Loading...
16A-001 544 Spring St wetlands enforcementCity of Northampton, Massachusetts Office of Planning and Development City Hall, 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 587 -1266 (413) 587 -1264 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Feiden FROM: Gloria McPherson REGARDS: 544 Spring Street DA TE: November 8, 2004 April Gougeon contacted me and asked me to look at her property before she started construction on an accessory apartment because she knew there were wetlands and an intermittent stream near her property from when a neighbor had work done. On April 5, 2004, I visited 544 Spring Street to look at the proposed building site for a detached accessory apartment. There was an existing house, a circular driveway and a large, paved parking area with a dog kennel adjacent to it. The parking area was located near the top of a slope and surrounded by woods. I walked through the forest and down the hill. At the bottom was some wetland vegetation, and further into the woods was a small stream. I paced it out and estimated the wetland to begin approximately 85 feet away from the edge of the pavement. I met with April Gougeon and asked her if she had staked out the corners of the proposed structure. She said no, that the entire structure would be built on the parking area. I asked if it would extend to where the dog kennel was, and she said no. I asked April if there were going to be any trees or vegetation removed. She said no. This is a standard question that I ask everyone who asks me about building a new structure, since the removal of existing vegetation is what would most likely lead to erosion. In this case, it was especially important because of the topography of the site, with the location of the proposed construction activity being uphill of the wetland. The question of tree clearing is often the "litmus test," determining what level of review by the Conservation Commission is required. For a project that is entirely on pavement, that is at the outer edge of the 100' buffer zone to a wetland, and that requires no alteration or removal of existing vegetation, I make a judgment call whether to make a person go through the permit process with an RDA, which is most likely going to get a rubber stamp of approval from the Commission. Given the situation with April's father and his deteriorating health, I told them that they were set to go with their project, that an RDA would not be required. The next time I visited the site was on July 29, 2004, with Carolyn Misch, after learning that there was a potential wetland violation. Carolyn and I found that a significant amount of tree • clearing had taken place, including down the slope, to within 25 feet of the wetland. This was certainly well beyond the scope of the project that was presented to me on site on April 5. When Carolyn and I returned to the office, I looked at the assessor's map for the property and noticed that the adjacent parcel was in the watershed protection district, meaning that the stream might actually be perennial, and the violation was therefore not just within the Buffer Zone, but also Riverfront Area. I discussed the violation over the phone with Mason Maronn, Chair of the Conservation Commission. At this point, because work was performed so close to the wetland, and there was now a greater chance of erosion into the wetland, Mason and I felt that a Notice of Intent would be required to construct the apartment, and that mitigation or restoration for the unauthorized work within the Buffer Zone could be done at the same time, within the context of the NOI. This decision was made in order to expedite the process for the Gougeons. Typically, when there has been a violation, a restoration plan must be submitted to the Commission for their approval, and work must be completed and the site returned to its original condition before any permits for additional work are issued. Mason and I decided to issue an Enforcement Order, but no fine, asking the Gougeons to come to the next scheduled Commission meeting on August 12 so the Commission could give them guidance on going through the permit process, since the E.O. specified that they should file a Notice of Intent (a copy was attached to their E.O.) by September 23. April called me after receiving the Enforcement Order, and was very upset. I explained to her over the phone that the Commission was not angry and felt that the violation was something that could be dealt with at the same time they got a permit to build the new structure. April did not understand why the Commission issued an E.O. in the first place, and put her husband on the phone. I explained to Robert that tree clearing was not part of the original project, and that clearing trees so close to a wetland required a permit from the Commission. He seemed to understand that the tree clearing needed a permit and that the Commission wanted to work with them to restore the site and get the new house built. At the meeting on August 12, the first thing the Commission advised the Gougeons to do was to hire a wetland consultant to flag the wetlands and determine whether the stream was intermittent or perennial, and then to file a Notice of Intent for all work they wanted to do, including a plan for replanting the slope. Mason explained that even if the stream is perennial, they could build a house within Riverfront Area as long as the disturbance was under 10% of the total Riverfront Area on the lot. At the Commission's September 9 meeting, Alec MacLeod, an environmental consultant who looked at the Gougeon's wetlands and determined that the stream is indeed perennial, asked the Commission on behalf of the Gougeons if they could start building the house without a permit. The Commission said no. The Gougeons have not filed a permit application with the Commission as of this date. Mass ac h us ett-Separtme nt of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP file Number: WPA Form 9A — Enforcement Order Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP A. Violation Information Important: When filling out This Enforcement Order is issued by forms on the Northampton Conservation Commission August 2, 2004 computer, use only the tab key to move To your cursor - do not use the Conservation Commission (Issuing Authority) Robert and April Gougeon Date return key. Name of Violator 544 Spring Street � 1. Address Location of Violation: Property Owner (if different) 544 Spring Street Street Address Leeds 01053 City/Town 16A Zip Code 1 2. Assessors Map /Plat Number Extent and Type of Activity: Clearing trees within Riverfront Area and the buffer Parcel /Lot Number zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. B. 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. ❑ the activity has been /is being conducted in violation of the Order of Conditions issued to: Dated File Number Condition number(s) w aform9a. aoc • rev. 12115/00 Page 1 of 3 Massachusetts9epartment of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 9A — Enforcement Order Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings (cont.) ® Other (specify): On April 5, 2004, Conservation Commission Agent Gloria McPherson did a site visit to 544 Spring Street to discuss the owner's plans to build an accessory apartment. The work was to be on an existing gravel driveway at the top of a wooded slope. At the bottom of the slope, approximately 85 -100 feet away, was a bordering vegetated wetland and a small stream. No work, including the removal of trees, was proposed at that time to extend beyond the existing disturbed area. C. 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. ❑ Wetland alterations resulting from said activity should 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 Seotember 23. 2004 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. ® The property owner shall take the following action to prevent further violations of the Act: Please report to the Conservation Commission at the August 12 meeting, 5:30 p.m., to discuss the violation and receive guidance on completing a permit application (enclosed). Failure to comply with this Order may constitute grounds for additional legal action. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40 provides: "Whoever violates any provision of this section (a) 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, such fine and imprisonment; or (b) shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed twenty -five thousand dollars for each violation'. Each day or portion thereof of continuing violation shall constitute a separate offense. wpaform9a doc - rev. 12/15/00 Page 2 d 3 ( Massachusetts9epartment of Environmental Protection 1 Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 9A — Enforcement Order Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP D. 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: Gloria McPherson, Conservation and Land Use Planner Name 587 -1263 Phone Number 8:30 am — 3:30 pm / Mondav - Thursdav Hours /Days Available Issued by: Northampton Conservation Commission Conservation Commission In a situation regarding immediate action, an Enforcement Order may be signed by a single member or agent of the Commission and ratified by majority of the members at the next scheduled meeting of the Commission. Signatures: 7003 0500 0005 2475 5623 Signature of delivery person or certified mail number wpaform9a.doe-rev 12/15M Page 3 of 3 0 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON City FIaQ - 21 o Main Street, Room 11 • No tbampton, MA of o60 -3 198 - (413) 587 -1266 • Fax 587 -1264 Wayne Feiden Director - planning @nortyamptonptanning.org - www.nortbamptonplanning.org Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting August 12, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, August 12, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Mason Maronn, Matt Nowak, Susan Carbin and Wendy Sweetser Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson At 5:30 p.m., Maronn noted a quorum and opened the meeting. Gougeon Enforcement Order McPherson read to the Commission from an enforcement Order to Robert and April Gougeon for clearing trees within the Riverfront Area and buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. No fine was issued. Carbin moved to ratify the Gougeon EO- Sweetser seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Robert and April Gougeon described to the Commission the site and the area where trees were cleared. Maronn described the process of an RDA and an NOI. He talked about the Riverfront standards and perennial and intermittent streams. McPherson said the adjacent property with the stream is part of the Watershed Protection Overlay Zone, which covers perennial streams in the City. April Gougeon said that some years ago, her neighbor did some work and she said the stream was intermittent. Sweetser recommended they hire a wetlands specialist to look at and flag the wetlands on site so the Commission has something on paper to look at. Robert Gougeon asked what their chances were of actually building a house if it is in the Riverfront. ptanning board conservation commission zoning board of appeals 1/ousing part nersl/ip redeve top men tautyority nortbamp ton Gls economic deve top men t community development historicdistrictcommission ljistoricatcommission centralb Hsi ness are bitecturl originaiprinredon recgded paper 0 Maronn said that they can alter up to 10% of the Riverfront Area for house, yard, and driveway. McPherson commented that the regulations do not have the single- family house exemption for new lots created after August, 1997, so it would be important to see if the house site was in the outer riparian zone. The Graham Appeal The Commission discussed the written request from DEP regarding Joyce Miller's appeal of the Superceding Order on the Graham's project on Riverside Drive. The Commission asked McPherson to write a letter to DEP stating that the project was not considered under the local ordinance. The Commission looked first at the Riverfront Standards and determined that the project did not meet them. The Commission did not at that point go on to review the project under the local ordinance. There was a discussion of NCC acronym used by DEP to refer to the Commission. There was general agreement that it was cool and that the Commission should start referring to itself as the NCC. Trail Clearing at the Plantations At 6:25 p.m., Adele Popielarczyk spoke to the NCC about Parson's Brook Conservation Area at the Plantations. She reported that the developer has just recently put in plantings on each side of the public access trails. She would like to start clearing some small brush to make the trails accessible, but she said there is a big pile of dirt that would have to be removed by the contractor. Maronn stated that Dave Lepine, the developer, said he was going to go in with some small machinery to clear the trails. The NCC was in favor of Adele doing some trail work. The NCC gave permission to remove some small trees in the middle of the public access and brush and branches along the trail, adding that she should leave the removed vegetation for animals to use. The NCC thanked Adele for coming in and being willing to start the trail clearing. Minutes Sweetser moved to accept the minutes with amendments as discussed. Carbin seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Wetlands Ordinance Revisions The NCC unanimously decided to table discussion of the local ordinance and schedule a work session instead. The date of the work session will be decided at the next meeting on Sept 9. 2 0 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON City Haff • 2i o Main street, Room it . No tbampton� MA of o6o -3i 98 • (¢13) 587 -1266 • Fax 587 -1264 Wav ne Feiden, Director - planning @nortbamptonplanning.org - www.nortbamptonplanning.org Northampton Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting September 9, 2004 The Northampton Conservation Commission held a meeting on Thursday, September 9, 2004, at 5:30 P.M., in Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts. Present were Members: Paul Wetzel, Mason Maronn, John Body, Reuven Goldstein and Matt Nowak Staff: Conservation and Land Use Planner, Gloria McPherson and Planning Director, Wayne Feiden At 5:30 p.m. Maronn noted a quorum and opened the meeting Councilor Marianne Labarge spoke to the Commission of a recent violation at Dunphy Drive extension. McPherson described the release of a large volume of water from a detention basin through a wetland and stated that there was an enforcement order and a $100 fine that was issued. Wally Herzog, Westhampton Road, stated that he called the police on the evening of August 24 when he saw the water come down the street. He thought a water main had broken. He stated that after the water ran off, there was a lot of silt and stones left that he had to clean off the road. Councilor Labarge stated that there have been constant complaints about the development for the past year. She felt that a $100 fine was just a slap on the wrist. Body felt that since new development in the city is on marginal land, there are going to be more and more problems. He stated that every site he has visited recently has had silt fence problems. He was not sure that increasing the fines would actually solve the problem. Goldstein stated that any change to the ordinance to increase the amount of wetland violation fines should consider the size of the project, which should dictate the fee. planning board conservation commission zoning board of appeals housing partners (lip - redeve top men tautyoritg northamptonGIS economic development communitgdevelopment - historicdistrictcommission historicalcommission - centralbusinessarchitecture original prinmdon m y'LA paper 0 Maronn stated that he thought the extent of wetlands was far beyond what is shown on the map. Nowak concurred and added that he walked the site and didn't think they were out of wetlands until the rear of the lot. Maronn added that the Commission and DEP does not like to see the destruction of wetlands for lawn. Dauchy stated that no one likes to see that, but this is a special case, since they paid market value for a building lot. Maronn asked if Dauchy has seen the NCC's Policy on Work within the Buffer Zone. He did not think that this project could meet local performance standards. Maronn stated that he personally would have a hard time permitting a house being constructed in a wetland. Nowak said that it is unlikely that they would get a permit. Perhaps there is some clever solution that would fit on this site, but he doesn't see that it is likely. Mary -Ellen Dachos stated that the Commission, in 1994 gave Prime -Lo Development an Order of Conditions for this lot, so they bought an approved building lot. Maronn stated that since 1994, the wetlands regulations have only gotten stricter, and in this case, the wetlands on the site have expanded. Body stated that an Order of Conditions is only good for 3 years. Maronn added that an approved delineation is also only good for 3 years. Mary -Ellen Dachos asked the NCC if they would consider giving a permit for a house on this lot. Maronn stated that the location of the house is not likely to get approved. He cannot say if there is another place on sight where a house might fit since there is no accurate delineation. Dauchy stated that they probably will not be able to meet the buffer zone policy of the Commission. 8:40 Discussion with Alec MacLeod regarding the Gougeon property on Spring Street MacLeod stated that he looked at the Gougeon's property post- Enforcement Order. He explained the situation of April Gougeon's father who is very sick with heart trouble and that they need to construct a house for him on their property as soon as possible since he 0 is living in a second floor apartment that strains his heart. They would like to do anything they can to make the situation work. Clearly restoration work can happen under an Enforcement Order, but he is wondering if there is any way that the Commission can see to move this forward to let the house construction occur simultaneously with the restoration. There was a long discussion of the many alternatives for the father's living arrangements that would not involve changing the wetlands regulations. For example, an attached inlaw apartment would be outside the Riverfront and wetland buffer and would not require a permit from the Commission. Body asked the Commission if the Friends of Mineral Hills could put up a kiosk like at Fitzgerald Lake at the entrance to the Conservation Area, put some boards to cross 2 wetlands, and extend an old logging road to make a loop trail. Maronn asked if there was parking. Body said there was room on the grass for 3 or 4 cars. Body added that while the Commission voted to name the trail the Armand and Rosal LaPalme Trail, they would prefer the trail have Algonquin names since this is historically Algonquin land. The Commission agreed to all of the above. Minutes Commission decided to table minutes until the next meeting. Nowak moved, Goldstein seconded, and the Commission decided unanimously to continue the Hoye RDA until 9/23 at 8:00 pm. At 9:25, Body moved to close the meeting. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Gloria McPherson 0 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Citp Hall • 21 o Main Street, Room 1 i • Northampton, MA of o60 -3 198 • (4 1 3) 587-1266 • Fax: 587 - 1 264 wa,Vne Feiden, Director • planning @nortbamptonplanning.org • www.nortbamptonplanning.org November 15, 2004 April Gougeon 544 Spring Street Leeds, MA 01053 Joan Archambault ' 1 135 North Main Street - Florence, MA 01062 Dear Ms. Gougeon and Ms. Archambault: Thank you for speaking with me about your experiences taking your 544 -550 Spring Street property through the permit process. After I spoke with you I also reviewed our files and meet with our staff. It is clear that you do need a wetlands permit from the Conservation Commission to build your house and to restore the hillside. The Chair of the Conservation Commission, however, has indicated that it Ishould be eas /you, working with your consultant, to come up with a project that they can approve. 0 I apologize for any bad communication on our part. As I understand it, staff felt that building a garage with an accessory apartment on existing pavement would require Zoning Board approval but not Conservation Commission approval. They felt that any tree clearance or construction off the asphalt would require Conservation Commission approval. Again, I apologize if this was not made clear to you. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If you decide to pursue your project, my office would be happy to assist you through the process. Sincerely, Wayne Feiden, AICP Director of Planning and Development planning board • conservation commission • zoning board of appeals • hotising partnership • redevelopmentawboritv� • northampton GIS economic development - community,development • bistoric district commission - b istoricalcommission- centralbusinessarcbitecture originalprintedon remledpaper i Cc: Gloria McPherson, Land Use and Conservation Planner Carolyn Misch, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner /Permits Manager Tony Patillo, Building Commissioner Contact information: Joan Archambault- -584 -6129 April Gougeon - -584 -2801 544 Spring Street Gougeon 2004 November 15.doc --- wfeidenMarch 29, 2005 -- -Page 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 9A — Enforcement Order Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP A. Violation Information Important: When filling out This Enforcement Order is issued by: forms on the Northampton Conservation Commission August 2, 2004 computer use Use Conservation Commission (Issuing Authority) Date only the ta key to move To: your cursor - do not use the Robert and April Gougeon return key. _ Name of Violator 544 Spring Street tb Address return 1. Location of Violation: Property Owner (if different) 544 Spring Street Street Address Leeds 01053 City/Town Zip Code 16A 1 Assessors Map /Plat Number Parcel /Lot Number 2. Extent and Type of Activity: Clearing trees within Riverfront Area and the buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. B. 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. ❑ the activity has been /is being conducted in violation of the Order of Conditions issued to: Name Dated File Number Condition number(s) wpaform9a.doc • rev. 12/15/00 Page 1 of 3 =i Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 9A — Enforcement Order Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings (cont.) ® Other (specify): On April 5, 2004, Conservation Commission Agent Gloria McPherson did a site visit to 544 Spring Street to discuss the owner's plans to build an accessory apartment. The work was to be on an existing gravel driveway at the top of a wooded slope. At the bottom of the slope, approximately 85 -100 feet away, was a bordering vegetated wetland and a small stream. No work, including the removal of trees, was proposed at that time to extend beyond the existing disturbed area. C. 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. ❑ Wetland alterations resulting from said activity should 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 ber 23, 2004 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. ® The property owner shall take the following action to prevent further violations of the Act: Please report to the Conservation Commission at the August 12 meeting, 5:30 p.m., to discuss the violation and receive guidance on completing a permit application (enclosed). Failure to comply with this Order may constitute grounds for additional legal action. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40 provides: "Whoever violates any provision of this section (a) 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, such fine and imprisonment; or (b) shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed twenty -five thousand dollars for each violation ". Each day or portion thereof of continuing violation shall constitute a separate offense. wpaform9a.doc • rev. 12115/00 Page 2 of 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 9A — Enforcement Order Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP D. 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: Gloria McPherson, Conservation and Land Use Planner Name 587 -1263 Phone Number 8:30 am — 3:30 pm / Mondav - Thursday Hours /Days Available Issued by: Northampton Conservation Commission Conservation Commission In a situation regarding immediate action, an Enforcement Order may be signed by a single member or agent of the Commission and ratified by majority of the members at the next scheduled meeting of the Commission. Signatures: 7003 0500 0005 2475 5623 Signature of delivery person or certified mail number wpaform9a.doc • rev 12/15/00 Page 3 of 3 • PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF NORTHAMPTON City Hall • 2 z o Main Street, Room z z - Northampton, MA o z o60 -3 z 98 - 14z 3) 5 • Fax: 587-1-264 Wapne Feiden, Director • planning@ nortbamptonp[anning.org • www.northamptonplanning.org MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Feiden FROM: Carolyn Misch ,01- RE: 544/550 Spring treet DATE: November 8, 2004 The initial interaction that I had with property owners /applicants regarding 544 Spring Street was through the Zoning Permit Application Review process. On March 25, 2004 during my weekly zoning permit review session with Tony Patillo, we reviewed a request for a detached garage with accessory apartment at 544 Spring Street. Two main issues were raised during that review. One of them dealt with conservation commission permits and the other with the zoning ordinance requirements. The apartment shown on the application was greater than 900 square feet and therefore could not qualify as an accessory apartment. Typically when this happens, the Building Department notifies the applicant(s) so they can determine how they want to proceed. The options are to either amend the original submission to show a project that meets the zoning requirements or discuss with me other potential options for the site. The applicant was notified that the apartment would have to be downsized and that it would require approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals since it would be located in a detached structure. Additionally, the applicant was notified about the proximity to riverfront area and /or wetlands and was directed to Gloria McPherson to discuss the project and review the site in more detail. As is standard, I notified Gloria that she may be getting a call from a person on Spring Street who was interested in building a detached accessory apartment. I believe I also noted to Gloria the zoning required a ZBA hearing and the apartment could not exceed 900 square feet. After Gloria conducted her site visit, she briefly told me that the proposal would not require a filing because no clearing would be done and everything would be located on existing pavement. I asked if she had had any discussions with April Gougeon about the size of the apartment or the ZBA requirements. Gloria indicated that she did not and she wasn't sure if April new about them. To avert misunderstandings about the zoning requirements, I left a message 1. with April to make sure she understood that the original plans as presented had zoning issues that would need to be addressed. Some time after this I spoke with Joan Archambault about the project. We discussed alternatives to the 900 square foot limit for accessory structures. I indicated that an alternative would be to create a separate building lot since the size and frontage of their lot could accommodate a subdivision of the lot. I had several sit down meetings and phone conversations with Ms. Archambault about the steps necessary to survey, submit, and record a new lot and then file a building permit for construction of a house. I also explained that under this scenario a common driveway permit from the Planning Board would be necessary and gave her the standards. We discussed the most expedient route to construction because it was clear that she wanted to move quickly due to the health of her friend who would be moving with her and her interest in living close to her daughter. On July 21, 2004 an ANR plan was submitted creating a new lot as I had discussed with Ms. Archambault. After this was signed we discussed the next steps toward construction and that is the time in which she verified that the existing driveway could easily qualify to meet the common planning board - conservation commission - zoning boardof appeals • housing partnership • redevelopmentauthoritp • northampton GIS economic development . comm"nitpdevelopment • historic district commission • historical commission • centralbw6na.c.carAitartf— o rig inaIprinteaon recgciedpaper driveway standard, as constructed. We further discussed an expedited building permit process, after conferring with Tony. Tony and I agreed in fact that we would facilitate this process for Ms. Archambault by allowing her to file for a new curb cut (that we knew would not be constructed) solely for the purposes of obtaining a building permit. This would allow construction to move forward simultaneously with a common driveway permit application to the Planning Board and thus not delay them. This is about the time that Ms. Archambault indicated that they were beginning the tree clearing for the house and finalizing documents for the building permit. Immediately, I asked her to show me where on the plans that tree clearing was occurring and indicated that I thought that tree clearing would require approval from the Conservation Commission and that she should speak with Gloria. She assured me that her daughter, April, had said that everything had been approved through Gloria. I told her that I was fairly certain that Gloria had only approved construction on existing pavement and that there had been no approval of tree clearing. I then told her not to clear any more trees until a site inspection could be done to verify that all the work was in fact being done within the "limits" that Gloria had approved. She agreed and we established a date that Gloria and I would conduct a site visit. Within a few days of this meeting, Gloria and I conducted our site visit and found that substantial tree clearing had occurred down to the bottom of a slope /edge of wetland. The stream corridor was evident from the edge of clearing. Gloria and I then discussed the violation and possible ways of how the situation could be remedied while allowing for the house construction that was desired. At this point, I left the enforcement action to Gloria. On August 5, 2004 Tony and I reviewed a zoning permit application submitted by Joan Archambault for a single family house on the newly created lot with the "substitute" curb cut. It was denied for lack of conservation commission permits. Ms. Archambault was notified that she would first need to obtain the necessary permits from the Commission. This is the last review/ interaction that I had regarding this site and applicant.