of flood damage from Hurricane Floyd at the above referenced location and the Conservation Commission's desire to "restore the damaged bank" as quickly as possible. As you know, in 1992 I worked with an engineer and the conservation commission to address concerns regarding the stability of the same bank only to be stymied by the unwillingness of the abutter to cooperate and take responsibility for their up- stream bank and the encroachment of a rear addition to their house on the bank. Based on the current conditions, the abutter now seems somewhat more cooperative and I am cautiously optimistic that we can work out a comprehensive cooperative plan to address all of the issues involved including; bank stabilization, structural support for the house, sewer discharge and legal responsibilities. Since receiving the Conservation Commission's recent enforcement order I have taken the following actions; 1) Removed the two plate girders of the former bridge from across the brook. 2) Engaged the firm of Almer Huntly & Associates to evaluate existing bank conditions and recommend appropriate course of action, ongoing. 3) Held numereous discussions with the abutter to try and establish a cooperative approach to the problems, ongoing. 4) Engaged an attorney to advise on property rights and responsibilities, ongoing. 5) Discussed issues and possible work programs with contractors who have visited the site and are familiar with work in waterways, ongoing. 6) Begun search for public resources for riverbank stabilization to extent they are available after being notified by the Mayor's office that the City of Northampton did not qualify for flood damage repair funds from State or Federal sources, ongoing. It is my understanding the abutter is planning to also engage Almer Huntly & Associates to work on engineering for their portion of the bank. I see this as a very positive indication of an intent to deal with the situation which heretofore did not exist. It is my intention to continue working on the above fronts to be able to come before the Conservation Commission as soon as possible with a response to your order and plan of action to correct the existing problems. Conservation Commission 1 -21 -00 Page 2 In the interim if you could send me copies of the 1992 filing and subsequent withdrawal, as we discussed earlier this week, I would appreciate it. I will also plan on reporting to you or Mr. Bennett of our progress on a regular basis to keep you better informed as we work toward resolving this matter. Sincerely yours, Mark F. Bernstein r..i '.r✓ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON City HaQ • 2 i o Main Street • Northampton, MA o z o6o • 14 87 - • Fax: 87 - Wayne Feiden,Director • email: p lanning@c itv.northampton.ma.us • internet :www.citq.northampton.mams Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting January 10, 2000 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Monday, January 10, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 18, Second Floor City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Chair Mason Maronn, Allan Doe, Susan Roy and William Rosen. Staff. Director Wayne Feiden and Board Secretary Laura Krutzler. Kru er informed members that Northampton Airport owner Richard Guisto would be coma g in soon w a Notice of Intent for the reconstruction of the runways at the airport. She said it d been brought to er attention that a pile of material which had been used for compensatory s rage for a recent build' reject at the airport still had not been removed. She offered to to a letter to Guisto remindin him of his obligation under the Order of Conditions to rem e the pile, and members accepted. Bill Rosen arrived at 7:3 Maronn opened the regular meehgg at 7:30 p.m. At 7:30 p.m., Maronn opened the Continua 'on of a Pu College Church, Inc. to construct a paved p g ar system to provide off - street parking for church -r d Northampton, also known as Assessor's Map will take place within the 100 -year flood pl ' of the zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. bl3,e'Ilearing on a Notice of Intent filed by and associated stormwater management activities at 48 and 58 Pomeroy Terrace, arcels 226, 227, 228, 230 and 268. Work Connecticut River and within the buffer Andrew Kawczak of Almer Huntle , Jr. & Associates, Inc. re 'nded members that he had been before the Board in October to di uss the project -the expansion an existing parking lot off Pomeroy Terrace associated w' College Church. Because of the loca ' n of Pomeroy Terrace in relation to the Connecticut ' er, there are flood plain issues associated wi the project. The flood plain is approximately on undyed and twenty -five (125) feet above sea level, presented by a red line on the plan, he no The Connecticut River is about a mile away, he said. The last time a�Lind, the design included a storm water management swale to m" total p la�i ning board - conservation commission • zoning boardo f appeals • housing partnership - redevelopment authority economic development • community development • historic district commission - bistoricafcommission • nortbamptonGIS original prinudon recyciedpaper 10 .../ Regarding the fairgrounds, City Councillor Maria Tymoczko reiterated that the pond on Fair Street existed before Hurricane Floyd. Whatever [the fairgrounds'] drainage problems were, they existed before the big storm, she stressed. Bernstein Bridge Enforcement. Maronn said he had signed the ticket [issuing a fine] Feiden related that the bridge was totally gone, having been knocked down by Hurricane Floyd. The big issue is that its destruction did damage to the bank, he said. The Commission has sent various letters instructing the owner to remove the bridge and file a plan for bank restoration, but the owner has not taken any action. They were issuing a fine basically to get his attention, he observed. Clear Falls Recreation Area. Maronn said DEP representatives were calling him almost daily in response to complaints from a nearby resident. Owner Sam Crescione has a maintenance permit to clear brush out of the stream. Unfortunately, when Hurricane Floyd came through, it took part of the dam out, and Crescione got in there with heavy equipment to repair the dam, Maronn related. He noted that DEP had failed to check on a form that removal of a certain amount of material required a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps also had deadlines [for work within a waterway], he pointed out. Maronn said he thought Crescione had definitely gone beyond [the authority of] the maintenance permit. On the other hand, he had approached [former Senior Planner] John Bennett with his intention to repair the dam, and Bennett had brought it to the Board's attention. Feiden said he didn't want to do an enforcement order. He said Crescione had authorized Ward Smith to file an amended permit to address the issue. He suggested the Commission send Crescione a letter advising him to submit an amended permit within thirty days. Feiden noted that it was classified as a high - hazard dam. Dam safety went out and did find it to be safe, he reported. He noted that he was more concerned with dam safety than with wetland issues. He added that he was doing a site visit tomorrow, and members were welcome. Feiden concluded that they were pursuing two tracks: 1) waiting as Crescione made incremental progress, and 2) turning the matter over to dam safety. Certificate of Compliance - 40 Chesterfield Road. 10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Num &ureau of Resource F — Wetlands ,.� WPA Form 9A - Enforcement Order for DEP use only qa oC E S gtlav d�Pr�te�rt o e�tM G. �r��n)3)6 §Iq . 24 0 Violation Information This Enforcement Order is issued by: Northampton Conservation Commission (Issuing Authority) To: Mark Bernstein (mailing address) Name o1 viotator 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 Location of Violation: Roberts Meadow Brook n f f 12--w S t. Street Address Northampton City/Town IOB -61 Assessors Map/Plat / Parcet /Lot / Date of Issuance: September 22, 1999 Date Extent and type of activity: Failing to remove a dangerous priva bridge and allowing the bridge to collapse into.a brook, damaging the retaining wall and a house on 18 Mulberry Street. The partially collapsed bridge creates a major safety risk and, in case of high water, could block the stream channel and force the water into the retaining wall, which cou 'destroy it an the house abo Findings The Issuing Authority has determined that the activity described above is in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act • (M.G.L. c. 131, §40) and its regulations (310 CMR 10.00), because: - the activity has been /is being conducted without a valid Order of Conditions. t the activity has been /is being conducted in violation of the Order of Conditions issued to: Mark Bernstein Name September 28, 1992 Dated X Other (specify): After written notices by Planning & Development on October 19, 1990, and May 1, 1991; a Determination of Applicability on July 22, 1991, requests for more information to support a Notice of Intent on Octo er 22, 1991, October 30, 1991, November 26, 1991, January 28, 1992 and February_2T, and an Order of Conditions prohibiting work issue eptem er 26, 1992 tHe owner has been adequately notified of e risk e ri ge created, Never issued because applicant neve our last correspondence from the FileNumter rovided information to owner, however, was p get a permi16, 1992 r is arc an indefinite 12 – no work until plans filed. q g Conditionnumoer(s) continuance.As a result of the owner's inactivity, the bridge fell and damaged the resource area, retaining wall, and, ndirectl�IA house. Rev. 10/98 Page 1 of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resourc, �tection — Wetlands WPA Form 9A - Enforcement Arder O Order 1 W #tlalsd r1 e�t�pn At M. MGrdcn M d,K 24 The Issuing Authority hereby orders the following (check all that apply): The property owner, his agents, permittees, and all others shall immediately cease and desist from the further activity affecting the Buffer Zone and /or wetland resource areas on this property. _X Wetland alterations resulting from said activity shall be corrected and the site returned to its original condition. Complete the attached Notice of Intent. The completed application and plans for all proposed work as required by the Act and regulations shall be filed with the Issuing Authority on or before (date). No further work shall be performed until a public hearing has been held and an Order of Conditions has been issued to regulate said work. - X The property owner shall take the following action to prevent further violations of the Act: Within 7 days, and under the direct supervision of a qualified pro essional engineer, remove the steel beams and all bridge structure, repair t e retaining wall and file a Notice of Intent etas ing wor per orme , any damage to the resource area, and a plan tor restoring t e resource area. Failure to comply with this Order may constitute grounds for additional legal action. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40 provides: "Whoever violates any provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty -five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years or both. Each day or portion thereof of continuing violation shall constitute a separate offense." In addition, local fines issued under Northampton wetlands ordinance may be issued. Appeals /Signatures An Enforcement Order issued by a conservation commission cannot be appealed to the Department of Environmental Protection, but may be filed in Superior Court. Questions regarding this Enforcement Order should be directed to: Wayne Feiden, Planning Director or Tohn Rennett, Senior Planner Name (413) 587 -1287 Phone Number M -F 8:30 - 4:30 Hours/Days A,va-•a�:e Issued by Northampton Conservation Commission In a situation requiring immediate action, an Enforcement Order may be signed by a single member or agent of the commission and ratified by a majority of the members at the next scheduled meeting of the commission. *At their meeting on September 27, 1999, the mously 4:0 to ratify the above order. Rev. 10/98 Signatures: �� / — r* aayyne - ei en, Agent Signature of delivery person or certified mail number Northampton Conservation Cgpmission v ted nani— Page 2 of 2 1 • Massachusetts Depa: --at of Environmental Protection DEP File Number Bureau of Resource Prt�ion — Wetlands _ . WPA Form 9A - Enforcement Order for DEP use only 1Vass ocpc e t o�4citM G.�r�1n131� ff. 24 ' Violation Information This Enforcement Order is issued by: Northampton Conservation Commission (Issuing Authority) To: Mark Bernstein (mailing address) NameolViolator 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 Location of Violation: Roberts Meadow Brook --off 12--W tes_ St. Street Address Northampton City/Town IOB -61 Assessors Map/Plat / ParcelAot / Date of Issuance: -September 22, 1999 Date Extent and type of activity: Failing to remove a dangerous priva bridge and allowing the bridge to collapse into.a brook, damaging the retaining wall and a house on 18 Mulberry Street. The partially collapsed bridge creates a major safety risk and, in case of high water, could block the stream channel and force the water into the retaining wall, which cou destroy it and the house above. Findings The Issuing Authority has determined that the activity described above is in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act .• (M.G.L. c. 131, §40) and its regulations (310 CMR 10.00), because: the activity has been /is being conducted without a valid Order of Conditions. r the activity has been /is being conducted in violation of the Order of Conditions issued to: rk Bernstein Name September 28, 1992 Dated I Other (specify): After written notices by Planning & Development on October 19, 1990, and May 1, 1991; a Determination of Applicability on July 22, 1991, requests for more information to support a Notice of Intent on OcEob 22, M 1, October 30, 1991, November 26, 1991, January and kebruary 992 and an Order of Conditions prohibiting work issued September 28, 199Z, the owner has been adequately notified of e risk e ri ge created, Never issued because applicant neve our last correspondence from the File Number provided information to get a permit, owner, owever, was is arc 12 — no work until plans filed. 10, 1992 requesting an indefinite Conditonnumoer(s) continuance.As a result of the owner's inactivity, the bridge fell and damaged the resource area, retaining wall, and, indirectly a house. Rev. 10/98 Page 1 of 2 Massachusetts Depa ,4 ment of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource er ection — Wetlands ..i . WPA Form 9A - Enforcement Order Order Pr e�tp o ACt M G � . c . 1 K 24 The Issuing Authority hereby orders the following (check all that apply): The property owner, his agents, permittees, and all others shall immediately cease and desist from the further activity affecting the Buffer Zone and /or wetland resource areas on this property. _X Wetland alterations resulting from said activity shall be corrected and the site returned to its original condition. Complete the attached Notice of Intent. The completed application and plans for all proposed work as required by the Act and regulations shall be filed with the Issuing Authority on or before (date). No further work shall be performed until a public hearing has been held and an Order of Conditions has been issued to regulate said work. :21 The property owner shall take the following action to prevent further violations of the Act: Within 7 days, and under the direct supervision of a qualified pro essiona engineer, remove the steel beams and all bridge structure, repair t e retaining wall and file a Notice of Intent detailing work per orme , any damage to the resource area, and a plan or restoring t e resou a rea. Failure to comply with this Order may constitute grounds for additional legal action. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40 provides: "Whoever violates any provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty -five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years or both. Each day or portion thereof of continuing violation shall constitute a separate offense." In addition, local fines issued under Northampton wetlands ordinance may be issued. Appeals /Signatures • An Enforcement Order issued by a conservation commission cannot be appealed to the Department of Environmental Protection, but may be filed in Superior Court. Questions regarding this Enforcement Order should be directed to: Wayne Feiden, Planning Director or Tnhn RannPfit_ San Plannar Name (413) 587 -1287 Phone Numoer M -F 8:30 - 4:30 Hours/Days Ava raD ,'e Issued by Northampton Conservation Commission In a situation requiring immediate action, an Enforcement Order may be signed by a single member or agent of the commission and ratified by a majority of the members at the next scheduled meeting of the commission. Signatures: L/U �' �^ �° — aW yne ''ei en, Agen o�t� / yam Signature of delivery person or certified mail number Rev. 10/98 Page 2 of 2 I0)s - City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall, 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 587 -1266 (413) 587 -1264 fax Wayne Feiden (413) 587 -1265 �•_ au •_:.. � UI TO: Sam Brindis, PE, Director of Public Works FROM: Wayne Feiden AAICP, Planning Director RE: Mulberry Street Pedestrian Bridge DATE: August 6, 1998 I certainly hope this bridge can be removed. It is amazing that it hasn't fallen yet. r As I remember it, there were two issues that had to be resolved when we discussed this several years ago. 1. Determining if removing the bridge will cause the wall to collapse (is the bridge holding the wall up). I assume an engineer can analyze this. 2. Who is paying for the bridge removal. Let me know if I can be of any help. S (16/ -)s 4t, tj °Ifti City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 FAX (413) 586 -3726 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission March 27, 1992 Mr. Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Notice of Intent (246 -3_)/ Bernstein Leeds Bridge Dear Mr. Bernstein: The Conservation Commission met on March 24, 1992 and voted to continue the Public Hearing on your notice of intent to September 29, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers in the Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Office Building. The Public Hearing can be held sooner if you are willing to pay an advertisement fee of $20. I have enclosed a copy of my February 28, 1992 letter requesting more detailed plans and accompanying text, prepared by a profession engineer describing the proposed project. The additional information requested should be filed with the Office of Planning and Development by September 10, 1992 or the Conservation Commission will have to deny your application. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner WF /mm U City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 FAX (413) 586 -3726 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission February 28, 1992 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Notice of Intent (246-3_)/ Bernstein Leeds Bridge Dear Mr. Bernstein: Thank you for the engineering review letter from Foresight Land Services that you submitted to the Conservation Commission. If you have not done so already, you should submit two copies of that report to the Department of Environmental Protection, Wetlands Division, in Springfield. Although the Commission found the report useful in its detailing of the design issues, it is not a detailed plan of what work will be performed. More detailed plans and accompanying text, prepared by a Professional Engineer, are required to show where and what the work will be performed and to insure that the work will not have adverse impacts on the resource areas. I believe these more detailed plans are also required by DEP. The Commission continued your public hearing to March 24, 1992 at 7:30 PM in City Council Chambers to allow time for these plans to be submitted (nine copies must be submitted to this office by March 12th so they can be reviewed prior to the meeting) . The Commission also requested that your professional engineer attend the March 24th meeting to answer questions the Commission has on the engineering. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner �� fe~ / � ,�^r '~^/+'+-' � 4 Mr. Wayne Feiden Senior Planner City of Northampton City Hall Northampton, Mass. 01060 Re: Leeds Bridge Removal Notice of Intent Dear Wayne: Is 214 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, Mass. 02760 March 10, 1992 Please accept this letter as my request for an indefinate continuance for the Notice of Intent which I currently have pending before the Northampton Conservation Commission concerning the above referenced matter. This continuance will provide time necessary to resolve issues that relate to property adjacent to the subject bridge which is owned by others and which impacts any action I might take regarding bridge stabalization and/or removal. Once all issues are resolved with the abutters I will notify your office and agree to pay the cost of readvertising the Notice of Intent as required by the Conservation Commission. % appreciate The Commission's patience in dealing with this difficult and complicated situation and will do my best to bring it to a speedy and successful conclusion. G Ma Bernstel�n n 1 . 310 CMR 10.99 Form 5 DEP Fits No. 246 -3 .. (to a arovww by DEP) Commonwealth City Town Northampton __. of Massachusetts aoohcant Bernstein . _ MAP ID: 1OB -61 ORDER PROHIBITING WORK ~ Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act G.L. c. 131, §40 AND THE NORTHAMPTON WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE From Northampton Conservation Commission Mark Bernstein same To (Name of Applicant) 214 Elmwood Street (Name of property owner) Adores.. N. Attleboro, MA 02760 Address This Oroer is issued and delivered as follows: by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (oate) 'A by certified mail. return receipt requested on ontnt—r 5-„ 1 cia" (date) This project is located at 12 Water Street, Leeds, MA 01053 Northampton, MA The property is recorded at the Registry of Hampshire County Boo 1 831 Page 128 Certificate (if registered) n/a , The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on 10/8/91 _ (date) The public hearing was closed on .3-/2R -/9" (date) Findings The Northamptnn Cnnaervatinn Gnmmi gginn has reviewed the above- ref4r-enced Notice of Intent ano plans ano nas neic a puolic hearing on the project. Based on the information availaole to the Conservation Commission at this time, the Commission has determined that the area on which the orcoosed work is to be done is significant to the following interests in accordance with the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the Act (check as acproariate): • Pubiic water supply ❑ Flood control ❑ Land containing shellfish • Private water supply LI Storm damage prevention Fisheries • Ground water supply ® Prevention of pollution Protection of wildlife habitat Total Filing Fee Submitted $250 ( -$35) State Share $112.50 City/Town Share $137.50 ( +35) ('/-- fee in excess of S29 Total Refund Due S 0 City/Town Portion S 0 State Portion S o (vz total) ( /2 total) Effective 11/10/89 5.1 Therefore, the Northampton Conservation Comm. — hereby finds that the following conditions are necessary, in accoroance with the Performance Standaros set forth in the regulations, to protect those inter- ests checked above. The Conservation Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with said conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the fol- lowing conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. General Conditions ORDER PROHIBITING WORK Failure to comoly with all conditions stated herein. and with all related statutes and other regulatory meas- ures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. 2. This Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges: it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state or local statutes, ordinances, by -laws or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: (a) the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act. or (b) the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years. but less than five years, from the date of issuance and both that date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of uo to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill, containing no trash, refuse, rubbish or de- bris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes. refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing. 7. No work snail be undertaken until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elacsed or, if such an appeal has been filed, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. S. No work shall be undertaken until the Final Order has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of registered land. the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Commission on the form at the end of this Order prior to commencement of the work. 9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words. "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, File Number 246 -3 10. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to make a determination and to issue a Superseding Order. the Conservation Commission shall be a parry to all agency proceedings and hearings before the Department. 1 1 . Upon completion of the work described herein. the applicant shall forthwith request in writing that a Certificate of Comciiance be issued stating that the work has been satisfactorily completed. 12. The work snail conform to the following plans anc special conditions: 5 -2 ` ORDER PROHIBITING WORK -../ In accordance with 310 CMR $10.05 (6) (c), the Conservation Commission finds that the information submitted is not sufficient to describe the work of or its effects on the interests identified in the Act. It therefore issued the Order prohibiting the work. The Commission found that detailed plans of what work will be prepared, along with detailed text, must be prepared by a Professional Engineer to show what work will be performed and to insure the work will not have adverse impacts on the resource areas. This information was requested, in a February 28, 1992 letter, for the March 24, 1992 Public Hearing Continuation on this notice. The March 24, 1992 Public Hearing was continued to September 28, 1992, at the applicant's request, with the warning that the application would be denied if the information was not submitted prior to the Public Hearing. No information was submitted and the applicant did not attend the September 28, 1992 hearing. Issued By No SignaturefS K-,� N%W This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. ..r' Conservation Commission On this a day of -Ceel ee, t o — 1.9 22 . before me personalty appeare TELE FRF . to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he: she executed the same as his/her free act and deed. Notary Public IVEM 110 lrstORM NOTARY PUBLIC It MNNISSION WMRSS JAN. 1S. 10" My commission expires The amicant. the owner. any oerson aggrieved by this Order. any owner of land abutting the land uoon wntch the ora7oseo work is to be cone. or any ten residents -ot the city or town in wnien Such land is Wcated. are nsreDy notified at their right to red me Department of Environmental Protection to issue a Superseding Order. providing the reauest is made by certified mad or hand delivery to the Department. with me aopropnate filing fee and Fee Transmoal Form as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7), within ten days from me Date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request snail at the same time oe sent by certified mail or nand cobvsry to the Conservation Commission and the apoiicanL Detach on dotted line and submit to the Northampton Conservation Comm. prior to commencement of work. To Northampton Conservation Commission tssu:ng Autnor::y Please De advised that the Order of Conditions tar the protect at 12 Water St _ r TQet�g MA 01053 Nor an ton, - -ie Nurnne! 246— 3 has aeon recorded at the Registry at > sh ounty and has aeon noted in the chain at title at :tie af oroperty in accordance with General Condition a on 1 It recorded land. the instrument numoer winch Identifies this vahsac=in to It registered l and. the document numoer wmicn identifies this transaction iS Ana: r° „a11c3n. 5 -4A FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES 1 John F. Cysz, PE *, + ** ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING Robert E. Hoogs Division of Brown Associates, Inc. John M. Campetti, PLS .� Gary 1. Fix, PLS, * ** + Jeffrey F. Collingwood, PE January 31, 1992 Revised February 10, 1992 Mr. Mark F. Bernstein Watery Hill Farm 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Guidelines for Removal of Old Bridge over Roberts Meadow Brook - Leeds Dear Mr. Bernstein: .— In accordance with our agreement for services dated December 29, 1991, we have made a site visit to assess methods for removal of the existing remains of the old bridge over Roberts Meadow Brook. This report addresses issues raised in a memo from the City Engineer dated October 29, 1991 concerning side slope retention and potential impact on the adjacent property at 18 Mulberry Street. According to a 1938 plan by Davis Engineering Co., the northwest corner of the bridge is immediately adjacent to the easterly property line of what is now 18 Mulberry Street. You have stated clearly to us that you are making no commitment to perform any work beyond your property boundaries. However, due to the proximity of that property to the subject bridge, this report includes certain information concerning 18 Mulberry Street, including a description of the foundation for the rear addition based on visible features. Guidelines for repair of the collapsed stone retaining wall that is common to both your property and 18 Mulberry Street are also illustrated in this report for your information. This report is not '— intended to represent a detailed design of work required at 18 Mulberry Street and as such we recommend that the owner retain their own professional design assistance regarding that property. The following comments are provided for guidance relative to removal of the bridge: 1. The bridge remains consist of a dry laid stone abutment on the southerly bank, '— two 33 -inch deep steel girders with lateral cross braces and a collapsed and undermined stone and concrete abutment on the northerly bank. The bridge had a timber deck which is now removed. A location plan showing the bridge is included as Attachment 1. A series of photographs taken during our site visit on January 20, 1992 are also attached. 2. The southerly abutment appears quite stable and we recommend that this not be disturbed. Further, there is a power line that is supported by a pole located behind the southerly abutment. As such the southerly abutment is providing effective stabilization to the southerly bank of Roberts Meadow Brook at its confluence with the Mill River. tions in Massachusetts, New York Connecticut+ & Vermont ** Foresight Building • 1496 West Housatonic Street • Pittsfield, MA 01201 • (413) 499 -1560 • Telefax (413) 499 -3307 Mr. Mark F. Bernstein January 31, 1992 Revised February 10, 1992 Page 2 Division of Brown Associates, Inc. 3. We have looked at the foundation that supports the rear addition at 18 Mulberry Street along the northerly bank of Roberts Meadow Brook. The foundation consists of concrete piers and wood posts which support a cantilevered floor system as shown on Attachments 1 and 2. Note: The southerly wall of the addition is cantilevered about 4 feet beyond the pier line. There is a wood post at the southeast corner of the addition, but this post appears to rest on stacked concrete blocks which are set on the ground surface about 3 feet from the top of the bank (see Attachment 2 and photograph). The soil exposed in the near vertical northerly bank is fairly loose, erodible fill consisting of silty sands with gravel. The collapsed northerly abutment and upstream stone retaining wall should therefore be stabilized in order to protect the northerly bank against further erosion. 4. There are a number of typical alternative methods for stream bank stabilization that range from tied -back sheet piles, reinforced or modular concrete retaining walls, stacked gabion (rock filled) baskets, stacked rock retaining walls, sloped riprap, and vegetated earth slopes. Judging from the excavation we were able to view at the new city bridge being built on Mulberry Street, we feel confident in saying that sheet piling would not be a practical solution here. A concrete retaining wall could be expected to cost tens of thousands of dollars which you have indicated is well beyond economic feasibility. This leads to our opinion that a stacked rock retaining wall, in combination with sloped riprap, using rock from the area, would provide the most expedient and cost effective solution. As a minimum the stacked rock retaining wall should be utilized along the bank at 18 Mulberry Street where it would tie into the upstream remains of a previous stone retaining wall (see Attachment 3, and Detail 1). The addition at 18 Mulberry Street would have to be supported as a precaution before the existing steel bridge girders are removed. 5. To the east of # 18 Mulberry Street the bank stabilization could consist of either a continuation of the stacked rock retaining wall noted above or preferably sloped riprap as shown on Attachment 3 and Detail 2. Note: A sloped riprap has the advantage of providing more waterway area when flows are high in Roberts Meadow Brook and is recommended for this reason. A transition from the stacked section to the sloped section could be accomplished by a return wall along your westerly property line and by warping the slope '— as shown on Attachment 3. N"W FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES Also one electric pole will have to be relocated or anchored in order to flatten the slope so you will have to coordinate this work with the utility company. FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES Division of Brown Associates, Inc. Mr. Mark F. Bernstein January 31, 1992 Revised February 10, 1992 Paine 3 We trust that this information will be helpful to you. Should you wish to proceed with the work, we would like the opportunity to meet with your contractor before work begins and to then review the work in progress so that adjustments can be made if necessary. _ Note: We strongly recommend that you consult with an attorney relative to any work beyond your property line. While we are making recommendations on what might be done, we make no representations as to your legal rights, conditions, or obligations relative to work on abutting lands. In the meantime, please feel free to call if you have any questions on the work we have done to — date. We will be pleased to provide any more detailed work that may be required. Sincerely, FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES Division of Brown Associates, Inc. John F. Cysz, P.E. President Enclosures: Attachments 1, 2 & 3 Details 1 & 2 4 Photos File: E-907/11 Disk #E907 JFC /bb R� nRs r FORESIGHT LAND S Division of Brown Associates, Inc. 1496 West Housatonic Street PITfSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201 (413) 499 -1560 'RODJCT 20H � lme &mtn Mm 01471. JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY CYSZ DATE z- CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 'RODJCT 20H � lme &mtn Mm 01471. ow FORESIGHT LAND SeKVICES Division of Brown Associates, Inc. 1496 West Housatonic Street PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201 (413) 499 -1560 JOB M A IZ� SHEET NO. OF 7 CALCULATED BY SSG YSZ DATE CHECKED BY DATE 0— PROM 204. lac, damn wa OIOI. FORESIGHT LAND S�WVICES Division of Brown Associates, Inc. 1496 West Housatonic Street PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 0120 (413) 499 -1560 J FRWjC77D4- �Inc, Gramm MY 0147L JOB MAZ-K-- Ill - I�d SHEET NO. 3 _ OF CA CULATED BY -� r—'es Z DATE /� PRWKF 1041 Ees Inc, kWL Man 01471 WAZ Sr BROWN ASSOCIATb w 4NC. Foresight Building 1496 West Housatonic Street PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201 (413) 499 -1560 �T TD�I ®Inc. hgen. Mm 0111. Joe M bzK 1'4 L��s SHEET NO. OF =� CALCULATED B 1 ' GYS Z DATE 1 �� 2D � �l Z CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ( ( Views showing the relationship of bridge remains to house addition at #18 Mulberry Street. Note in Photo 2 the remains of old retaining wall. Note pier and concrete block foundation for addition. �"? ?„ .. • �`— . _ -.;�_ , , ter , 'S Air Of FS a t.M w � F - 1[ ' 0 Cwtov `.v City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 FAX (413) 586 -3726 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission "wool January 28, 1992 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Notice of Intent (246 -3 )/ Leeds Bridge (Bernstein) Dear Mr. Bernstein: At your request, the Northampton Conservation Commission continued the public hearing on your Notice of Intent to 7:15 PM, Tuesday, February 25, 1992 in City Council Chambers to allow Foresight Land Services to submit their final engineering report to you and the Conservation Commission. In their January 27, 1992 letter to the Commission, Foresight Land Services indicated that they expect to finalize the engineering report within the next week. The Commission understands that you may need to resolve other legal issues before your can remove the bridge and that you may request another continuance. They would like, however, to have the opportunity to review the engineering study at their February 25th meeting and be assured that the project is moving forward before they continue this matter again. We will need nine copies of the engineering report and any other information you would like to submit to the Commission by Friday, February 14th so that the Commission can review the information prior to their February 25th meeting. Two copies of the report should also be filed with DEP in Springfield. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner cc: John F. Cysz, P.E., Foresight Land Services, 1496 West Housatonic St., Pittsfield, MA 01201 FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES John F. Cysz, PE *, + ** ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING Robert E. Hoogs Division of Brown Associates, Inc. John M. Campetti, PLS Gary J. Fix, PLS *, January 27, 1992 City of Northampton Conservation Commission City Hall 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 ATTN: Mr. Wayne Feiden Dear Mr. Feiden: This will confirm that we have been retained by Mr. Mark Bernstein of Industrial Resource Development to recommend methods to remove the existing bridge remains. We visited the site on January 20, 1992 and have issued a draft report to Mr. Bernstein. We expect to finalize this engineering report within the next week. Sincerely, FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES Division of Brown Associates, Inc. John F. Cysz, P.E. President pc: Mr. Bernstein File E- 907/11 JFC /bb d#e907 in Massachusetts, New York *, Connecticut+ & Vermont ** Foresight Building • 1496 West Housatonic Street • Pittsfield, MA 01201 • (413) 499 -1560 • Telefax (413) 499 -3307 aD lftmw City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission Mark F. Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 November 26, 1991 RE: Notice of Intent/ Leeds bridge (Bernstein) Dear Mr. Bernstein: At your request, the Northampton Conservation Commission continued the public hearing on your Notice of Intent to January 20, 1992 to allow you to prepare the necessary engineering study (see my October 30, 1991 letter and Sam Brindis's October 17, 1991 memo, both of which I sent you on October 30th) . If the plans are prepared earlier, we can schedule an earlier hearing date. In order for the study to be reviewed at the January 20th meeting, we must receive nine copies in this office by January 8, 1992. The Commission indicated that they wanted this matter resolved in the near future and indicated that they would probably not grant another public hearing continuance if you have not submitted either: 1) an engineering study; or 2 ) evidence that you have signed a firm contract with an engineer to provide the necessary information. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner V W 214 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, Mass. 02760 November 15, 1991 Mr. Wayne Feiden Senior Planner Conservation Commission City of Northampton Northampton, Mass. 69169609 Re: Leeds Bridge Dear Wayne: This is to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday regarding a request for additional time to select an engineering consultant for analysis of the above bridge embankment. At this time, I am still awaiting proposals from two firms. I would appreciate the Conservation Commission continuing the matter for two weeks at which time I will again report on the project status. I would also like YOU to inform the Commission that in the interim we have cleaned the area under the bridge structure of all debris which may have fallen from the former bridge deck and removed same. I appreciate your continued cooperation in this matter. If you would like more information please feel free to call. Sincerely yours, Mark F. Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, Mass. 02760 October 25, 1991 Mr. Wayne Feiden Senior Planner Conservation Commission City of Northampton Northampton, Mass. 01060 Rea: Leeds Bridge Dear Wayne: I received your letter today regarding the Conservation Commission action on the notice of intent I filed for removal of my former bridge structure in Leeds. As I indicated to you by phone I will need additional time to prepare a response concerning the slope and I am therefore requesting an extension of 60 days. During that time I will attempt once again to discuss with the City and State Public Works Departments drainage issues which I have raised regarding the Mulberry Street bridge construction. As you are aware the Mulberry Street design work was done under the misconception that the City owned the subject parcel. Subsequent to discovering the error I have asked Public Works to discuss several design features which I believe may have a detrimental effect on the subject abutment slope (which is only a matter of 20 feet or so from the roadway slope). To date I have not had a response from Public Works. I am certainly willing to perform additional engineering work relative to the Conservation Commission request but I do not feel it should be done in a vacuum without consideration of other site issues impacting it. If you would like more information please feel free to call. Sincerely yours, cc: Thomas Hoey 17'e / -. 3x-_.0J City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hail • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commisslon October 30, 1991 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Notice of Intent, Leeds Bridge Dear Mr. Bernstein: As you requested in your October 24, 1991 phone call with me, at their October 28, 1991 meeting the Northampton Conservation Commission continued the public hearing on your Notice of Intent to Monday November 18, 1991. This continuation is to allow you time to prepare engineering information as detailed in my October 22, 1991 letter to you and Sam Brindis's October 17, 1991 memo to you which I sent you with my letter. The Commission indicated that they may not grant another continuance if the required information is not presented by that meeting or, at the very least, if you do not have a commitment to have the information prepared in the near future. Without the data, the Commission could deny your application for lack of information. Thank you very much for your continued cooperation on this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission October 22, 1991 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Notice of Intent, Leeds Bridge Dear Mr. Bernstein: At their meeting on October 21, 1991, the Northampton Conservation Commission reviewed your Notice of Intent to remove a bridge in Leeds. Upon reviewing your notice and the comments of the Department of Public Works, the Commission found that you provided inadequate information in the filing on what the impacts of the bridge removal will be on the existing abutment and therefore on the protected resource areas. You should review the attached letter from Sam Brindis, PE, Director of Public Works, which details what additional information is needed. The Commission continued the public hearing to 8:00 PM on October 28, 1991. At that time you should either provide the additional information, request a new extension, or provide documentation on why this information is not relevant. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner cc: Sam Brindis, DPW � ,el1 y �o�F/ES - 13 p F I el c H 11 P' _ >e e A ,, vc 3 ,e eh �� h f � �� b oh pe woah vN 1 1r- M NW.. City of Northampton MEMORANDUM Law Department TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Wayne Feiden, Senior Planner Kathleen G. Fallon, City Solicitoryl_" Private Bridge - Mulberry St., Leeds October 22, 1991 I understand that you have some concerns bridge owned by Mark Bernstein adjacent Apparently this private bridge is in a very If it collapses on its own or during any pull away part of the bank of the stream c in turn, may affect the structure at 1F related to the private to 18 Mulberry Street. deteriorated condition. removal process, it may z which it rests. This, Mulberry Street whose foundation rests on that bank, and nearby resource areas within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Bernstein has now filed a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission. Sam Brindis has indicated that a detailed engineering study is needed to insure that any removal activities do not adversely affect the adjacent structure and areas. Mr. Bernstein has not submitted such a study with his application. I do not foresee any serious chance of liability on the part of the City if the Conservation Commission denies the permit on the basis of inadequate information. However, Mr. Bernstein should be informed in writing of the exact information needed to process the permit. The Commission should process the application with all due expediency once the information is received. Nor is there any foreseeable liability if the permit is granted without the engineering study. In that case, however, I would include language on the permit that all necessary precautions must be taken for the protection of adjacent property including any and all engineering studies and data.nstruction of the Mulberry Street Bridge affects Mr. Bernstein's bridge. It is Mr. Bernstein's duty to maintain the bridge so as not to endanger public or private property. As long as the City does not unreasonably interfere with his efforts to so maintain the structure, the City will not be liable for any damage caused by the bridge. •../ Similarly, if the abutting structure is damaged by the bank being removed by a collapse of the bridge, the liability rests with Mr. Bernstein. His poor maintenance of the bridge, not the City's activities, would be the proximate cause of the damage. - VON— .400. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 125 Locust Street " Northampton, MA 01060 Samuel B. Brindis, P.E. 413- 582 -1570 Director, City Engineer Peter J. McNulty, Sr. Assistant Director of Public Works MEMO TO: Wayne Feiden�,�SSenior Planner FROM: Sam Brindis Director, DPW SUBJECT: Bernstein Bridge DATE: October 17, 1991 As discussed in the May 1, 1991 letter to Mark Bernstein (enclosed), we were of the understanding that Mr. Bernstein would contact an engineering firm capable of evaluating the situation. It is my opinion that an engineering consultant knowledgeable of soils, retaining walls and demolition is required to evaluate the impact of the bridge removal and to provide analysis for the side slope retention or stabilization. The potential for an adverse impact on house #18 Mulberry Street without proper precautions can cause serious harm to those inhabitants and house structure. Furthermore, the City would want to be assured, through analysis, that no further erosion of the side slope will occur. If there are any further questions, please call me. Thanks! Enclosure: Letter from Wayne Feiden and Sam Brindis to Mark Bernstein, dated May 1, 1991. cc: Peter McNulty George Andrikidis Kathleen Fallon IV \Memo4 \Bernsten.Bdg M City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586.6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission May 1, 1991 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 Dear Mr. Bernstein: Thank you for inviting us to meet you and examine your bridge on April 25. As we discussed when we viewed the bridge, it poses a great danger of collapsing. The north side of the bridge rests on an extremely unstable stone abutment and is clearly in the process of sliding off the loose stones that support it. The bridge poses a major safety hazard to human life and property. Its uncontrolled collapse could threaten the Carbines home. This bridge has posed a safety threat for several years and the problems with the bridge have been discussed with you in the past. As the stones in the abutment become more unstable, it is more urgent than ever that the problem be addressed. It is our understanding from the site visit that you have agreed to contact an engineering firm and obtain an engineering cost estimate to determine what work is needed to solve this serious safety situation. This should be done immediately. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Wayne M. Feiden, AICP Senior Planner Sam Brint3S.s E r Director Department of Public Works cc: Raymond LaBarge, Ward 7 Councillor Dorothea and Susan Carbin, 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds 01053 Kathleen Fallon, City Solicitor Frank Sienkiewicz, Acting Building Inspector b City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission TO: Kathleen Fallon, City Solicitor 4-1,e' FROM: Wayne Feiden, Senior Planner RE: Bernstein Notice of Intent DATE: October 21, 1991 -awe The Conservation Commission has received a Notice of Intent from Mark Bernstein, who is seeking a permit to remove a private bridge in Leeds. There is no engineering data or report included with the application. Sam Brindis has reviewed the application and has indicated that a detailed engineering study is needed to insure that removal of the bridge will not cause the collapse of the abutment and a house and will not cause undue erosion. The collapse of the abutment and house could cause harm to the resource areas protected by the act. At their meeting on October 21, 1991 the Commission requested a written opinion, by their October 28, 1991 meeting, as to whether the Commission and the City has any liability if: 1. They grant a permit for bridge removal without requiring engineering data, and harm results; or 2. They deny the permit because of inadequate information, and the bridge collapses and harm results. Thank you for your assistance. N=ICE OF LNTFNr FEE TIRANStL71"M FOR DEPAR 2AIM OF ENVIRONME= PFCTB I'ION DIVISION OF WEILVW AND MMMYS NOTICE OF INIaTN r (NOI) APPLICANT: PROP= CWNER: Name �' ; �� 5 (' Name MME street 21 ,, � r - Gu�'1W ST City /Town state �`' A Zip Code Phone (D l Street City /Town state Zip Code Project Location: S"eet /Lot Number 12- S City/Town L17 � DEP F ILE NUMER (if available) NOI FILM FEE Total NOI Filing Fee: , $ 85 as State Share of Filing Fee: $ 2 d (1/2 of fee in excess of $25.00) City /Town Share of _ Filing Fee: $ � - � 2! gJMR Total Disputed Fee: $ a 0 0 (as determined in Notice of Insufficient Fee letter from conservation miss ion) State Share of Fee: $ /0 0 (1/2 of tonal disputed fee) City /Town Share of Fee: $ 0 0 (1/2 of total disputed fee) pulf 1. Send this Fee Transmittal form with a deck or money order, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the DEP lack Box at: Department of arvironmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 2. Attach a czpy of this form to the Notice of Intent submitted to the local Conservation Commission. 3. Attach a czpy of this form and a cry, of the DEP check to each of the Notice of Intent forms submitted to the DEP regional office. 11/10/89 M 1 *1.. ..r STATEMENT INDICATING HOW FEES ARE CALCULATED For filing under the Wetlands Protection Act and the Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance The filing fee is the sum of the fees for each of the proposed activities in the notice. Write the number of each activity that is proposed within in a resource area or buffer zone, as defined in the Wetlands Protection Act. Add up the total fee on the last page of this form, including public notice and recording fees. (1) Category 1 : ($55.00 each activity) a. Any work on a single family residential lot including a house addition, deck, garage, garden, pool, shed, or driveway. Activities excluded from Category 1 include driveways reviewable under 310 C-MR 10.53 (3) (e) (See Category 2g); construction of a house, or dock. b. Site preparation of each single family house lot, including removal of vegetation, excavation, and grading, where actual construction of the house is not proposed. C. Control of nuisance vegetation by removal, herbicide treatment or other means, from a resource area, on each single family lot, as allowable under 310 CMR 10.53 (4). d. Resource improvement allowed under 310 CMR 10.53 (4), other than removal of aquatic nuisance vegetation. e. Construction, repair, replacement or upgrading of a subsurface septic system or any part of such a system. f. Activities associated with installation of a monitoring well, other - than construction of an access roadway. (2) Category 2 : ($250.00 each activity) a. Construction of each single family house (including houses in a subdivision), any part of which is in a buffer zone or resource area. Any activities associated with the construction of said house(s), including site preparation and construction of detention basins, utilities, septic system, and roadways, other than those roadways reviewable under 310 CMR 10.53 (3) (e) (See Category 3), shall not be subject to additional fees if all said activities are reviewed under a single Notice of Intent. (For multifamily buildings see Category 3.) b. Parking lot of any size. C. The placement of sand for purposes of beach nourishment. d. (various coastal activities) e. Any activities reviewable under 310 CMR 10.53 (3) (a) through (d) and 310 CMR 10.53 (3) (f) through (1). (limited projects other than driveways and roadways, including agriculture, public roads, ponds, maintenance of pre - existing structures and road drainage, small bridges and water structures.) Where more than one activity is proposed within an identical footprint (e.g.; construction of a sewer within a new roadway) only one fee shall be payable. 1 `. _flow f. New agricultural or aquacultural projects. g. Construction of each crossing for a driveway associated with an unattached single family house, reviewable under 310 CMR 10.53 (3)(e) ( limited project crossing). h. Any point source discharge. i. Any other activity not described in Categories 1, 3, 4, or S. (3) Category 3 : ($525.00 each activity) a. Site preparation, for any development other than an unattached single family house(s), including the removal of vegetation, excavation, and grading, where actual construction is not proposed under the Notice of Intent. - b. Construction of each building for any commercial, industrial, institutional or multi - family development, any part of which is in a buffer zone or resource area. Any activities associated with the construction of said building, including site preparation and construction of detention basins, septic systems, parking lots, utilities, point source discharges, package treatment plants, and roadways other than those roadways or driveways reviewable under 310 CMR 10.53 (3) (e) (limited project crossings) shall not be subject to additional fees if all said activities are reviewed under a single Notice. C. Construction of each roadway or driveway, not reviewable under 310 CMR 10.53 (3)(e), and not associated with construction of an unattached single family house. d. Any activity associated with the clean up of hazardous waste, except as otherwise noted in Category 4, including excavation, destruction of vegetation, change in subsurface hydrology, placement of wells or - other structures for collection or treatment of contaminated solid and /or water. (4) Catecory 4 : ($725.00 each activity) a. Construction of each crossing for a limited project access roadway or driveway reviewable under 310 CMR 10.53 (3) (e) associated with a commercial, industrial, or institutional development or with any residential construction (other than for a single family house) . b. Construction, modification, or repair of a flood control structure such as a dam, sluiceway, tidegate, etc. C. Creation, operation, maintenance or expansion of a landfill. d. Creation, operation, maintenance or expansion of a sand and /or gravel operation including but not limited to excavation, filling, and stockpiling. e. Construction of new railroad lines or extensions of existing lines, including ballast area, placement of track, signals and switches and other related structures. f. Control of nuisance vegetation, other than on a single family lot, by removal, herbicide treatment or other means, reviewable under 310 CMR 10.53 (4). g. Construction, reconstruction, expansion, or maintenance of any 2 ..,r bridge, except to gain access to a single family house lot. h. Raising or lowering of surface water levels for flood control or any other purpose. i. Any alteration of a resource area to divert water for the clean up of a hazardous waste site, for non - exempt mosquito control projects, or for any other purpose not expressly identified elsewhere in this fee schedule. j. Any activities, including the construction of structures, associated with a dredging operation conducted on land under a waterbody, waterway, or the ocean, If the dredging is directly associated with the construction of a new dock, pier, or other structure identified in Category 5 below, only the Category 5 fee shall apply. k. Construction of, or the discharge of effluent from, a package sewage treatment plant. (5) Category 5: ($2.00 linear foot, Min. $50, Max. $1,000) a. Construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of docks, piers, dikes, rip rap or other engineering structures on coastal or inland resource area. (6) For Notices filed under the Northampton. Wetlands Protection Ordinance WITHOUT FILING UNDER WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT a. Any work on a single building lot or housing unit ..$ 25.00 b. Each additional lot or housing unit .. .........$ 50.00 c. Commercial, industrial, institutional projects ...... $100.00 plus $0.10 square foot of resource area activity plus $0.02 square foot of buffer zone activity (7) Fee for Extensions of Permits .. .........................$50.00 Notice of Intent Fees under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act d � r '0Ja 0 Category 1 activities X $ 55.00 ......................$ # Category 2 activities X $250.00 ......................$ L 9 # Category 3 activities X $525.00 ......................$ # Cate ory 4 activities X $725.00 ............. . .... ...$ f —feet Z Category 5 a ctivities X 52.00 /ft (minS50)....5 '�) 6 SUBTOTAL.................... ..............................5 15 ONE HALF TOTAL FEE MINUS $12.SO..(To the Commonwealth) .... $ (fees must be paid by check or money order) ONE HALF SUBTOTAL PLUS $ 12. 50 ............................. $37 PLUS: 0 • Category 6 activities (see 06 above) .................$ - Category 7 (Extension of Permit) $50.00 ...................$ Notice of Iateat (notice + recordina fee) $35.00 ........... 8 55, cc OR (includes request for amended Order or Notice) Request for Determination (public notice) $20.00 S TOTAL. FEE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON .....................$ (fees must be paid by check or money order) (fees.cc 3/7/91) 3 r AN Name of Applicant: Address: •.0 NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENT FILING FEE Date: ( lal kl�/ ) RE: DEP File # (if known) Applicant's Name 4741elf Project Location /a h..v�ciZ s7i1E�� p Dear / Aef As required at 310 CMR 10.03(7)(b), the ( Conservation Commission hereby gives notice that the $ 5 5 - 5 � fee that accompanied your Notice of Intent filed on (date)' /' /-Reis not correct. The commission has determined that the correct fee for this filing is Therefore, the balance of the Notice of Intent fee due is $ 200 ("'ioo t xv~ G to -.'y) The Commission has determined that the fee is insufficient for the following reason(s): CA9E6o /Zy S Ocles Nom revi / 9112X /7? - 1Fc'7 ee V/ 1 > ,r) / P� ✓: / P� A / C.c / iPy v ! y o (/> Pursuant to 310 CMR 10.03(7)(b), your Notice of Intent (NOI) filing is considered incomplete and the time period for the Commission to act on your NOI has been stayed. The Commission will take no further action on your filing until this matter has been resolved in any of the ways detailed at 310 CMR 10.03 (7) (b) (1) . To resolve the matter you may choose one of the following fee resolution options: 1. Pay the additional fee amount without disputing it. When the additional amount is paid, the Commission will resume action on your filing. 2. Pay the additional fee amount and present information to the commission to support your claim to a lesser fee. When the additional amount is paid, the commission will resume action on your filing. Should you be dissatisfied with the commission's determination of the fee in the Order of Conditions, that order may be appealed to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). If the dispute is resolved in your favor, you will be entitled to refunds from the city /town and DEP, each for half the disputed amount. 3. File a Request for Determination of Applicability to determine the proximity of proposed work to wetland resource areas or to resolve questions as to the nature of the work. Action on the NOI would not continue during the Determination process. A Determination of Applicability issued by this commission may be appealed to DEP. A Final Determination is binding on all parties and is determinative for purposes of setting the NOI fee. C.C. DEP Regional Office (required by regulation) (It is recommended that this notice be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested.) 310 CZAR 10.99 `ow Form 3 DEP Fe No. j 246 - - Commonwealth (To be W W&4XM O M r 7= - of Massachusetts - C Town Northampton Aomicant NINE COPIES OF THIS FORM, COMPLETE Notice of Intent WITH PLANS, TO CONS. COMMISSION Under the TWO COMPLETE COPIES TO EP, S RI F LD sac %usetts Alfands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40 and Application for a Department of the Army Permit & NORTHAMPTON WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE Part 1: General Information 1. Location: Street Address 12 - W A.rF `�T " D MASS Lot Numoer (a l ASSESSORS' MAP ID. # / 0 -r:?,:,. Project: Type Description �r�zT o 11ZN� G � T`� k� CJ b I i A( hl--! I o r`\ S �-S 2G 0 . �V i-r-tA S 1 N V�"l L1-- P \z �e . j i �- � 1�! ► L.L.- � >-t ►� t�Fo To � -kA�l� ��.�.�."�IV�r ry (ol t�s 3. Registry: County Hampshire Current Boo E� '� 5 Page Certificate (If Registered Land) 4. Applicant Address 2i 4 FLI"1.W6o-o ter- N A7rc -i�i IAA. 0270 Prc .-erty Owner Tel. Address 5. Reoresentative Tel. Address 7. a. Have the Conservation Commission and the Department's Regional Office each been sent, by certified mail or hand delivery, 2 copies of completed Notice of Intent, with supporting plans and documents? Yeses No b. Has the fee been submitted? I Yes Z..' No c. Total Fling Fee Submitted 60 d. City/Town Share of Fling Fee �Z, �U State Share of Filing Fee 1 sn (sent to City/Town) ( of fee in excess of 525. sent to DEP) e. Is a brief statement arached indicating how the applicant calculated the fee? 2 Yes C No f. Permit requested under: Mass. Wetlands Protection. Act (310 CMR 10): Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance: Effective 11110/89 M S. Have all obtainable Dermas. variances and approvals required by local by -law been obtained? Yes 1 K No Not Applied For: Obtained: - T)F_eAotrrt I o wl R_- 0 7� Applied For: 9. Is any portion of the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order pursuant to G.L. c. 131, §40A or G.L. c. 130. § 105? Yes 7 No X 10. List all plans and supporting documents submitted with this Notice of Intent. ATTACH LOCUS MAP SHOWING SITE LOCATION CLEARLY MARKED Identifying Numper /Letter Title. Date 11 . Check those resource areas within which work is proposed: (a)x Buffer Zone (b) Inland: Bank' Land Subject to Flooding. Bordering Vegetated Wetland' = Bordering Land Under Water Body & Waterway' _ Isolated (c) Coastal: Land Under the Ocean' Coastal Beach' Barrier Beach N/A = Rocky Intertidal Shore' N/A Land Under Salt Pond' Fish Run' Designated Port Area' Z Coastal Dune Coastal Bank Salt Marsn' Land Containing Shellfish' 'Likely to involve U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurrent jurisdiction. See General Instructions for Completing Nonce of Intent. 3 -2 U S i� ,� P� L�F_ 0.S No�'rT'N AM P i oN 11 . Check those resource areas within which work is proposed: (a)x Buffer Zone (b) Inland: Bank' Land Subject to Flooding. Bordering Vegetated Wetland' = Bordering Land Under Water Body & Waterway' _ Isolated (c) Coastal: Land Under the Ocean' Coastal Beach' Barrier Beach N/A = Rocky Intertidal Shore' N/A Land Under Salt Pond' Fish Run' Designated Port Area' Z Coastal Dune Coastal Bank Salt Marsn' Land Containing Shellfish' 'Likely to involve U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurrent jurisdiction. See General Instructions for Completing Nonce of Intent. 3 -2 1 .0 4' 12. Is the wetland resource area to be altered by the proposed work located on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map (if any) of rare, "state- listed" vertebrate and invertebrate animal species occurrences provided to the conservation commission by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program? YES [ ] NO ICJ Date printed on the Estimated Habitat Map issued (if any) October, 1987 - Mt Holyoke or January 1990 - Easthampton If yes, have you completed an Appendix A and a Notice of Intent and filed them, along with supporting documentation with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program by certified mail or hand delivery, so that the Program shall have received Appendix A prior to the filing of this Notice of Intent? YES [ ] NO [ ] DEP Western Regional Office State House West, 4th Floor 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 01103 9 3 -3 `%NW Part II: Site Description Indicate wnich of the following information has been provided (on a plan, in narrative description or calcula- tions) to clearly, completely and accurately describe existing site conditions. Identifying NumberrLetter (of plan. narrative or calculations) Natural Features: Sods Vegetation Topography Open water bodies (including ponds and lakes) V >�2 Flowing water bodies (including streams and rivers) Public and private surface water and ground water supplies on or within 100 feet of site Maximum annual ground water elevations with dates and location of test Boundaries of resource areas checked under Part I, item 11 above Other Man -made Features: v Structures (such as buildings, piers, towers and headwalls) Drainage and flood control facilities at the site and immediately off the site, including culverts and open channels (with inverts), dams and dikes Subsurface sewage disposal systems Underground utilities Roadways and parking areas Property boundaries, easements and rights -of -way Other Part III: Work Description Indicate which of the following information has been provided (on a plan. in narrative description or calcula- tions) to clearly, completely and accurately describe work proposed within each of the resource areas checked in Part I, item 11 above. Identifying Numoer/Letter (of plan, narrative or calculations) Planv- - • w and Cross Section of: v ?LAW ''� 2 NA Struc. - (such as buildings. biers, towers and headwalls) �2 r r� G g1v10 UAL. r Drainage and flood control facilities. including culverts and open cnanneis (with inverts). dams and dikes Subsurface sewage disposal systems & underground utilities Filling, dredging and excavating, indicating volume and composition of material Compensatory storage areas. where required in accordance with Part III. Section 10:57 (d) of the regulations Wildlife habitat restoration or replication areas Other Point Source Discharge Description of characteristics of discharge from point source (both closed and ooen channel), when point of discharge falls within resource area checked under Part I. item 1 1 above. as supported by standard engineering calculations. cats anc :.tans. including but not limited to the following: 3 - `W 1 . Delineation of the drainage area contributing to the point of discharge: 2. Pre- and post - development peak run -off from the drainage area, at the point of discharge, for at least the 10 -year and 100 -year frefluency storm: 3. Pre- and post - development rate of infiltration contributing to the resource area cnecked under Part I, item 11 above: 4. Estimated water quality characteristics of pre- and post - development run -off at the point of discharge. Part IV: Mitigating Measures 1. Clearly, completely and accurately describe, with reference to supporting plans and calculations where necessary: (a) All measures and designs proposed to meet the performance standards set forth under each re- source area specified in Part II or Part III of the regulations: or (b) why the presumptions set forth under each resource area specified in Part II or Part III of the regula- tions do not apply. _ Coastal Resource Area Type: I Identifying numoer or letter $ Inland I Of support documents ST S To � � v o /s UN LC_4�� - 70 A� u �" ND QnI0 <i sP on1 l N 1 Iv I PIK- i il�Al"Ir\16 pit emu_ V OID ; I N y PAND PAZ A � A n/ //VG NO �___ wale n/n1 Coas:ai Resource Area Type: Identifying numoer or letter Inland I of suoodnbocuments S I ( � I - 3 -� `..► r./ 2. Clearly. completely and accurately describe. with reference to supporting plans and calculations where necessary: (a) all measures and designs to regulate work within the Buffer Zone so as to ensure that said work does not alter an area specified in Part I, Section 10.02(1) (a) of these regulations: or (b) if work in the Buffer Zone will alter such an area, all measures and designs proposed to meet the performance standards established for the adjacent resource areaspecified in Part II or Part III of these regulations. Coastal _ Resource Area Type Bordered By 100 -Foot Oiscreuonary Zone: I loenntymg numoer or letter $ Inlano Ot suOOOrt documents 3 -6 r Part V: Additional Information for a Department of the Army Permit 1. COE Application No. Z. FQ�_�� r ^ �_'- (.i9'.! ?z20a _ (to be provided by COE) (Name of waterway) 3. Names and addresses of property owners adjoining your property: C_ rr y o-T- N -- A ate. PTD>v 4. Document other project alternatives (i.e., other locations and /or construction methods, Particuiarly those that would eliminate the discharge of dredoed or fill material into waters or wetlands). " x 11 " drawings in planvlew and cross - section, showing the resource area and the proposed activ- ity within the resource area. Drawings must be to scale and should be clear enough for photocopying. Certification is required from the Division of Water Pollution Control before. the Federal permit can be issued. Certification may be obtained by contacting the Division of Water Pollution Control,1 Winter Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. Where the activity will take place within the area under the Massachusetts approved Coastal Zone Management Program, the applicant certifies that his proposed activity complies with and will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved program. Information provided will be used in evaluating the application for a permit and is made a matter of public record through issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of this information is voluntary, however, if necessary information is not provided, the application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued. I hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that the foregoing Notice of Intent and accompanying Plans. documents and supporting data are true and complete. to the best of my knowledge. e _ Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Applicant's Representative Date MED 100 (TEST) . FORM 'Exception to ENG Form 4345 approved by HQUSACE. 6 May 1982' - _ 1 MAY 82 his eocoment contains a point Department of the Army sno State of Massacbosetts application for a permit to obtain permission to perform activities in United States waters. The Office of Management and 80096t (OMB) has approved those Questions required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. OMB Number 0702.0036 and expiration date of 30 September 1983 appiies ' This statement will be set in 6 point type. 3-% 1. . W Il.l -� a'�� ►Sg � --' — a 5� A UDUBON i I EOEEEI► ` J 2 �O I I I 1 I ll 3I ,I 7 rl I r�� I . I I" N �O Sy r N ir Z y < � S YANKEE m ¢ HILL 2 CONDOS GPEEH T ,WC 1 i EVEw W C O EAST 9 ♦ND UpL 6 CENTER Q 4 V � lfq iP T Z O + � ' ` LEEDS o i BEpN �CN 3 O wO (04 CE 4 09 N• + ...0 �p r pgGH �+ US VETERANS D HOSPITAL c' O ouaNCOLT Y LOOK MEMORIAL - i FAIRWAY �0 VILLAGE PARK s ».snwcs N c »Ts CONDOMINIUMS ? BRIDGE O � 10 ROAQ a EEPN ^' W W NORTHAMPTON �9 N W E J A ` GOLDE C D S Al N N n HILL E/ N LL w ,95 �r SSD ( z W =.WHITE MNE 1 3. WINCHESTER s IN W m AM p10N WES H a M4 P / pi t P tS 0J LORENCE INDIAN S1 HILL 0 J� Q v W Q F,Z CONDOS \P�r o O no u J►i6NT •r wow Y �•i�ri 'T� lO �.rF� \� ..�� e � 0 Al a1 /.r D.Va/ E 1. s C �90UL T T E �i 1 l J / � J � V V L,4nJ ,, -t City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission TO: Sam Brindis, Director, DPW FROM: Wayne Feiden, Senior Planner RE: Bernstein Bridge, Leeds DATE: October 8, 1991 In The Northampton Conservation Commission has received the attached Notice of Intent from Mark Bernstein to allow him permission to remove his bridge in Leeds. He has not provided any engineering studies as part of his submittal and is not proposing to do any significant work to hold up the abutment. Could you please review this filing and send us any comments you have? Thank you very much for your assistance. *... 1 310 CMR 10.99 Foam 2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts oEp File No. 24b— (To o. WMKW by OEM C;yiTown Northampton Aooficant Bernstein Or e Repast Rw 7/10/91 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c.131, §40 & NORTHAMPTON WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE From Northampton Conservation Commi cg; nn Issuing Authority To Mark Bernat n (Name of person making request) 214 Elmood St. Address Attleboro MA n ?7hn Mark rnsf (Name of property owner) Address Sale This determination is issued and delivered as follows: 0 by hand delivery to person making request on ( date) XMC by certified mail, return receipt requested on July 23 1991 (date) Pursuant to the authority of G.L. c. 131, §40, the Northampton Conservation Commi cci on has considered your request for a Determination of Applicability and its supporting documentation, and has made the following determination (check whichever is applicable): Location: Street Address 1 2 t•Tfip+ S+ Tandr. _Y A - QJQ§3 Lot Number. (M. AP ID #) 1nR Al This Determination . os 1. ❑ The area des cnbe� below, w% h includes all/part of the area described in your request, is an Area Subject to Protection Under the AcL Therefore, any removing, filling, dredging or altering of that area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. 2. = The work described below, which includes alUpart of the work described in your request, is within an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge or alter that area. There- fore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. Effective 11/10/89 2 -1 aa.. 3. Z" The work described below, which includes all /part of the work descrioed In your request. is within the Buffer Zone as defined In the regulations. and will alter an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. This Determination Is negative: 1. C The area described in your request is not an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. 2. 1 The work described in your request is within an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act, but will not remove. fill. areage, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. 3. ,� The work described in your request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the reaulations, but will not alter an red u ject to Protection Under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. If any part of the structure is destabilized, and ends up in.. the resource area. not the C mi 4. The area a deschoeo in your request is Subject to Protection ZTnaer the Ac:' but since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption.as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: Issued by Northampton Conservation Commission Signature(s) On this 22nd day of Jul 19 , before me Personally appeared Dayid Gengler to me known to be the Person described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he!shb executed the same as his/her free act and deed. Notary Pul5lic Jan. 18, 1996 My commission expires This Determination does not relieve the applicant tram complying with all other aoo tcaole tede2l. state or local statutes. ordinances. by-laws or regulations. This Determination shall be valid Ior three years torn the dale of issuance. The applicant, the owner. any person aggrieved by this Determination. any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be oone, or any ten residents of the city or town in wnicn such land is located. are hereoy notified of ineir right to reduem the Department of Environmental Protection to issue a superseding Determination of Applicability, providing the reduest is made by candied mad or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing tee and Fee Transmittal Form as provioed in 310 CMA 10.03(7) within ten days trom Nte date of iaivahie of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by candied mail or nano delivery to the Conservation Commission and the applicant. 2 -2A This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. wr wool City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission TO: Bernstein /Leeds Request for Determination File FROM: Wayne M. Feiden, Senior Planner RE: Status of Deck on Bernstein Bridge DATE: 9/5/91 Mark Bernstein called this morning. He reported that they arrived at the site to remove the decking and found that most of the decking had collapsed into the river and riverbank. He indicated that it is likely that Hurricane Bob moved the bridge and caused the deck to fall. He stated that they will remove the debris within the next few days, although some has washed down river and is lost. Mr. Bernstein indicated that he does not have immediate plans to remove the rest of the bridge and will take no action until a construction easement with the City for the Mulberry Street Bridge is resolved. I reiterated my concern that the bridge may collapse, possible taking the embankment and part of the neighbor's house with it and that he needed to address this problem. Mr. Sam Brindis Director of Public Works City of Northampton Locust Street Northampton, Mass. 01060 Re: Construction Easement Mulberry St., Leeds Dear Mr. Brindis: 214 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, Mass. 02760 August 23, 1991 I Just returned from vacation and found two letters from you. The first acknowledges ownership of the small triangle adjacent to the Roberts Meadow Bridge to be in my name instead of the City of Northampton as you had earlier thought. The second is a reouest for a "construction easement" upon said lot to be executed in connection with the planned reconstruction of the Mulberry Street bridge. As I have indicated to you in the past, I would be happy to cooperate with The City in granting an easement for such construction purposes as long as doing so does not conflict with any other demands upon said property which may run concurrently with an easement and that in granting an easement I am not required to bear any expense associated with said easement. At this point I have a number of questions which I would like to discuss before any final documents are drafted: 1) Does private ownership and access requirements to the triangle lot change any road design considerations such as curb cuts, drainage, slooe, etc. from that which is presently in the contract documents which were drawn and bid assuming City ownership of the lot? 2) What provisions should be incorporated in a construction easement to assure my continued access to my lot for purposes of other work the City may require of me during the term of the easement? 3) Why is it necessary to have a three year easement for a one year or less construction project? 4) What provisions will be necessary for indemnification vis a vis the easement and potential liability for damage or loss? ` Page 2 Leeds Easement 8-23-91 It would be helpful if I could obtain a copy of the the engineering drawings for the Mulberry Street bridge for further review and discussion. I would be available to meet with you to discuss the above and any related issues in an effort to move both our projects forward. Please let �e hear from you. Sincerely yours, Mark F. Bernstein cc: W. Feiden, Consv. Comm. M. Feeney, Esq. _ i \ . t -49T " 214 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, Mass. 02760 July 29, 1991 Mr. Sam Brindis Director of Public Works City of Northampton Northampton, Mass. 01060 Re: Property Ownership Mulberry Street, Leeds Dear Mr. Brindis: As I indicated to you in our telephone conversation of 7-26-91 I was recently doing some research at the State Dept. of Public Works regarding the planned Mulberry St. bridge construction as it relates to my Roberts Meadow bridge when, much to my surprise, I noticed that a certain parcel of land, which I was under the impression I owned, was labeled, "N/F City of Northampton". The parcel in question has frontage on Mulberry Street and abuts the Carbin residence at #18 Mulberry Street. It is the same parcel which contains an abutment for the Roberts Meadow Bridge for which the City of Northampton, in a letter dated May 1, 1991, suggested I have an engineering study done to determine its safety. I am enclosing a copy of the property description from my deed for 12 Water Street. I would appreciate a review and comparison of this document with those documents used by the survey consultant who prepared the original city construction plan for the Mulberry Street project so we can determine the discrepancy in ownership. With the start of construction of the Mulberry Street Bridge only a few weeks away I was beginning to wonder why no easement documents had been presented. This explains it. I am anxious to hear the results of your investigation and resolve this matter so we may both get on with our respective projects. l hope the enclosed information is helpful. Encl: Property Description 12 Water Street, Mulberry St. Const. Plan Si c rely o r Mark F Xc: Wayne Feiden, Senior Planner Atty. M. Feeney luu ;o this aal ut May ._ A. i.). 1:) 7 5 bet��'ea:n SiI.li'r,EV and J(D_V i3. SIIT4LEY, husband and wife, both of Agawam, Hampden County, Massachusetts, parties of the first ,)::i i., alld YAP;I 1' 13Is„�1S'1'f °'1 ^', ot rlr�t, "to?�, i ddlesex County, hIassaC1n I's etts, p�1r•t.Y of thc cwld lmrt. �l'hc l.)arty of the first: hart herc`hiafier referred to u:; the SENA,Elt hereby agrees to liell and the llarty of tluo secolul Part licloinafter "clewed to us the l ;UlER agrees to Purdlual a certain estate situated in the Village of Leeds, Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts and bounded and described as follows: f -A cortain tract of parco, of lu.nC.i, w.tt:l the buildings trier eon, situate in tl14' v]1lavC' of L c C C1ti iii l�'t ?' li.:t:171)tV:7, V1 a. ;i b�lClilibC t[ , aS 6l 01 "Plan of Land in Leecis, Mass, belo;ly to 1301din I Ionninway Co, ", dated May lb, 1033 by Davis Lilginet,ring Co. , bore ;:)urticularly bounded and described 3D Iollowii: 13ebinninb at a point Oki the Southwt:Sterly side O! Xonotuck Street in s ai(' Loods at l aild now Or lore - iorly 11 ollu Mccari:lly; t'ie nco I�✓esterly along land now or forlrierly Oi "ht .;<xiU o CCa.'t to a brlde o v er � / b v Roberts Meadow BYOOIC sJ-ia.11ed tllell CiOSS.. 6aid bri(.gt: to a retaining wall; thence Westerly alolly the r etalllin: w all. aild ialiJ.ig Lh,e 5,)L:t,1C rly bank of Roberts Meadow Br ook to an iron pin at land now )1 loi Orly Gi o11c Doylo; th(Grico Southerly along land now or ior-Yierly of Said Doyle one: hundred eighty - eight and seven - tenths t 1 Y land now or t5t5. j) lti:tst 111()1'(', Or ..vSS LO all ir'011 �lll' t;1c;:Ce �'VCSti;l'1) alon IO'r1 ;1'ly o tkic u iCi �Qylt a'.uhty un(1 ,,1X icnth3 (88. U) feet rnore or trot; s co an iro, - i pin at tilt; boun(..,a1'y of W iliac: jtzoet; thence Southerly ai0i.a the Easterly boanclar y Of sa ` 5troc - t sov,' it'y - i ino '79J feet more or less to an ir0:1 pill at lane! Of o'nc llall:uls; LLO; 'E asterly along land of the di11C1 DCanicl:i tilgklty- (::Gilt and hill - La:lltliti (88. 9) feet rnor,. or .less to an iron pin; thence Southo.. stcrly alor, 1an(k ox Llle said Daniels seventy and three- tenths (70, 3) fact more Or lcso to all boil Dili; tl Southerly along land of tlle, said 7Dalliels and land now or fol'naerly Of One Caouette, ninety - three and iivc tenths (93. 5) feet rnol-a or less to an iron pin at land of one Bachand; thence Easterly alone• land of th, said "'lachand one hundred one and four - tenths (101, 4) feet 1rloro Or IC66 to 2111 iron pir.; thence Southwesterly along land of sai 1 Bachand in «line approxa y parallel to the bank, of Mill River ninety (90) iect moro or loss to all iro11 pin at lanJ now or forincrly of one Marcotte; thence Easterly along land now Or Iorr surly of tile. said Marcotte twenty (20) foot. snore Or less to the Dailk of .\/lill River; thence In a Northeasterly direction alon1- tht uanik O1 Mill &ive :Ind alo.ig thw r et�alnln(, wall marking s aid bank to tine J DanLk to t10 brid OViT �.OJi rt2i �iea(YOw �rGOkC; tlllilCe Easterly along said BrlC�gL I to allotllcr 1. .ta111111 ;; w:tll : ;atti_. \iikl. i. \1V. :1'; i:ilCllCt 1_.aStli'ly along Said, retaining ( wall to Nollotuck btr cct; alonL., I'Nolil'ituck S .sect to the place 0 t 'Jeg'llll :ill .t Ai u.t.ilg`.: t.Vt:r 1 O, : to :.1,:0 \V rOGd .0 ;11Cl.l1C.0 d i11 L'k1G NOL' 1C(„ C7 n c r z m CU ti ON i C) o �Q) 0 (morn_ z ! z - o `A - V. C � a a rn m 0 �lm �� ; a T M � Q OC o CO N �' M X C, C) i p� X ' =1 - 0 � 'C ri o� ® -° - I D r- D t rn i trb IW m CU -0 T- n -� z � l M ri m ' M m N I \` °° °v.< ' OD CD w � i o� �I CA m m x --i Q3 x T M N O a io O iU) r � z r M (� _ a; ; 1 Z 7J CC OD o 11rR, z c� l� T( �I n > m ui O m 0 Z2 y � 4 CD FT I z a � O c r m o c �3 9 o 0 r� G C) �7 D m Gz rn z Z rnx m o 0- 0 M �r (j) W ev m F NINE COPIES ONE COPY OF 310 CMA 10.99 Form 1 OF "OMPLETE FILING TO THE NORTHAMP" CONSERVATION COMMISSION C,,., LETE FILING TO DEP, Wetlands Didion, SPRINGFIELD $20.00 CHECK PAYABLE TO: THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON DEP Fne No. 246— tt i (To oe provioed oy DEP) Commonwealth Jul. • 01991 Citylowr * Northampton of Massachusetts R M1G A000can. Mark F. Bernstei 4 a'a; of ' p> w" Request for a Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40 & NORTHAMPTON WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE 1. 1, the undersigned, hereby request that the Northampton Conservation Commission make a determination as to whether the area, described below, or work to be performed on said area, also described below, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40. 2. The area is described as follows. (Use maps or plans, if necessary, to provide a description and the location of the area subject to this request) ATTACH LOCUS MAP SHOWING SITE LOCATION. Location: Street Address 12 Water Street, Leeds, Mass. Lot Number: (MAP ID #) 10 —B Parcel #61 Work area includes existing former bridge structure located across the Roberts Meadow Brook at the confluence of the Mill River in Leeds, Mass. See attached elan. 3. The work in said area is described below. (Use additional paper, if necessary, to describe the proposed work.) Work to be performed includes the removal of the existing wood deck from the former bridge structure as located above. The deck consists of 2x planking across 6x10 timbers. The structure has been out of service for a number of years with fencing erected at both ends to keep people off. Time and weather have deteriorated the deck to a point where it must be removed to prevent portions of the deck from falling to the river below and to safeguard trespassers from possible injury from falling through. S,te propose to erect temporary planking on existing steel supports below the wood deck as a work platform. The deck will be cut with saws into manageable size pieces for removal by hand. Tarps will be slung underneath the existing deck to catch small wood debris from falling into the river. In addition a fish net type material will be stretched across the river downstream of the bridge to catch any debris not caught in the tarps. The work is proposed to be executed in August when it is anticipated the crater level in the brook will be at its lowest level of the year. Effective 11/10/89 ,, ' 4 1we W , 4. The owner(s) of the area, if not the person maln%tttis reou$ai, his been given written notification of this request on July 8 , 1991 ' �g "f atel' ` ; The name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s): 5. 1 have filed a complete copy of this request with the appropriate regional office of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection July 8, 1991 (date) DEP Western Regional Office State House West, 4th Floor 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 01103 6. 1 understand that notification of this request will be placed in a local newspaper at my expense in accor- dance with Section 10.05(3) (b) 1 of the regulations by the Conservation Commission and that I will be billed accordingly. _ Signature flame Mark F. Bernstein • r Address 214 Elmwood St., N. Attleboro, MA. Tel. ,(508) 699 -9322 02760 1.2 `` City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hail • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission May 1, 1991 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 Dear Mr. Bernstein: IWO Thank you for inviting us to meet you and examine your bridge on April 25. As we discussed when we viewed the bridge, it poses a great danger of collapsing. The north side of the bridge rests on an extremely unstable stone abutment and is clearly in the process of sliding off the loose stones that support it. The bridge poses a major safety hazard to human life and property. Its uncontrolled collapse could threaten the Carbin's home. This bridge has posed a safety threat for several years and the problems with the bridge have been discussed with you in the past. As the stones in the abutment become more unstable, it is more urgent than ever that the problem be addressed. It is our understanding from the site visit that you have agreed to contact an engineering firm and obtain an engineering cost estimate to determine what work is needed to solve this serious safety situation. This should be done immediately. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. C ar t'ed Jef'°'P Sincerely, g 3 e- y "4 f eej Wayne M. Feiden, AICP t , �► 1! Senior Planner !.e f /�i t�vF = r >� f �" ''� Sam Brindis, PE jor4',: ' 4 Director Department of Public Works cc: Raymond LaBarge, Ward 7 Councillor Dorothea and Susan Carbin, 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds 01053 Kathleen Fallon, City Solicitor Frank Sienkiewicz, Acting Building Inspector `%SW City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission (5-0 6-yy - ' a •..0 October 19, 1990 Mark Bernstein Uw 19eR 214 Elmwood Street i North Attleboro, MA 02760 Dorothea and Susan Carbin 18 Mulberry Street J Leeds, MA 01053 Dear Mr. Bernstein and Ms. Carbin: The Department of Public Works has notified the Conservation Commission that a privately owned bridge over the brook between your properties is in imminent danger of collapsing. This bridge creates a threat to the stream, as well as to your own safety and liability, that must be addressed. It appears that the bridge is owned by Mr. Bernstein, but I don't know if both properties share ownership or have the responsibility for repairing or removing the bridge. As the DPW requested, I will bring this matter up to the Conservation Commission's attention at their next meeting. You may want to come up with a plan for addressing the matter by then. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible so that this threat can be addressed. BP inI-1Pn C�nliP� /U /�� /�U �e rf/�or•/,vc/ s&PS C/00"10/ Sincerely, / Or �lof vF brarh � hvldJ��f' �d /'dyP� zr�► /s ��' . t h •CS Wayne M. Feiden Environmental Planner J r t° - �' u �._ / ✓ "I e l e , e ll i fi n,-. h /C'. — 4r //, U I .r F e, �p v 1, le ti h— -5` cc: Sam Brindis, Department of Public Works Raymond LaBarge, Ward 7 Councillor M -e < 1 - 4, v/ f 6/ /-- ICA�C AAA d FORESIGHT ' LAND SERVICES John F. Cvsz, PE`, +, " ' Robert E. Hoogs John M. Campetti, PLS Gary J. Fix, PLS, `, " + ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING Division of Brown Associates, Inc. Jeffrey F. Collingwood, PE ' January 31, 1992 Revised February 10, 1992 ' Mr. Mark F. Bernstein Watery Hill Farm 214 Elmwood Street ' North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Guidelines for Removal of Old Bridge over ' Roberts Meadow Brook - Leeds ' Dear Mr. Bernstein: 'a In accordance with our agreement for services dated December 29, 1991, we have made site visit to assess methods for removal of the existing re mains of the old bridge over Roberts ' Meadow Brook. This report addresses -issues raised in a memo from the City Engineer dated October 29, 1991 concerning side slope retention and potential impact on the adjacent property at 18 Mulberry Street. ' According to a 1938 plan by Davis Engineering Co., the northwest corner of the bridge is immediately adjacent to the easterly property line of what is now 18 Mulberry Street. You have stated clearly to us that you are making no commitment to perform any work beyond ' your property boundaries. However, due to the proximity of that property to the subject bridge, this report includes certain information concerning 18 Mulberry Street, including a description of the foundation for the rear addition based on visible features. Guidelines for repair of the collapsed stone retaining wall that is common to both your property and 18 ' Mulberry Street are also illustrated in this report for your information. This report is not intended to represent a detailed design of work required at 18 Mulberry Street and as such we ' recommend that the owner retain their own professional design assistance regarding that property. The following comments are provided for guidance relative to removal of the bridge: 1. The bridge remains consist of a dry laid stone abutment on the southerly bank, two 33 -inch deep steel girders with lateral cross braces and a collapsed and undermined stone and concrete abutment on the northerly bank. The bridge ' had a timber deck which is now removed. A location plan showing the bridge is included as Attachment 1. A series of photographs taken during our site visit on January 20, 1992 are also attached. ' 2. The southerly abutment appears quite stable and we recommend that this not be disturbed. Further, there is a power line that is supported by a pole located behind the southerly abutment. As such the southerly abutment is. providing ' effective stabilization to the southerly bank of Roberts Meadow Brook at its confluence with the Mill River. Re�lstrations in ,Massachusetts, New York', Connecticut+ 6 Vermont" Foresight Building • 1496 West Housatonic Street • Pittsfield, MA 01201 • (413) 499 -1560 • Telefax (413) 499 -3307 ' FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES Division of Brown Associates, Inc. ' Mr. Mark F. Bernstein January 31, 1992 Revised February 10, 1992 ' Page 2 ' ' Judging from the excavation we were able to view at the new city bridge being 3. We have looked at the foundation that supports the rear addition at 18 Mulberry Street along the northerly bank of Roberts Meadow Brook. The ' foundation consists of concrete piers and wood posts which support a cantilevered floor system as shown on Attachments 1 and 2. Note: The tens of thousands of dollars which you have indicated is well beyond economic southerly wall of the addition is cantilevered about 4 feet beyond the pier line. ' There is a wood post at the southeast corner of the addition, but this post appears to rest on stacked concrete blocks which are set on the ground surface about 3 feet from the top of the bank (see Attachment 2 and photograph). ' The soil exposed in the near vertical northerly bank is fairly loose, erodible fill consisting of silty sands with gravel. The collapsed northerly abutment and upstream stone retaining wall should therefore be stabilized in order to protect ' the northerly bank against further erosion. 4. There are a number of typical alternative methods for stream bank stabilization ' that range from tied -back sheet piles, reinforced or modular concrete retaining walls, stacked gabion (rock filled) baskets, stacked rock retaining walls, sloped riprap, and vegetated earth slopes. ' Judging from the excavation we were able to view at the new city bridge being built on Mulberry Street, we feel confident in saying that sheet piling would not be a practical solution here. A concrete retaining wall could be expected to cost tens of thousands of dollars which you have indicated is well beyond economic ' feasibility. This leads to our opinion that a stacked rock retaining wall, in combination with sloped riprap, using rock from the area, would provide the most expedient and cost effective solution. As a minimum the stacked rock ' retaining wall should be utilized along the bank at 18 Mulberry Street where it would tie into the upstream remains of a previous stone retaining wall (see Attachment 3, and Detail 1). The addition at 18 Mulberry Street would have to be supported as a precaution before the existing steel bridge girders are ' removed. ' 5. To the east of # 18 Mulberry Street the bank stabilization could consist of either a continuation of the stacked rock retaining wall noted above or preferably sloped riprap as shown on Attachment 3 and Detail 2. ' Note: A sloped riprap has the advantage of providing more waterway area when flows are high in Roberts Meadow Brook and is recommended for this reason. A transition from the stacked section to the sloped section could be accomplished by a return wall along your westerly property line and by warping the slope as shown on Attachment 3. 4 ' Also one electric pole will have to be relocated or anchored in order to flatten the slope so you will have to coordinate this work with the utility company. FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES I Division of Brown Associates, Inc. Mr. Mark F. Bernstein January 31, 1992 Revised February 10, 1992 Page 3 We trust that this information will be helpful to you. Should you wish to proceed with the work, we would like the opportunity to meet with your contractor before work begins and to then review the work in progress so that adjustments can be made if necessary. Note: We strongly recommend that you consult with an attorney relative to any work beyond your property line. While we are making recommendations on what might be done, we make no representations as to your legal rights, conditions, or obligations relative to work on abutting lands. In the meantime, please feel free to call if you have any questions on the work we have done to date. We will be pleased to provide any more detailed work that may be required. ' Sincerely, FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES Division of Brown Associates, Inc. � �c John F. sz, P.E President . Enclosures: Attachments 1, 2 & 3 Details 1 & 2 4 Photos ' File: E-907/11 Disk #E907 ' JFC /bb n 4 M FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES Division of Brown Associates, Inc. 1496 West Housatonic Street PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201 (413) 499 -1560 J mrt mi �IK. cam. Mm OtlTt. JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY 1 - 1 7-- CYS DATE �— CHECKED BY DATE SCALE J mrt mi �IK. cam. Mm OtlTt. .) FORESIGHT LAND SHEET NO. 2 of P' Division of Brown Associates, Inc. q 1496 West Housatonic Street CALCULATED BY � DATE PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201 (413) 499 -1560 CHECKED BY DATE a ..._ ..._.......►' f_uv� ............ .._.._._..... . ........... .... ................_ a_.. _...... _ .....G ._..._ _ - - ...._- - - - - -- - ................. _ _ ...... u itY>ntli PROOLCF 2011 Ja 1z- Qd Mm 01 471. m 1 1 1 1 1 �J �1- FORESIGHT LANDICES Division of Brown Associates, Inc. 1496 West Housatonic Street PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 0120' (413) 499 -1560 ' �NOOUCf 2D41 IK- Gmem Ma 0147L JOB YI 1? I KI SHEET NO. Op CA CULATED BY 'J� cYSZ DATE Zy /�� BROWN ASS, INC. . Foresight uil ing 1496 West Housatonic Street SHEET NO. OF S PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201 CALCULATED BY - t'�Z DATE (413) 499 -1560 CHECKED BY DATE ' BROWN NWA INC. Foresight Building 1496 West Housatonic Street ' PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01201 (413) 499 -1560 JOB SHEET NO, OF CALCULATED 8 — DATE an A Z � • 2�V• F 5 I 2- CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ��wOCI✓t.T 7D41 ®M W. Mm 01471. 1' ( (1) Views showing the relationship of bridge remains to house addition at #18 Mulberry Street. Note in Photo 2 the remains of old retaining wall. Note pier and concrete block foundation for addition. �a •> j .t �� ,, r r' � . lam- ", y- .�,�. Jr A I6 v s _ ��- - �T ova b CITY OF NORTHAMPTON OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PAYMENT OF NON - CRIMINAL VIOLATION TO: CLERK/MAGISTRATE NORTHAMPTON DISTRICT COURT 15 GOTHIC STREET NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060 Payment for the following non - criminal violations has been made to this office as follows: TICKET # ISSUED TO 02802 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood St. North Attleboro, MA 02760 DATE OF ISSUE FINE January 10, 2000 $100.00 (Wetlands Violation - failing to restore wetlands - (bank) Please enter these violations as "PAID" in your records. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. � � O Christine orupski City Clerk Date: April 3, 2000 ma ssacduse tts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number Bureau of Resource I `ction — Wetlands WPA Forrkv9A - Enforcement OYder for DEP use only lVp t ssac o p Violation Information This Enforcement Order is issued by: Northampton Conservation Commission (Issuing Authority) To: Mark Bernstein (mailing address) Nameotviolalor 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 Location of Violation: Roberts Meadow Brook of 12 watex -at. Street Address Northampton CiVTowa IOB -61 Assessors Map/Plal / Parcelltot f Date of Issuance: September 22, 1999 Date Extent and type of activity: Failing to remove a dangerous priva bridge and allowing the bridge to collapse into.a brook, damaging the retaining wall and a house on 18 Mulberry Street. The partially collapsed bridge creates a major safety risk and, in case of high water, could block the stream channel and force the water into the retaining wall, whic cou 'destroy it and the house abov U Findings The Issuing Authority has determined that the activity described above is in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act lu (M.G.L. c. 131, §40) and its regulations (310 CMR 10.00), because: - the activity has beenAs being conducted without a valid Order of Conditions. Z the activity has beenfis being conducted in violation of the Order of Conditions issued to: Mark Bernstein Name September 28, 1992 Doled Never issued because applicant neve ReNumnerprovided information to get a 12 — no work until plans filed. Condition numner(s) X Other (specify): After written notices by Planning & Development on October 19, 1990, and May 1, 1991; a Determination of Applicability on July 22, 1991, requests for more information to support a Notice of Intent on October 1, October 30, 1991, November 26, 1991, January 28, IM and Feb 28, 199_2 and an Order of Conditions prohibiting work issued September 28, 199Z, the owner has been adequately notified of e risk the bridge created, r our last correspondence from the permit, owner, however, was is arc 10, 1992 requesting an indefinite continuance.As a result of the owner's inactivity, the bridge fell. and damaged the resource area, retaining wall, and, indirectl� house. '_ PtrQtegt� o�A tM G.�r�1n `q. 24 Rev. 10198 Page 1 of 2 LJ OEP Massachusetts Department of Environmentai Protection Bureau of Resot tection — Wetlands WPA Fd 9A - Enforcemen'Order tla qs� Pr l o teetPo Act M G� rdc. 13 le 24 Order The Issuing Authority hereby orders the following (check all that apply): The property owner, his agents, permittees, and all others shall immediately cease and desist from the further activity affecting the Buffer Zone and /or wetland resource areas on this property. 2 Wetland alterations resulting from said activity shall be corrected and the site returned to its original condition. Complete the attached Notice of Intent. The completed application and plans for all proposed work as required by the Act and regulations shall be filed with the Issuing Authority on or before (date). No further work shall be performed until a public hearing has been held and an Order of Conditions has been issued to regulate said work. :X The property owner shall take the following action to prevent further violations of the Act: Within 7 days, and under the direct supervision of a qualified pro essio engineer, remove the steel beams and all bridge structure, repair t e retaining wall and file a Notice of ntent detailing work per orme , any damage to the resource area, and a plan tor restoring t e resource area. Failure to comply with this Order may constitute grounds for additional legal action. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40 provides: "Whoever violates any provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty -five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years or both. Each day or portion thereof of continuing violation shall constitute a separate offense." In addition, local fines issued under Northampton wetlands ordinance may be issued. 1 Appeals /Signatures An Enforcement Order issued by a conservation commission cannot be appealed to the Department of Environmental Protection, but may be filed in Superior Court. Questions regarding this Enforcement Order should be directed to: Wayne Feiden, Planning Director Or Inbn Rannatt, Senior Planner Name (413) 587 -1287 Phone Number M —F 8:30 — 4:30 Hours/Days A* :- Issued by Northampton Conservation Commission In a situation requiring immediate action, an Enforcement Order may be signed by a single member or agent of the commission and ratified by a majority of the members at the next scheduled meeting of the commission. Signatures: C 4-- / aWayyne 'Fei en, Agen Signature of del very person or certified mail numoer *At their meeting on September 27, 1999, the Northampton Conservation C issionnn'1 t unani- mously 4:0 to ratify the above order. 4 YU (1( / V7 17 - 3 f / ,gTipe Matt Rev. 10/98 Page 2 of 2 / v/s - Nftw ..OW City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall, 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 587 -1266 (413) 587 -1264 fax Wayne Feiden (413) 587 -1265 M EMORANDUM TO: Sam Brindis, PE, Director of Public Works � - FROM: Wayne Feiden AAICP, Planning Director RE: Mulberry Street Pedestrian Bridge DATE: August 6, 1998 I certainly hope this bridge can be removed. It is amazing that it hasn't fallen yet. As I remember it, there were two issues that had to be resolved when we discussed this several years ago. I. Determining if removing the bridge will cause the wall to collapse (is the bridge holding the wall up). I assume an engineer can analyze this. 2. Who is paying for the bridge removal. Let me know if I can be of any help. s (/ - )s - 5 UXP—QQ M J City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 FAX (413) 586 -3726 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission March 27, 1992 Mr. Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Notice of Intent (246 -3_)/ Bernstein Leeds Bridge Dear Mr. Bernstein: The Conservation Commission met on March 24, 1992 and voted to continue the Public Hearing on your notice of intent to September 28, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers in the Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Office Building. The Public Hearing can be held sooner if you are willing to pay an advertisement fee of $20. I have enclosed a copy of my February 28, 1992 letter requesting more detailed plans and accompanying text, prepared by a profession engineer describing information requested and Development by Commission will have Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner the proposed project. The additional should be filed with the Office of Planning September 10, 1992 or the Conservation to deny your application. WF /mm C City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission (-o Eye -- a October 19, 1990 Mark Bernstein 0 �.,. 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 Dorothea and Susan Carbin 18 Mulberry Street Leeds, MA 01053 Dear Mr. Bernstein and Ms. Carbin: The Department of Public Works has notified the Conservation Commission that a privately owned bridge over the brook between your properties is in imminent danger of collapsing. This bridge creates a threat to the stream, as well as to your own safety and liability, that must be addressed. It appears that the bridge is owned by Mr. Bernstein, but I don't know if both properties share ownership or have the responsibility for repairing or removing the bridge. As the DPW requested, I will bring this matter up to the Conservation Commission's attention at their next meeting. You may want to come up with a plan for addressing the matter by then. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible so that this threat can be addressed. , g �n11F n tp /�/f /b /�C /mac Die t/1v /ye PSJ'//vuf v� S &PS /t Sincerely, Cc Ae /cove ,ti•�h Wayne M. Feiden Environmental Planner �yP G"y /lj S'�C h /!� .-. rd cc: Sam Brindis, Department of Public Works Raymond LaBarge, Ward 7 Councillor ��ry /e,�, �ri�� ✓�� • e-1 J � City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission May 1, 1991 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 Dear Mr. Bernstein: Thank you for inviting us to meet you and examine your bridge on April 25. As we discussed when we viewed the bridge, it poses a great danger of collapsing. The north side of the bridge rests on an extremely unstable stone abutment and is clearly in the process of sliding off the loose stones that support it. The bridge poses a major safety hazard to human life and property. Its uncontrolled collapse could threaten the Carbin's home. This bridge has posed a safety threat for several years and the problems with the bridge have been discussed with you in the past. As the stones in the abutment become more unstable, it is more urgent than ever that the problem be addressed. It is our understanding from the site visit that you have agreed to contact an engineering firm and obtain an engineering cost estimate to determine what work is needed to solve this serious safety situation. This should be done immediately. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. 7, g sincerely, Wayne M. Feiden, AICP Senior Planner r Sam Brindis, PE 4 /' C � / / "Av Director `Y ft C ,,f V /V" „ -� - .�, Department of Public Works t? -► ia�, r� � �"� +,� �° f"f d a.. r•� ,�'r' i `�' W "mss cc: Raymond LaBarge, Ward 7 Councillor Dorothea and Susan Carbin, 18 Mulberr*y Street, Leeds 01053 Kathleen Fallon, City Solicitor Frank Sienkiewicz, Acting Building Inspector j .,v City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission TO: Bernstein /Leeds Request for Determination File .A- I I�C- FROM: Wayne M. Feiden, Senior Planner RE: Status of Deck on Bernstein Bridge DATE: 9/5/91 Mark Bernstein called this morning. He reported that they arrived at the site to remove the decking and found that most of the decking had collapsed into the river and riverbank. He indicated that it is likely that Hurricane Bob moved the bridge and caused the deck to fall. He stated that they will remove the debris within the next few days, although some has washed down river and is lost. Mr. Bernstein indicated that he does not have immediate plans to remove the rest of the bridge and will take no action until a construction easement with the City for the Mulberry Street Bridge is resolved. I reiterated my concern that the bridge may collapse, possible taking the embankment and part of the neighbor's house with it and that he needed to address this problem. • • Mr. Sam Brindi.s Director of Publ Works Ci7y of Northampton L oc ust Street Northampton. Mass. 01060 RE: Construction Easement Mulberry 5t .. Leeds Dear Mr=. Br i nd i s 21 E l m wood St N. Attleboro, mass. 02760 AI_`•.nust 23 1 I just returned from vacation and found two letters from you The first acknowledges ownership of the small triangle adjacent to the Roberts Meadow Bridge to be in my name instead of the City of Northampton as you had ear th oucht. The second is a r equest for a "Construction easement" upon said lot to be executed in connection wi the pl anned reconstruction Of the Mul Street bridge. ' 1 have indicated to yo in the ,past, 1 would be happy to cooperate with The City in granting an easement for such construction :. as long as do ing so dues not conflict with any o ther demands u on said propert which may run concurrently with an easement and that in granting an easement 1 am not required to bear any expense associated with said easement. At this point I have a number of questions which I would like to d iscuss before any final documents are dra fted: i) Does Private Ownershi and access reauirement.a to t trianpie l cmange any road design considerations such as curb cuts, drainane, slWe etc. from that whic5 is presently in the con tract tract docl_trl3ents which were d rawn and bid assuming City ownership of the l ot? 2) What pr=ay.';.Sj.ons sf;i+uld be incor'1o" ated in a co n s tructio n e a semen t assur my continued ac G'+c::_ o fo r r uses _f C'_s� ?. `, L +:'' "� + i woE -.f,. the � v requ r e C i t y may - M2 d L. {�' i - - _ -i'lE_ "tE:'` m of the C- ?a:ae "fieYl "G? 3 ) Whv is it neceSasa to " a three Y\• P WwTment for _ or '_c =s construction Project? _ 4) ghat Provisions will be nece= s,=vy for in et'17"'iific <,t:!•.'- i , � i ?: the easement and potential l r +: — daFiig2 t:_0 W+_:'._s? i- sment rqw 0 �ae It would be helpful if : could obtain a copy of the the engineering drawings for the Mulberry Street bridge for further review and discussion. I would be available to meet with you to discuss the above and any reZated issues in an effort to move both our projects forward. Please let me 4ear from you. Sincerely yours, Mark F. Bernstein cc: W. Feiden, Consv. Comm. M. Feeney, Esq. - \ ` | R C) z r C> -f' C'L:> 0-� A� r i4 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, Mass. 02760 ,luly :9, 1991 Mr. Sam Dr i nd i s Director of Public Works City of Northampton Northampton, Mass. 0 10GO Re: Property Ownership Mulberry Street, Leeds Dear Mr. Dr i nd i s As I indicated t o you in our telephone conversation of 7 I was recently doing some research at the State Dept. of Public Works regarding the planned Mulberry St.. bridge construction as it relates to my Roberts Meadow bridge when, much to my surprise, I noticed that a certain parcel of land, which I was under the impression I owned, was labeled, "NiF City of Northampton ". The parcel in question has frontage can Mulberry Street and abuts the Carbin residence at #18 Mulberry Street. It is the same parcel which contains an abutment for the Roberts Meadow Bridge for which the City of Northampton, in a letter dated May 1, 1991, suggested I have an engineering study done to determine its safety. I am enclosing a copy of the property description from my deed for 12 Water Street. I would appreciate a review and comparison of this document with these documents used by the survey consultant who prepared the original city construction plan for the Mulberry Street project ect so we can determine the discrepancy in ownership. With the start of construction of the Mulberry Street Bridge only a few weeks away I was beginning to wonder why no easement documents had been presented. This explains it. 1 am anxious to ;rear the results of your investigation and resolve this matter" so we may both get on with our respective projects. I hope the enclosed information is helpful. Sincerely y��:turs, Mar. {. F. B nstein Encl : Property Descri pt art 12 Water Street, Mulberry St. Const . P l a n Xe: Wayne Feiden, Senior Planner Atty. M. Feeney n /. 19 e 75 hetwe PEJL'. SIIT.I_�!,EY aric! JO S husband and wife, A. 1) both of Agawam, Hampden County, Massachusetts, parties of the lost you'Ll"d "AIPF P.,BUNSTFIT, of Nnvton, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, Party of UW sawmd pad. The pally of the first. part Wrvinafter r5orral in ns So SEIIA,Elt hereby agrees to adl and the party of W SMIKI part lwivinaft,er referred to as tll(! EUYER agrees to vurrtjaye a Certain estate situated in the Village of heeds, Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusette.1 and bounded and described as follows: .A certain tract or pazcoi of w,',. the ouii6ings thereon, situate in tiio, Village of Le,,ds in VL1 ;i6aciii as 61iown on ''Plan of Land in Leeds, %Iass. l beIon�z to 13,:�Icling .1 cnniriway Co. ", dated May 16, 1 .1L)38 'by Davik, Co. , "iorc; 1)nzziculariy bounded and described as Ldlow:;: Beginning; a point on tho Sou'.hwc,4;torly sid,3 oi' Xonotuck Street in sai(. 1,00ds a*. ; - nov. , or iornnorly a! on,-; N;cCarhy; ✓estCrlly along land now or of 'Ll-,v, L;aid 'AtWnrtky to a bridge over Roberts Meadow Bi so-calli:d; then, Crossing w06 Sri&gc to a retaining wall; thence Westerly along the reLainin Wa"I a, 'D;1111 Oi aobert6 \4eadow Brook to an iron pin at land now or lozrnk3, of o Doylo; LiiC 1100 Southerly along !and now or iornn,:rly of said Doyle one nundred, and seven-tenths iCct Moro or lcSS to L."I iI:Or, iiin; Webterly along land now or :jalcl Doyic ;,nc, six i.t iitli3 (88. 6) feet more or 1N. `w zo � ran, at 'L'I'� oi Watc� thcnce Southerly along the Las Orly houn&ary of said VUzor StrccL seventy -niac (7 feet more or lt;ss to an iron pin at la"j of Ono - Lho;-,cc Easterly along land of the said Daniclj QAVy-0j and nil!C-LuntK6 (88. 9) Net 1110170 Or USS to an iron pin; thenco Southcnstcrly alon3 !an& of the said Daniels, seventy and three- tentils (70, 3) feet niore o7: ) L:36 to an ii7c - So"therly along land of 'ek ; Da 'ai - of one Caouette, ninety-three and ,,11 o, G ai - niols and I - ,d i-low c f Evq (93. 5) lect rnoco or less to an iron pin at land oi one Bachand; thence Tasteriy a5ng land of 510 sa id B one- lhaii6red one and four -tenths (101. j) ject llaoro or l ess Lo an i zon p thence Southwesterly alon land of 6ai I II Bachand i a li paral._'ci to tii,. baulk oi Mili River ninety (90) iect r11101'1; or ICS8 to , ,I, iiron , . 9 at land now or iori - ne rly of oi ae VLLarcottc; thence Zaste-,Iy along)' ,.and now or 'forzoCrly of the. said marcotte twenty (20) 1 ie. t liiorL ly direction 'Ll in a XorthoasLerl o r less Lo the Daiik of , I 1ti r�;17; 1 along tnc ,, of �Xi� Ri :11 -,d tile: i :o 1,VaJ.I Ma,r!"Ing Said Ij n'k t t , EasterIly along said Bri go bank to Zhe br Ovo . a ivicadow 3,00k; tht. nc( II Po anotn' r rezainin._" , : , ., jenc0 1 a I said retaining Noi -,e pl � - �otuck St;:ect to Ll X4 L; '1 toil Notice. II 01 Deginnil Tho i 0 - ° I o 41 z w m a) O N r-- m o`�C�` C` _ t _ to n . 01 W Ca \ 1 M V+ D1� rn z 6Ln Kit m - I O c no go Mn TA 50 r4— O C o .. ° I .� - n �8 -4 - - OC -� -- a7 o �i�� c m X o p O - r m (A m y OD cw m / (` CO Q < m x m o I v oa o (� 1 � M c� i w � �� --1 X c m o rri CD o� >m l M do �m z Q M� mo o r� 0 w D NINE COPIES OF 4PLETE FILING TO THE NORTHAMP'T►- -- ^ONSERVATION COMMISSIC14 ONE COPY OF C41b..,CTE FILING TO DEP, Wetlands Din, SPRINGFIELD 310 CMR 10.99 $20.00 CHECK PAYABLE TO: THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Form 1 DEP Fne No. 246_ (To De DrwioeC Dy DEP) c„ Northampton — Commonwealth J �- 1 of Massachusetts ANC A rmocan Mark F. Bernstei >= o n. Request for a Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40 & NORTHAMPTON WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE 1. I. the undersigned, hereby request that the Northampton Conservation Commission make a determination as to whether the area, described below, or work to be performed on said area. also described below, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40. 2. The area is described as follows. (Use maps or plans, if necessary, to provide a description and the location of the area subject to this request) ATTACH LOCUS MAP SHOWING SITE LOCATION. Location: Street Address 12 Water Street, Leeds, Mass. Lot Number: (MAP Ip #) 10 -B Parcel #61 Work area includes existing former bridge structure located across the Roberts Meadow Brook at the confluence of the Mill River in Leeds, Mass. See attached plan. 3. The work in said area is described below. (Use additional paper, if necessary, to describe the proposed work.) Work to be performed includes the removal of the existing wood deck from the former bridge structure as located above. The deck consists of 2x planking across 6x10 timbers. The structure has been out of service for a number of years with fencing erected at both ends to keep people off. Time and weather have deteriorated the deck to a point where it must be removed to prevent portions of the deck from falling to the river below and to safeguard trespassers from possible injury from falling through. We propose to erect temporary planking on existing steel supports below the wood deck as a work platform. The deck will be cut with saws into manageable size pieces for removal by hand. Tarps will be slung underneath the existing deck to catch small wood debris from falling into the river. In addition a fish net type material will be stretched across the river downstream of the bridge to catch any debris not caught in the tarps. The work is proposed to be executed in August when it is anticipated the grater level in the brook will be at its lowest level of the year. Effective 11/10!89 SB URG - E AUDUF)ON I- -F Z YANKEE Z HILL t CON005 y, EVERGRE W� T C W 0 EAST UPLAND 9 CENTER 0 �!E � O D FPONT 1 O LEEOS 9 T po BE RNAC N C OVN 9 � T C C to 3 `OgENCE 4OR, r O a GH h A 2 VETERANS ERANS 0 HOSPITAL a o_ LOOK r MEMORIAL U FAIRWAY PARK H sr O VILLAGE rmmnOMtN IUMS i ggIDGE DfEflf / `( o Coro ` FLORENCE 1,4 NORTHAMPTON MEADOW R1NE , GN E W O p INDIAN Q" F ` r0 I HILL y GOLDEN 4E HALL p �Z i u o i p f OR Q .�fE911 fpD(`vIDOD S � 7 K r m D P� O p O a E VS O t HILL D "WHITE PINE ]..n ESTER � O yS m DUNRNv �p WES7 HAMp1ON OA D �jI�E M N W J Z O Q E° �'T cjue Ma* st of. rk Re . ReF Bdrn`s.t�i.ri' for Determination Applicability ~� Mass. Wetlands Protection Act, G.L.c.131, regarding removal of bridg deck-at Leeds,. Mass. � 1 u * �v I - O N 310 CMR 10.99 Form 2 OEP File No. [ 246- ,,. (to oe my ded oy OEM �� ^ City,Town Northampton �- Commonwealth > = of Massachusetts Aopecant Bernstein 7/10/91 Oate Request Fief Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetiands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40 & NORTHAMPTON WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE From Northampton Conservati issuing Authority To Mark R_ernst - Lain (Name of person making request) 214 Elmwood St. Acdress Attlehoro ILA 0971;0 Mark Evrm t'P i n (Name of property owner) Address Sale This determination is issued and delivered as follows: by hand delivery to person making request on date) M by certified mail, return receipt requested on July 23 1991 (date) Pursuant to the authority of G.L. c. 131, §40, the Northampton Conservation Commission has considered your request for a Determination of Applicability and its supporting documentation, and has made the following determination (check whichever is applicable): Location: Street Address - Lot Number. ' ID. # QR- This Determination s ositiv 1. The area descn�be� below, w includes alUpart of the area described in your request, is an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. Therefore, any removing, filling, dredging or altering of that area requires the filing of a Notice cf Intent. 2. The work described below, which includes all/part of the work described in your request, is within an Area Subject to Protection Under the AC. and will remove, fill, dredge or alter that area There- fore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. .e Effective 11110/89 2 -1 3. The work described below. which includes all/part of the work descrioed in your request. is within the Buffer Zone as defined in the regulations, and will alter an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of intent. This Determination is negative: 1. [ The area described in your request is not an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. 2. 'Z The work described in your request is within an Area Subject to Protection Under the Act. but will not remove. fill. dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of intent. 3. ,SL The work described in your request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an r`A bu6ject to Protection Under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the fillnd of a Notice of Intent. If any part of the structure is destabilized, and ends up in the resource area not i the C�oitmissi 4. " The area descr in your request is uBject to ctection noer the c.; but since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption.as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: Issued by Northampton Conservation Commission Signature(s) On this 221d day of July 19 , before me personally appeared David ogler to me known to be the person described in, and who executed. the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he!sh2 executed the same as his! her free act and deed. , Notary Public My commission expires This Determination aces not relieve live applicant from complying with all other applicable feceial. state or local statutes. ordinances. by-laws or regulations. This Determination snail be valid for three years form the pate of issuance TAe applicant. the owner. any person aggrieved oy this Determination, any owner of land abutting me land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in wntcn such land is located, are nereoy notified of their right to request Ine Department of Environmental Protection to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, providing the request is mace by certthed mail or hand delivery to the Department. with the appropnate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form as Mrovioed in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by cenified mail or nano delivery to the Conservation Commission and the applicant. 2 -2A This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission TO: Sam Brindis, Director, DPW FROM: Wayne Feiden, Senior Planner RE: Bernstein Bridge, Leeds DATE: October 8, 1991 O N The Northampton Conservation Commission has received the attached Notice of Intent from Mark Bernstein to allow him permission to remove his bridge in Leeds. He has not provided any engineering studies as part of his submittal and is not proposing to do any significant work to hold up the abutment. Could you please review this filing and send us any comments you have? Thank you very much for your assistance. W 310 CMR 10.99 •..� Form 3 . �„o� . oEP File No. { 246- = „- a — - —' Commonwealth _ = of Massachusetts - City, Town Northampton Aooucant i NINE COPIES OF THIS FORM, COMPLETE Notice of Intent WITH PLANS, TO CONS. COMMISSION Under the TWO COMPLETE COPIES TO QEP, SPRI F LD sachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40 and Application for a Department of the Army Permit & NORTHAMPTON WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE Part 1: General Information I `_ . ' n m 4 SS 1 . Location: Street Address � w�r�t` �T" Lot Numoer ASSESSORS' MAP ID. # rs 2. Project: Type Description Ta S'ro � To- kvr�l►� t��L�i n,✓r�s -� iv z ,�►� L� �o T7F�i� ► r• n �r,G ,rJ GhN 1 S �U V F ► t►� 7. 3. Registry: County Hampshire Current Boo ►< &Page Certificate ( Registered Land) 4. Applicant . �. � LS�N STE I N Tel �z� � Address 2 1 `4 Tel. 5. Prcaerty Owner A Imo. Address , Tel. 5. Recresentative f. Permit requested under: Mass. Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10) : V Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance: Address a. Have the Conservation Commission and the Department's Regional Ornne eabe an certified mail or hand delivery, 2 copies of completed Notice of Intent, with suppo g plans Yes No b. Has the fee been submitted? Yes I" No C. Total Fling Fee Submitted 0 � 2' 22 d. City/Town Share of Fling Fee _ State Share of Filing Fee (sent to City/Town) (' /z of fee in excess of S25, sent to DER) e. Is a brief statement attached indicating how the applicant calculated the fee? Yes ["_ No Effective 11110/89 V Appled For: S. Have all optamable oermits. variances and aoorovals reduired by local by -law been obtained? Yes No _ Obtained: 1 1 . Check those resource areas within which work is pr000sed: (a)x Buffer Zone (b) Inland: Bank- Land Subject to Flooding, = Bordering Vegetated Wetland' _ Bordering = Land Under Water Body & Waterway' Isolated (c) Coastal: = Land Under the Ocean' - Designated Port Area" - Coastal Beacn' Coastal Dune _ Barrier Beach _ Coastal Bank N/A = Rocky Intertidal Shore NIA — Salt Marsn' = Land Under Salt Pond' — Land Containing Shellfish' Fish Run' 4w ,...w Not Applied For: 9. Is any oortion of the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order pursuant to G.L. c. 131, §40A or G.L. c. 130, § 105? Yes = No x 10. List all plans and supoorting documents submitted with this Notice of Intent. ATTACH LOCUS MAP SHOWING SITE LOCATION CLEARLY MARKED Identifying Numoer /Letter Title. Date � � L� � v S )� A P �F �S � Na��TN A M � ► oN n L kely to involve U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurrent jurisdiction. See General Instructions for Comoietinc Notice of Intent. 3.2 `..r ... 12. Is the wetland resource area to be altered by the proposed work located on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map (if any) of rare. "state - listed" vertebrate and invertebrate animal species occurrences provided to the conservation commission by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program? YES [ ] Na AN] Date printed on the Estimated Habitat Map issued (if any) October, 1987 - Mt Holyoke or January 1990 - Easthampton If yes, have you completed an Appendix A and a Notice of Intent and filed them, along with supporting documentation with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program by certified mail or hand delivery, so that the Program shall have received Appendix A prior to the filing of this Notice of Intent? YES [ ] NO [ ] DEP Western Regional Office State House West, 4th Floor 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 01103 G 3 -3 Part II: Site Description Inoicate wniCh of the following information has been orovided (on a plan. in narrative descriotion or calcula- ,ions) to clearly, comoletely and ac curately describe existing site conditions. Identifying NumberrLetter (of plan, narrative or calculations) Natural Features: Soils Vegetation Topography Open water bodies (including ponds and lakes) v Flowing water bodies (including streams and rivers) Public and private surface water and ground water supplies on or within 100 feet of site Maximum annual grouna water elevations with dates and location of test Boundaries of resource areas checked under Part 1. item 1 1 aoove Other Man -made Features: v 2 Structures (such as buildings, piers, towers and headwalls) Drainage and flood control facilities at the site and immediately off the site, including culverts and open Channels (with inverts), dams and dikes Subsurface sewage disoosaf systems Underground utilities Roadways and parking areas Property boundaries. easements and rights -of -way Other Part III: Work Description Indicate which of the following information nas been provided (on a plan, in narrative description or calcula- tions) to clearly, completely and accurately describe work proposed within each of the resource areas checked in Part 1, item 11 above. Identifying Numoer /Letter (of plan, narrative or calculations) Planvw and Cross Section of: ,_ {?c.1,H z NAI`�AT.Struc:.:res (such as buiiaings. oiers, towers and headwalls) ��D (�� 1 gn Drainage and flood control facilities. including culverts and open cnanneis (with inverts), dams and dikes Subsurface sewage disposal systems & underground utilities Filling, dredging and excavating, indicating volume and comoosition of material Compensatory storage areas. where required in accordance with Part III. Section 10:57 (4) of the regulations Wildlife habitat restoration or replication areas Other Point Source Discharge Descnotion of c~aractenstics of discharge from point source (both closed and oven channel), when ooint of discharge faits within resource area checked under Part I. item 1 1 aoove. as supported by stancard engineering Calculations. cata and plans, including but not limitea to the following: 3 -4 1 . Delineation of the drainage area contributing to the oolnt of discnarge: 2. Pre- and post - develooment peak run -off from the drainage area. at the point of discharge, for at least the 10 -year and 100-year freouency storm: 3. Pre- and post- development raterof infiltration contributing to the resource area cnecked under Part 1. item 1 1 above: 4. Estimated water quality characteristics of pre- and post - development run -off at the point of discharge. Part IV: Mitigating Measures 1 . Clearly. completely and accurately cescnbe. with reference to supporting plans and calculations where necessary: (a) All measures and designs proposed to meet the oerformance standards set forth under each re- source area specified In Part II or Part III of the regulations: or (b) why the presumptions set forth under each resource area specified in Part It or Part III of the regula- tions do not aooly. Resource Area Type: I icentifying numoer or letter Coastal l of su000n aocuments $ Irnana To .� �.�u - ��v��►� - � , t-r w , t_.t_.- � t-t fG r� g �►oU �� '2U�`l SPon� l N t ►JD tU t .i�u�_ sls �o J -rr'" �"F2d'1 A�Z)h W 4AeL A , 1 �/ No wOp- �- Coastal Resource Area Type: 7�:: iniana identifying numoer or letter of suooart r 3-J 2. Clearly. omoletely and accurately describe. with reference to suoponing plans and calculations wnere necessary: (a) all measures and designs to regulate work within the Buffer of these or said work does not alter an area specified in Part 1. Section 10.02(1) (a) (b) if work in the Buffer Zone will alter for the adeacentrr proposed esource area-specified inPaltormeet the performance standards Part III of these regulations. 1( I Coastal _Resource Area Type Boraered By 100 Foot Oiscren Iaennfymg numoer or letter onary Zone: of Support aocuments g Iniana I f I 3 -6 0 Part V: Additional Information for a Department of the Army Permit 1 COE Application No. 2. - (to be provided by COE) (Name of waterway) • 3. Names and addresses of property owners adjoining your property: - > > 0 T}1�� 1- ,�SQ►� C.A2��1rJ i L 1 y o T--'cr� A'i l bra n1 4, Document other project alternatives (i.e.. other locations and /or construction methods. particuiarly those that would eliminate the discharge of credo ea or fill material into waters or wetlands). 8! " x 11 " drawings in pianvlew ana cross- section, showing the resource area and the proposed activ- ity within the resource area. Drawings must be to scale and should be clear enough for photocopying. Certification is required from the Division of Water Pollution Control before. the Federal permit can be issued. Certification may be obtained by contacting the Division of Water Pollution Control. Winter Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. Where the activity will take place within the area under the Massachusetts approved Coastal Zone Management Program, the applicant certifies that his proposed activity complies with and will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved program. Information provided will be used in evaluating the application for a permit and is made a matter of public record through issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of this information is voluntary, however, if necessary information is not provided, the application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued. I hereby certify under the Dains and penalties of Perjury that the foregoing Notice of Intent and accompanying a Glans. documents and supporting Cam are true and complete. to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant io -'J5 -"71 Date Signature of Applicant's Representative Date i' Q R M "Ezcrptton to ENG Form 4345 approved by HQVSACE. 6 May 198'" NED 100 (TEST) 1 MAY 82 �hts document contains a joint Department of the Army and State of Massachusetts application for a permit to obtain permission to perform activities to United States .ate». The Office of Management and Bunget (OMB) has approved those questions required by the US Army Corps of - -nnneers. OMB Number 0702 -0036 and ezptratton date of 30 September 1983 ■ppites'. This .utement all be set in 6 point type. 3-/ t �H Ci ati�•SB ` _-• wit = F Q � r YANKEE HILL < 2 CONDOS P F; AUDUBON r , W t� EvEP .wD E.ST a o uFl CE NTtP O ` v D LEEDS m x p cou ^` " _ C 3 n0 Z eO ♦ENCE ,O I / k♦'``/J� o .�. U S tr F� AR VIET HOSPITAL H o HOSPITAL o �CK s 2 eu ..Coll o H Po.. LOOK LE NnO S O p P G G" Q W U FAIRWAY M PARK RIAL S „.STlNCS • �F VILLAGE INIUMS CHEST ERFIELD O CONDOM _ BRIDGE in g u RDgD 2 EEPR I^ . Y W W RIY9♦L Q O ♦'� ...vw.PO � t J C � �A E. .00 9 YE Z Et . . ♦REN Z U 31F�WB RRr OR V P E ' _ _ Neil VERON 101F ltE 0. � SNErs � F - E ,o �W `rtS.tP �� NORTHAMPTON FLORENCE M,~ w N, MEADDW _ uro E ST D a� wEST z H N 9FFl ELATE • 3 'i W 11%b . W E ` GOLOE C 0 N r c m m a HILL I I P P O D •• W J Z INDIAN Sr HILL 0 JP Z Op p J � 9 0 PL \N 2 P J1[ W �, SuuwERiiEtO 2 �.wwiTE hNE 2' Q 3. wiNCNE3IEP k, � m¢ D m a a f i ,EST HAMPTON nuwh.r Hp� T�EP M4 P) 1 I HOLLOM CO DOS W Ile ri A Ir. .a i�r�..� � n Li.� �„ u �'°�r E - s ue=+' =�� •/ � � �:�� hi 0 z 4A q PZ-14AI 6, ZAAJO City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission TO: Kathleen Fallon, City Solicitor fie FROM: Wayne Feiden, Senior Planner RE: Bernstein Notice of Intent DATE: October 21, 1991 The Conservation Commission has received a Notice of Intent from Mark Bernstein, who is seeking a permit to remove a private bridge in Leeds. There is no engineering data or report included with the application. Sam Brindis has reviewed the application and has indicated that a detailed engineering study is needed to insure that removal of the bridge will not cause the collapse of the abutment and a house and will not cause undue erosion. The collapse of the abutment and house could cause harm to the resource areas protected by the act. At their meeting on October 21, 1991 the Commission requested a written opinion, by their October 28, 1991 meeting, as to whether the Commission and the City has any liability if: 1. They grant a permit for bridge removal without requiring engineering data, and harm results; or 2. They deny the permit because of inadequate information, and the bridge collapses and harm results. Thank you for your assistance. IF City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hail • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 Dear Mr. Bernstein: F� May 1, 1991 Thank you for inviting us to meet you and examine your bridge on April 25. As we discussed when we viewed the bridge, it poses a great danger of collapsing. The north side of the bridge rests on an extremely unstable stone abutment and is clearly in the process of sliding off the loose stones that support it. The bridge poses a major safety hazard to human life and property. Its uncontrolled collapse could threaten the Carbin's home. This bridge has posed a safety threat for several years and the problems with the bridge have been discussed with you in the past. As the stones in the abutment become more unstable, it is more urgent than ever that the problem be addressed. It is our understanding from the site visit that you have agreed to contact an engineering firm and obtain an engineering cost estimate to determine what work is needed to solve this serious safety situation. This should be done immediately. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Wayne M. Feiden, AICP Senior Planner Sam Brin�is E Director Department of Public Works -cc: Raymond LaBarge, Ward 7 Councillor Dorothea and Susan Carbin, 18 Mulberry Street, Leeds 01053 Kathleen Fallon, City Solicitor Frank Sienkiewicz, Acting Building Inspector MEMO TO: Wayne Feiden�,� Planner FROM: Sam Brindis Director, DPW SUBJECT: Bernstein Bridge DATE: October 17, 1991 As discussed in the May 1, 1991 letter to Mark Bernstein (enclosed) , we were of the understanding that Mr. Bernstein would contact an engineering firm capable of evaluating the situation. It is my opinion that an engineering consultant knowledgeable of soils, retaining walls and demolition is required to evaluate the impact of the bridge removal and to provide analysis for the side slope retention or stabilization. The potential for an adverse impact on house #18 Mulberry Street without proper precautions can cause serious harm to those inhabitants and house structure. Furthermore, the City would want to be assured, through analysis, that no further erosion of the side slope will occur. If there are any further questions, please call me. Thanks! Enclosure: Letter from Wayne Feiden and Sam Brindis to Mark Bernstein, dated May 1, 1991. cc: Peter McNulty George Andrikidis Kathleen Fallon IV \Memo4 \Bernsten.Bdg CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS s 125 Locust Street ' Northampton, MA 01060 Samuel B. Brindis, P.E. 413 - 582 -1570 Director, City Engineer Peter J. McNulty, Sr. Assistant Director of Public Works MEMO TO: Wayne Feiden�,� Planner FROM: Sam Brindis Director, DPW SUBJECT: Bernstein Bridge DATE: October 17, 1991 As discussed in the May 1, 1991 letter to Mark Bernstein (enclosed) , we were of the understanding that Mr. Bernstein would contact an engineering firm capable of evaluating the situation. It is my opinion that an engineering consultant knowledgeable of soils, retaining walls and demolition is required to evaluate the impact of the bridge removal and to provide analysis for the side slope retention or stabilization. The potential for an adverse impact on house #18 Mulberry Street without proper precautions can cause serious harm to those inhabitants and house structure. Furthermore, the City would want to be assured, through analysis, that no further erosion of the side slope will occur. If there are any further questions, please call me. Thanks! Enclosure: Letter from Wayne Feiden and Sam Brindis to Mark Bernstein, dated May 1, 1991. cc: Peter McNulty George Andrikidis Kathleen Fallon IV \Memo4 \Bernsten.Bdg �I-- City of Northampton MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Law Department Wayne Feiden, Senior Planner "7" Kathleen G. Fallon, City Solicitor (, Private Bridge - Mulberry St., Leeds October 22, 1991 I understand that you have some concerns bridge owned by Mark Bernstein adjacent Apparently this private bridge is in a very If it collapses on its own or during any pull away part of the bank of the stream o in turn, may affect the structure at 1E foundat' t related to the private to 18 Mulberry Street. deteriorated condition. removal process, it may i which it rests. This, Mulberry Street whose ion res s on that bank, and nearby resource areas within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Bernstein has now filed a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission. Sam Brindis has indicated that a detailed engineering study is needed to insure that any removal activities do not adversely affect the adjacent structure and areas. Mr. Bernstein has not submitted such a study with his application. I do not foresee any serious chance of liability on the part of the City if the Conservation Commission denies the permit on the basis of inadequate information. However, Mr. Bernstein should be informed in writing of the exact information needed to process the permit. The Commission should process the application with all due expediency once the information is received. Nor is there any foreseeable liability if the permit is granted without the engineering study. In that case, however, I would include language on the permit that all necessary precautions must be taken for the protection of adjacent property including any and all engineering studies and data.nstruction of the Mulberry Street.. Bridge affects Mr. Bernstein's bridge. It is Mr. Bernstein's duty to maintain the bridge so as not to endanger public or private property. As long as the City does not unreasonably interfere with his efforts to so maintain the structure, the City will not be liable for any damage caused by the bridge. Similarly, if the abutting structure is damaged by the bank being removed by a collapse of the bridge, the liability rests with Mr. Cole Bernstein. His poor maintenance of the bridge, not the City's �`/ activities, would be the proximate cause of the damage. 'J City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission '.01' October 22, 1991 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Notice of Intent, Leeds Bridge Dear Mr. Bernstein: At their meeting on October 21, 1991, the Northampton Conservation Commission reviewed your Notice of Intent to remove a bridge in Leeds. Upon reviewing your notice and the comments of the Department of Public Works, the Commission found that you provided inadequate information in the filing on what the impacts of the bridge removal will be on the existing abutment and therefore on the protected resource areas. You should review the attached letter from Sam Brindis, PE, Director of Public Works, which details what additional information is needed. The Commission continued the public hearing to 8:00 PM on October 28, 1991. At that time you should either provide the additional information, request a new extension, or provide documentation on why this information is not relevant. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 4/ Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner cc: Sam Brindis, DPW ape, y 3 f 7 City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Notice of Intent, Leeds Bridge Dear Mr. Bernstein: October 30, 1991 As you requested in your October 24, 1991 phone call with me, at their October 28, 1991 meeting the Northampton Conservation Commission continued the public hearing on your Notice of Intent to Monday November 18, 1991. This continuation is to allow you time to prepare engineering information as detailed in my October 22, 1991 letter to you and Sam Brindis's October 17, 1991 memo to you which I sent you with my letter. The Commission indicated that they may not grant another continuance if the required information is not presented by that meeting or, at the very least, if you do not have a commitment to have the information prepared in the near future. Without the data, the Commission could deny your application for lack of information. Thank you very much for your continued cooperation on this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner 4 J 0 10 14 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, Mass. 02760 October 25, 1991 Mr. Wayne F e i d en Senior Planner Conse rvati on Cofl m i ss i OY! City of Nort North ampton, Mass. 01064?! ;fie: Leeds Bridge Dear Wayne: I received your letter today regarding the Conservation Commission act on the not ice of intent I filed for removal of my former bridge structure in Leeds. As I indicated to you by phone I will need additional time to prepare a response concerning the slope and I am therefore requesting an extension of 60 days. During that time I will attempt once again to discuss with the City and State Public Works Departments drainage issues which I have raised regarding the Mulberry Street bridge construction. As you are aware the Mulberry Street d work was done ender~ the misconception that the City owned the subject parcel. Subsequent to discovering the error I have asked Public Works to discuss several design features which I believe may have a detrimental effect on the subject abutment slope (which is only a matter of 20 feet or so from the roadway slope). To date I have not had a response from Public Works. I am certainly willing to perform additional engineering work relative to the Conservation Commission request but I do not feel it should be dine in a vacuum without consideration of other site issues impacting it. If you would like more information please feel free to call. Sincerely y o urs, �M:F. Nernst e i n cc: Thomas Hoey 114� 0 Mr. Wayne Feioen Senior Planner Conservation Commission City of Northampton Morthamoton, Mass. 01060 Re: Leeds Bridpe Dear Wayne: 214 Elmwood Street N. Attleboro, Mass. 02760 November 15, 1991 This is to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday regarding a request for additional time to select an engineering consultant for analysis of the above bridge embankment. At this time, I am still awaiting proposals from two firms. I would appreciate the Conservation Commission continuing the matter for two weeks at which time I will again report on the project status. I would also like you to inform the Commission that in the interim we have cleaned the area under the bridge structure of all debris which may have fallen from the former bridge deck and removed same. I appreciate your continued cooperation in this matter. If you would like more information please feel free to call. Sincerely yours, Mark F. Bernstein 4 aD City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission Mark F. Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 November 26, 1991 RE: Notice of Intent/ Leeds bridge (Bernstein) Dear Mr. Bernstein: At your request, the Northampton Conservation Commission continued the public hearing on your Notice of Intent to January 20, 1992 to allow you to prepare the necessary engineering study (see my October 30, 1991 letter and Sam Brindis's October 17, 1991 memo, both of which I sent you on October 30th) . If the plans are prepared earlier, we can schedule an earlier hearing date. In order for the study to be reviewed at the January 20th meeting, we must receive nine copies in this office by January 8, 1992. The Commission indicated that they wanted this matter resolved in the near future and indicated that they would probably not grant another public hearing continuance if you have not submitted either: 1) an engineering study; or 2) evidence that you have signed a firm contract with an engineer to provide the necessary information. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner 4 FORESIGHT tj LAND SERVICES John F. Cysz, PE *, +, ** Robert E. Hoogs John M. Campetti, PLS Gary J. Fix, PLS *, * * ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING Division of Brown Associates, Inc. January 27, 1992 City of Northampton Conservation Commission City Hall 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 ATTN: Mr. Wayne Feiden Dear Mr. Feiden: This will confirm that we have been retained by Mr. Mark Bernstein of Industrial Resource Development to recommend methods to remove the existing bridge remains. We visited the site on January 20, 1992 and have issued a draft report to Mr. Bernstein. We expect to finalize this engineering report within the next week. Sincerely, FORESIGHT LAND SERVICES Division of Brown Associates, Inc. ( )i�'L 8 John F. Cysz, P.E. President pc: Mr. Bernstein File E-907/11 JFC /bb d#e907 4 Registrations in Massachusetts, New York *, Connecticut' & Vermont Foresight Building • 1496 West Housatonic Street • Pittsfield, MA 01201 • (413) 499 -1560 • Telefax (413) 499 -3307 City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586 -6950 FAX (413) 586 -3726 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation • Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission a January 28, 1992 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Notice of Intent (246 -3 )/ Leeds Bridge (Bernstein) Dear Mr. Bernstein: At your request, the Northampton Conservation Commission continued the public hearing on your Notice of Intent to 7:15 PM, Tuesday, February 25, 1992 in City Council Chambers to allow Foresight Land Services to submit their final engineering report to you and the Conservation Commission. In their January 27, 1992 letter to the Commission, Foresight Land Services indicated that they expect to finalize the engineering report within the next week. The Commission understands that you may need to resolve other legal issues before your can remove the bridge and that you may request another continuance. They would like, however, to have the opportunity to review the engineering study at their February 25th meeting and be assured that the project is moving forward before they continue this matter again. We will need nine copies of the engineering report and any other information you would like to submit to the Commission by Friday, February 14th so that the Commission can review the information prior to their February 25th meeting. Two copies of the report should also be filed with DEP in Springfield. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner cc: John F. Cysz, P.E., Foresight Land Services, 1496 West Housatonic St., Pittsfield, MA 01201 4L City of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall • 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01 • (413) 586 -6950 FAX (413) 586 -3726 • Community and Economic Development • Conservation . Historic Preservation • Planning Board • Zoning Board of Appeals • Northampton Parking Commission February 28, 1992 Mark Bernstein 214 Elmwood Street North Attleboro, MA 02760 RE: Notice of Intent (246 -3_)/ Bernstein Leeds Bridge Dear Mr. Bernstein: Thank you for the engineering review letter from Foresight Land Services that you submitted to the Conservation Commission. If you have not done so already, you should submit two copies of that report to the Department of Environmental Protection, Wetlands Division, in Springfield. Although the Commission found the report useful in its detailing of the design issues, it is not a detailed plan of what work will be performed. More detailed plans and accompanying text, prepared by a Professional Engineer, are required to show where and what the work will be performed and to insure that the work will not have adverse impacts on the resource areas. I believe these more detailed plans are also required by DEP. The Commission continued your public hearing to March 24, 1992 at 7:30 PM in City Council Chambers to allow time for these plans to be submitted (nine copies must be submitted to this office by March 12th so they can be reviewed prior to the meeting) . The Commission also requested that your professional engineer attend the March 24th meeting to answer questions the Commission has on the engineering. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Senior Planner - x�'« c/e�� /e J w`^-� � � ~ �lmw000 - �^4 Street - Y. Att leborc, Mass. 0276 Aaron 10, 1992 Mr. Wayne Feiden 3enior planner City of Northamoton City Hall Nortnamoton. Mass. 01�60 Re: Leeds Bridge Removal Notice of intent Dear Wavne: Please acceot tnis letter as my reouest tor an indefinate continuance for the Notice of Intent which I currently have pending before the Northampton Conservation Commission concerning tne above referenced matter. This continuance will provioe time necessary t resolve issues that relate to Prooerty adjacent to the subject bridge wnich is owneo by others ano which imoacts any action I might take regarding bridge stabaiization and/or removal. Once all issues are resolved with the abutters I win notify your office and agree ro pay the cost of reaovertising the Notice of Intent as reouired by tne Conservation Commission. 1 appreciate Tne Commission's oatience in dealing witn this difficult ana complicated situation and will do :y nest to bring it to a soeeoy ano successful conclusion. Mara F. Bernstein A� ~� 310 CMR 110.99 Form 5 =__ 4 1.1 19 1../ DEP Re No. 246 -3 (ro w oromw try DEP) Commonwealth Cdy,Town Northampton of Massachusetts Aoolicant Bernstein MAP ID: 1OB -61 ORDER PROHIBITING WORK Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act G.L. c.131, §40 AND THE NORTHAMPTON WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE From Northampton Conservation Commission T Mark Bernstein same (Name of Applicant) 214 Elmwood Street Adaress N. Attleboro, MA 02760 This Orcer is issued and delivered as follows: by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (pate) :3 by certified mail. return receipt requested on Ontntaer S , 1 999 (date This project is located at 12 Water Street, Leeds, MA 01053 Northampton, MA The property is recorded at the Registry of Hampshire County Boo 1831 Page 128 Certificate (it registered) n/a The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on 10/8/91 (date) The public hearing was closed on (date) Findings The Northampton Conaervat nn Conmti csi nn has reviewed the above- referenced Notice of Intent anc plans anc nas neic a public hearing on the project. lased on the information availaoie to the Conservation Commission at this time, the Commission has determined that the area on whicn the orcoosed work is to be done is significant to the following interests in accordance with the Presumotions of Significance set forth in the regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Uncer the Act (check as acprooriate): n Pubiic water supply ❑ Flood control ❑ Land containing shellfish Private water supply ® Storm damage prevention 0 Fisheries ❑ Ground water supply Prevention of pollution 93 Protection of wildlife habitat Total Fling Fee Submitted $250 ( -$35) State Share $112.50 City/Town Share $137.50 ( +35) fee in excess of S25) Total Refund Due S 0 City/Town Potion S 0 State Portion S o ( total) ( total) (Name of property owner) Address Effective 11/10/89 5 -1 / Therefore, the Northampton Conservation Comm. hereby finds' hat the following conditions are necessary. in accotbance with the Pertormance Standards set forth in the regulations, to protect those inter- ests checked above. The Conservation Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with said conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the fol- lowing conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. General Conditions ORDER PROHIBITING WORK 1 . Failure to comoiy with aii conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory meas- ures. shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. 2. This Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges: it does not authonze any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other appiicabie federal. state or local statutes, ordinances, by -laws or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: (a) the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act, or (b) the time for completion has been extended to a specified Cate more than three years. but less than five years, from the date of issuance and both that date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill, containing no trash, refuse, rubbish or de- bris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes. refrigerators. motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing. 7. No work snail be ur!dertaken until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed or. if such an appeal has been filed, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. 8. No work shall be undertaken until the Final Order has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court far the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of registered land. the Finial Order shall also be noted on the land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Commission on the form at the end of this Order prior to commencement of the work. 9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, File Number 246 -3 10. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to make a determination and to issue a Sunersecing Order, the Conservation Commission snail be a parry to all agency proceedings and hearings before the Department. 11 . Upon completion ct the work described herein, the applicant shall forthwith request in writing that a Certificate of Compiiance be issued stating that the work has been satisfactorily completed. ? 2. The work snail conform to the following plans ane soeciai conditions: 5 -2 V ORDER PROHIBITING WORK In accordance with 310 CMR §10.05 (6) (c), the Conservation commission finds that the information submitted is not sufficient to describe the work of or its effects on the interests identified in the Act. It therefore issued the Order prohibiting the work. The Commission found that detailed plans of what work will be prepared, along with detailed text, must be prepared by a Professional Engineer to show what work will be performed and to insure the work will not have adverse impacts on the resource areas. This information was requested, in a February 28, 1992 letter, for the March 24, 1992 Public Hearing continuation on this notice. The March 24, 1992 Public Hearing was continued to September 28, 1992, at the applicant's request, with the warning that the application would be denied if the information was not submitted prior to the Public Hearing. No information was submitted and the applicant did not attend the September 28, 1992 hearing. issued BY—Northamvton Signature! �. This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. • Conservation Commission On this p 4 day of -�'ppl Ph he 1.9 92 . before me personally appeared S6e�a F01C - . to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he!she executed the same as his/her free act and deed. Notary Public W^TH= Mt FMDSH NOTARY t UBUC IM COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN. Is. 191" My commission expires The aaolicant. me owner. any person aggneved by this Order. any owner of land abutting the land upon which the tu000sea work is to be Gone. or any ten resloents -ot the ctty or town in wnlut such land is located, are nereoy notified of their tight to request me Department of Environmental protection to Issue a Superseding Omer. prcmding the reduest is made by certified mad or hano delivery to the Deoarrment. with me appropriate filing fee and Fee Tmnstrudal Form as provided in 310 CMR t0.03M I frwn n ot this Detemnanon. A copy of the request snail at the same tuns Oe sent by certified � to and the appticarm Detach on dotted line and submit to the Northampton Conservation Comm. prior to commencement of work. To Northampton Conservation Commission :ssr::n,Aurnor:.y Please oe advised that the Order of Conditions for the protect at 19 L7af-i r St- _ , T -eds MA 01053 Nor t amyt�on, ;Q, =•le Nur.,c 246— 3 n as peen r ec ord ed at the Flegmtry of am s ire County ana has peen noted In the cram of title of :tie attectec property In accorcancs with General Condition 8 on t 9 it recorded land. the Instrument numoer win= rdenaties tilts uaasacoon a If registered land. the document numoer whldn Identifies this transaction ��IiC3rI! a Cna e 5 -4A Bernstein Bridge, Leeds 09/29/1999 Bernstein Bridge, Leeds 09/29/1999 Bernstein Bridge, Leeds 09/29/1999 Bernstein Bridge, Leeds 09/29/1999 Bernstein Bridge, Leeds 09 /29/1999 Bernstein Bridge, Leeds 09/29/1999 Bernstein Bridge, Leeds 09 /29/1999