Loading...
32A_241S 115 Bridge Street ConservationEQV E Maria Tymoczko r �'n _ 1 '1 nnnC Pomeroy Terrace orth mpton, MA OI060 LDEPT OF PLANNING 413-586-3908 RAPTON, MA 01060 FAX 413-584-5495 tymoczko@complit.umass.edu October 8, 2005 Mr. Wayne Feiden, City Planner Planning Department City of Northampton Conservation Commission c/o Planning Department City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Members of the Conservation Commission and Mr. Feiden: I am writing in response to a Notice of Intent related to altering lands at 115 Bridge Street near an area protected under the Wetlands Protection Act and the Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance (see copy of notice enclosed). Because of professional obligations, 1 may not be able to be present at the Public Hearing related to this Notice, and so 1 am writing to indicate my opposition to these proposals and to file a formal com- plaint, as well as to present evidence about improper activities on that property within the last year. First the complaint. Shortly after the Horton family took occupancy of 115 Bridge Street, they con- structed a pond (as 1 understand it, without obtaining proper permits or holding hearings) within 100 feet of a Wetlands Protection Area. It is my understanding also that they constructed this pond in part by breaking into the structure of a City of Northampton catch -basin on their property associated with a City storm -sewer system that passes through their land and connects with the storm sewer that runs along the east side of the properties on Bridge Street and Pomeroy Terrace (the old Williams Street brook line). 1 believe that this pond has significantly changed hydrology in the area and has impacted adversely on my own property to a considerable extent. The flood plain land slopes toward my property from 115 Bridge Street. Since the Hortons constructed their pond, my own yard has been much wetter, and there has been much more run-off from the direction of the Horton property into my yard, particularly after storms. I believe that the pond has affected the water table (raising it) and has changed the water storage capacity of the land on the hill (by keeping more of the land saturated with water). The consequence is that my property, which is lower than the level of the back property at 115 Bridge Street, has been adversely impacted in tangible 'ways. I have lived at 28 Pomeroy Terrace since 1971, and during those 34 years I have always had a garden on my lower lot in the summer in which I raise the vegetables that 1 eat all summer (and store for much of the year). This lower garden area is at least 60 years old (having been established by the original owners of this house, built in 1886) and is very well established and fertile; it was consistently productive during the last 45 years, no matter how wet the summer, until the Hortons built their pond. After the pond was built, 1 had to abandon the garden area, because the area remained waterlogged during the growing season for three years running leading to failed crops. I believe that the pond and movement of land at 115 Bridge have contributed substan- tially to my inability to use my well -established garden area. This, thus, represents a serious and damaging loss to the use and value of my property. There are a number of other concerns I have related to this pond. If it has indeed been constructed in part using storm -sewer water as a source, then the water that is now at ground level is potentially con- taminated and polluted by run-off with petroleum products from streets and parking lots that come from the sewer water. I am trying to grow my food organically and it compromises my ability to enjoy my own property as I wish if the Horton's water is sheeting toward my land, possibly bringing with it contaminants. 1 am also concerned that this new pond, not being natural, may be sufficiently stagnant to be a breeding ground for mosquitos, thus putting the neighborhood at additional risk for West Nile virus. 1 should note as well that the property of my neighbors at 40 Pomeroy Terrace has been even more adversely affected by the changed hydrology of our neighborhood. At that location a series of short tenancies make a historical understanding of the situation impossible, but 1 can testify that there is almost always standing water in their yard after a storm now, where this was not consistently the case for the first 30 years I lived here. I know that property somewhat because I used to have a very ade- quate and dry garden there with the permission of the Molitoris family who were the owners in the 1970s and 1980s. Second, I would like to offer testimony about improper activities at 115 Bridge Street. Last fall 1 was walking one Sunday afternoon in the meadow between my house and the Jasinski farm, and 1 (and a friend who can also testify) saw small bulldozers moving dirt and dump trucks delivering dirt and stones for lining the edge of the pond to the back property of 115 Bridge Street. I called Mr. Feiden at home that day to report the situation and the next day also called the Planning Office at Mr. Feiden's request, providing the name of the construction company doing the work to the Planning Department staff. On two separate occasions 1 have also brought a verbal complaint about the construction of the pond to the Planning Department staff that work with the Conservation Commission, requesting an investigation, which it is my assumption that they have initiated. With respect to the current request to alter lands at 115 Bridge Street, 1 am writing to say that 1 strongly oppose any changes in the land except for those aimed at restoration of conditions before the Hortons took possession of the property. I believe that any movement or alteration of land at 115 Bridge Street will further increase the water levels in my back yard and thus further adversely impact on my property. New fill always holds less water than well settled land; adding or moving dirt will further compromise water storage capacity. Finally, 1 would like to make a formal request that the owners of the 115 Bridge Street property be required to dismantle their pond, to restore the catch basin, to remove all fill they have added to the property, and to be ordered to cease and desist all other movements of earth and fill on their property. Moreover, associated with improperly moving earth, importing fill, and building the pond, the land in the back lot of 115 Bridge Street in the buffer zone to the wetland has been completely stripped of the shrubs and other plants that contributed to its water carrying capacity. I request that they be asked to restore the vegetation that is part of the wetland storage system to a condition equivalent to that antedating their unlicensed construction projects. 1 would like to make the request that this letter be read into the proceedings of your hearings on this Notice of Intent and that it be considered in your judgment about the case. Thank you for this opportunity to address you. If there are further steps to take regarding my complaints and requests, I would appreciate being informed of what 1 should do. Sincerely yours, Maria Tymoczko cc: Board of Health, Department of Public Works Apr 27 06 02:13p Maria Tymoczko 413 584 5495 P.1 Maria Tymoczko 28 Pomeroy Terrace Northampton, MA 01060 413-586-3908 FAX 413-584-5495 tymoczko@complit. amass. edu April 27, 2006 Conservation Commission City of Northampton Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Conservation Commissioners: I am sorry not to be able to be present at the meeting this evening, but I am engaged in Boston tonight, there has been a death in the family and the funeral is tomorrow. Nonetheless I would like to address the issue of the Hortons' notice of intent with regard to construction plans, excavation, and so forth at 115 Bridge Street. You have a longer communication in your file from me detailing some of the effects of the unauthorized constructions at the Horton property and this letter is intended to be an addendum to my previous communication. I am writing to oppose any further licensing of changes on the Horton property until the remediation of conditions that are already problematic is completed. The hydrology of my property has changed considerably since the Hortons moved into the neighborhood. You will see if you do a site visit that my property is still waterlogged, despite the fact that this has been a very dry spring. This sort of thing did not happen until the Hortons began the changes to their property. During the winter thaw three months ago it was clear that surface water is sheeting down from the Hortons' property, forming a sort of stream that passes directly through my old garden and terminates in my neighbors' back yard. There should be some way to ameliorate this situation that they have aggravated by changes the Hortons have made in their back yard. Again I would request that they be instructed to remove their raised beds and to dis- mantle their pond. I would ask the Commission to carefully supervise any removal of soil for compensatory storage so that the removal does not direct further runoff in the direction of my property: I am hoping that the compensatory storage is such that the water is likely to sink into the land on their property rather than run toward this end of Pomeroy Terrace. That is, I hope that the solution decided upon will have a lasting positive effect on the hydrological problems rather than leave problems as they are or even exacerbate them. The negative effects continue here. It is already clear that again this summer I will not be able to use the garden that I used for 30 years before the Hortons moved in. Any speed in the remediation process that you can urge will be gratefully received. It is now almost a year since an enforcement order was issued to them, a year in which my property has continued to be adversely impacted, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Maria yT moczko