Response to DEP Comments WE 246-0763.pdf
An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/V/H
May 18, 2022
File No. 15.0166938.00
Northampton Conservation Commission
City Hall
210 Main Street, Room 11
Northampton, MA 01060
Re: DEP File 246-0763, Response to MassDEP Comments
Proposed Ancillary Structure Project
372 North Farms Road
Northampton, MA
Dear Northampton Conservation Commission,
On behalf of Laura Minsky and Brahm Wilson, we offer the following responses to comments dated
May 13, 2022 and provided by MassDEP, Western Regional Office. We have annotated responses to
MassDEP comments below in blue text for the Commission’s consideration.
MassDEP Comments and GZA Responses
[1] The property owner information provided in the WPA Form 3 does not match the
information listed in MassMapper and it is not signed. The Commissions should ensure that the
correct property owner has signed the WPA Form 3.
Response to #1:
GZA acknowledges the reviewer’s comment, the owner information shown on MassMapper does not
match the WPA Form 3. We have interpreted that the MassMapper information has not been updated
recently. The Northampton Assessor GIS map however does show the current owners of lot’s 07-015-
001 and 07-050-001 as Laura Minsky and Brahm Wilson. GZA also acknowledges that the WPA Form
3 provided as part of the Project Narrative attachment to the DEP was inadvertently not signed prior
to submission. The NOI was submitted via the eDEP portal and was therefore e-signed. A hand signed
signature page was inserted into the City of Northampton Conservation Commission’s printed copy
of the NOI submission.
[2] Insufficient detail is provided on the location and impacts associated with the proposed
septic system replacement. All proposed work within jurisdictional areas should be shown on the
project drawings.
Response to #2:
GZA acknowledges the reviewer’s comments. A septic design plan is currently in development and
will be provided to the Commission prior to closing the hearing or as part of the Orders of
May 18, 2022
File No. 15.0166938.00
Response to DEP Comments WE# 246-0763
Page | 2
Proactive by Design
Conditions. The preliminary siting location is within or immediately adjacent to the western edge of the paved driveway
that is proposed to be removed as part of this project.
[3] The Applicant does not specify the species of proposed plantings and the types of seed mixes.
Response to #3:
A table of proposed plantings was included as an inset on the Site Plan along with a shrub planting detail (see below). The
plantings proposed are suggestions to the Commission of native species that are suitable for the proposed location of
Riverfront Area enhancement. No seed mixes were proposed within the enhancement area.
PLANTING TABLE
Botanical Name Common Name Size/Type Number
SHRUB SPECIES
VACCINIUM CORYMBOSUM HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY 2-3' / CONTAINER 3
SPIREA LATIFOLIA MEADOWSWEET 2-3' / CONTAINER 3
VIBURNUM LENTAGO NANNYBERRY 2-3' / CONTAINER 3
CLETHRA ALNIFOLIA SWEET PEPPERBUSH 2-3' / CONTAINER 3
ILEX VERTICILLATA WINTERBERRY HOLLY 2-3' / CONTAINER 3
[4] The Commission should determine if erosion prevention and sedimentation controls (e/s controls) have been
proposed in appropriate locations.
Response to #4:
GZA acknowledges the reviewer’s comments.
[5] The Applicant should provide justification as to why the proposed building is not located closer to North Farms
Road and towards the outer boundary of the Riverfront Area.
Response to #5:
The Applicant considered several preferred locations prior to the proposed location. The proposed location represented
the least impact to Riverfront Area and allowed for the greatest reduction of impervious surfaces on the Site. The
primary reason for the chosen location is related to the physical constraints (i.e., topography) of the Site. The property
slopes down gradient from north to south causing winter sheet flow of water toward the existing house. The architect
and applicant were concerned about adding roof drainage into this area and causing damage to the house’s foundation
or basement. The proposed location requires less grading (earth disturbance). Other considerations for the location
include the front lot set back, proximity to abutters, and maintaining the rural character of the road by not adding
another structure along the frontage.
May 18, 2022
File No. 15.0166938.00
Response to DEP Comments WE# 246-0763
Page | 3
Proactive by Design
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the project elements and jurisdictional activities. We trust that our responses
adequately address the MassDEP questions and comments. We look forward to working with the Commission and
discussing the project further as you review the NOI application.
Sincerely,
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Joseph Rogers, PWS, CESSWI Daniel M. Nitzsche, CPESC, CESSWI, SE
Project Manager Senior Consultant
Cc: MassDEP-WERO