DEP_SupersedingAppeal12-17-10 Page 1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, WETLANDS DIVISION
436 DWIGHT STREET, SPRINGFIELD, MA 01103
Date: December 17, 2010
RE: MassDEP File Number: 246-0635
Amended Order of Conditions dated December 10, 2010
A. Subject:
Request for a Superseding Order of Conditions
B. Parties Making Request:
The names and addresses (all in Northampton, MA 01060) of the parties are:
Michael Bardsley, 50 Union Street
Madeline Weaver Blanchette, 41 Valley Street
Winston Close, 192 Williams Street
Joel Dansky, 29 Northern Avenue
Lisa DePiano, 38 Henry Street
Malcolm Everett, 40 Valley Street
Nancy Felton, 29 Northern Avenue
Alison Kriviskey, 23 Ice Pond Drive
Bruce Kriviskey, 23 Ice Pond Drive
Claudia Lefko, 40 Valley Street
Arnold Levinson, 14 Hancock Street
Marilyn Robin (Levinson), 14 Hancock Street
Joel Nisson, 16 Pomeroy Terrace
Jane Potter, 42 Phillips Place
Angela Plassmann, 180 Fair Street Extension
Lola Reid, Williams Street
Julie Robbins, 16 Pomeroy Terrace
Sigrid Schmalzer, 192 Williams Street
Judith Shaffer, 20 Pomeroy Terrace
Anna Strowe, Eastern Avenue
Phillip Sullivan, 96 Island Road
Eugene Tacy, 169 Crescent Street
Maria Tymoczko, 28 Pomeroy Terrace
Fred Zimnoch, 21 Pomeroy Terrace
NOTE: Please address all communications to the parties’ consultants and attorney, as follows:
Page 2
Charles Dauchy William Shaheen P.E.
24 Old Long Plain Road Analytical Engineering, Inc.
Leverett, MA 01054 49 South Street
Phone (413) 548-8005; Granby, MA 01033
email cdauchy@wildblue.net Phone (413) 467-3141
email billshaheen@analytical-engineering.com
Michael Pill, Esq.
Green, Miles, Lipton & Fitz-Gibbon, LLP
77 Pleasant Street, P.O. Box 210
Northampton, MA 01061-0210
Phone (413) 586-8218; FAX (413) 584-6278; email mpill@verizon.net
Home office phone (413) 259-1221
C. Standing under 310 CMR 10.05(7)(a)
The attached list of parties includes the following:
(a) owner(s) of land abutting the land on which the work is to be done; and,
;
(b) more than ten residents of the city in which the subject land is located; and,
(c) in addition to the above grounds, the parties are aggrieved by the action of the
Northampton Conservation Commission which is the subject of this request for a Superseding
Order of Conditions.
D. Applicant:
The applicant is the City of Northampton, 210 Main Street, Northampton, MA 01060
E. Property Location:
Three County Fairgrounds, Fair Street, Northampton, MA 01060
F. Facts upon which request for Superseding Order is based and objections to
Amended Order of Conditions:
The abutters and other Northampton citizens listed herein as appellants are concerned over the
potential negative impacts of the subject project. Their properties in the vicinity of the Williams
Street Brook drain line or near the Fairgrounds currently suffer drainage problems, apparently
due in part to the inadequate capacity and overloading of the drainage system. Our concern is
that the drainage system for the Three County Fairgrounds, as approved by the Conservation
Commission’s Order of Conditions, may exacerbate existing problems. Our participation in the
Conservation Commission’s public hearing process and a preliminary review of the relevant
plans has raised several concerns that are not adequately addressed by the Order or plans,
specifically:
Page 3
1. As to segmentation of the project; Special Condition #43 in the Commission’s Order
makes it clear that “off-site drainage improvements” will be required before the project
can proceed, but there is no explanation as to what those improvements will be. We
believe that this approach amounts to segmentation of the project and makes it impossible
to evaluate the impacts of a single and complete project. It is possible that the currently
approved design of the stormwater management system within the Fairgrounds will limit
the options for the offsite improvements that are so badly needed. Both projects should be
designed and permitted together. Such design and permitting also may need to include
road drainage redesign for the roads around the Three County Fairgrounds.
2. As to potential confusion regarding applicable plans. The Order of Conditions references
both plans dated 11/3/10, and 2/5/10 which show very different stormwater management
systems. One can presume that the more recent plans govern, but that should be clarified.
3. As to the appropriateness, adequacy and maintenance of the proposed subsurface
stormwater storage/detention system planned for construction for the TCF site. The
approved design (11/3/10 version) relies substantially on void space within the stone-
filled trenches, with an optimistic estimate of 40% voids. Although plans provide
measures for partial sediment removal before the stormwater enters the system, there is
no capability to remove whatever sediment does enter the system. Storage capacity can
be expected to diminish over time.
4. Over the interpretation of soils related information and its impact on the design of the
subsurface stormwater infrastructure.
5. As to the predicted peak rate of discharge off the property and potential for excessive
surface water flooding on other properties (including but not limited to the northeastern
corner of the Tymoczko property as well as at the western side of the Tymoczko
property).
6. Regarding the total volumetric quantity of flow of water derived from modeled storm
events and impacts resulting there from.
7. With the adequacy of the hydraulic and hydrological review of the Williams Street Brook
drain line in the context of its documented historical performance; a stormwater
conveyance line which reportedly surcharges to grade frequently and has been linked to
frequent adjacent property flooding.
8. Whether Ms. Tymoczko was indeed an abutter as defined in the 8 April 1994 directive
issued by the Department as a result of Chapter 472 of the Acts of 1993 known as The
Menard Bill.
9. There may not be any comparable site in a flood plain in the United States where such a
storm water design such as the one approved by the Commission is in place, legal, and
operating. This one may be a first in the United States. The applicant should be required
to provide persuasive evidence that this is something that has actually worked elsewhere.
Page 4
The concerns of this appeal include but are not limited to the statements listed above.
In closing, we recognize this project, when properly completed, will be an asset to business
growth in the region and we also realize this floodplain building site is most challenging. The
design team at the Berkshire Design Group, Inc. is to be commended on their efforts; however,
we hope that the appeal process will result in an approved project that will properly protect the
affected residents and which, if implemented will improve the viability, technical soundness and
success of the project at large and for years going forward.
G. Payment of Fee.
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date the $200 filing fee and transmittal form were
sent to the DEP lock box in Boston. A true copy of the check and transmittal form are submitted
herewith.
Respectfully submitted, Parties Making Request by their attorney,
____________________________
Michael Pill, Esq. (BBO#399880)
Green, Miles, Lipton & Fitz-Gibbon, LLP
77 Pleasant Street, P.O. Box 210
Northampton, MA 01061-0210
Phone (413) 586-8218; FAX (413) 584-6278; email mpill@verizon.net
Home office phone (413) 259-1221
Copies:
City of Northampton c/o Elaine Reall, Esq., Northampton City Solicitor (Applicant)*
Edward Etheredge, Esq. (representing property owner)
NorthamptonConservation Commission*
Clients
*Sent via certified U.S. mail with return receipt requested. 310 CMR 10.05(7)(d).
MP/csh/L1.b.976