BEAT's comments
Here are BEAT's comments to Secretary Pritchard on the Environmental Notification Form (pdf) for development at New Marlborough Hill.
December 12, 2005
Secretary Stephen Pritchard
Attn: MEPA Office
Briony Angus, EOEA # 13679
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114
Dear Secretary Stephen Pritchard,
Please accept the following comments from the Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT) regarding the proposed 10-Lot Approval Not Required (ANR) Subdivision and Cluster Housing Development, New Marlborough Hill Road, New Marlborough, MA.
Submission requirements
BEAT would recommend that the Secretary require full-sized (24" x 36") plans with an engineer's stamp on Environmental Notification Forms and Environmental Impact Reports for the submission directly to MEPA. We can understand other parties receiving reduced copies, but if the MEPA process is to adequately review the submission, we believe the submission needs to have sufficient detail (and thus size) to be properly reviewed.
We understand that the ENF includes two projects, the ANR sub-division and the cluster development, however not enough information is presented to consider the cluster development. We feel strongly that the Secretary's Certificate should contain language requiring the proponent, if they decide to proceed with the cluster development, to file a Notice of Project Change with MEPA and to notify all those who were notified for the original ENF as well as all those who commented on the original ENF. Our comment will be primarily restricted to the ANR development, due to a lack of information about the cluster development.
Details to be specified in the Certificate
BEAT would like to see the Secretary's Certificate reiterate that for the nine Lots 2-10:
1. the plans of record are dated May 10, 2005,
2. the confirmed wetlands delineation report is dated May 11, 2005 and is by Valley Environmental Services with DEP field delineation forms included,
3. and the revised site plans dated May 10, 2005 and the sketch for Lots 5 and 6, define the wetland impacts allowed (or not allowed) in the Superseding Order of Conditions for Lots 2-10.
Wetland Impacts
The Superseding Orders of Conditions for these Lots permits NO alteration in any Riverfront Area, NO alteration of any Bordering Vegetated Wetland. and NO work in any Bordering Land Subject to Flooding. No Notice of Intent has been submitted for Lot 1. So to date, no alteration is allowed in any Resource Area.
Lot 1 is nearly all wetlands. The entire area proposed to be altered on Lot 1 is within 300 feet of the brook and river used by rare species. The proposed permanent impacts to Lot 1 include alteration of 2,235 square feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetland, 1,985 square feet of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, and 2,300 square feet of Riverfront Area. BEAT believes the impacts to both wetlands and rare species habitat shown for Lot 1 are unacceptable and would ask that the proponent include the entire lot in the large "Conservation Land" proposed to protect rare species habitat.
Conservation Restriction
BEAT would ask that the proponent be required to place the "Conservation Land" proposed to protect rare species habitat in a legally binding and enforceable Conservation Restriction (CR) requiring the approval of the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. This CR should be held by at least two entities with a history of monitoring and protecting their parcels, the local New Marlborough Land Trust, and a regional land trust such as the Berkshire Natural Resources Council. BEAT strenuously objects to the idea of proponents creating their own "land trust" for this purpose. This is not a true granting of a Conservation Restriction, but a clever way to appear to satisfy environmental concerns while maintaining a grasp on land that should be protected for the benefit of wildlife and all humanity in perpetuity.
The Deed Restriction Sketch Plans shown in Exhibit F of the ENF and dated October 20, 2005 are different from the Revised Deed Restriction Sketch Plans in Exhibit I dated November 10, 2005. BEAT would ask that the Secretary's Certificate specifically reference the Deed Restriction Sketch Plans dated November 10, 2005 for Lots 2-10.
NPDES permit required
Both the cluster development and the ANR portions of this project require NPDES General Permits for Storm Water Discharges From Construction Activities. The permit is required for the ANR because in total the 9 lots will alter more than an acre of land. A NPDES Construction General Permit would then require the proponent to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. A BEAT representative did call the EPA to confirm the need for this permit on December 9, 2005.
Other comments
In the Summary of Project Size and Environmental Impacts, under structures, gross square footage, the proponent lists existing structures as 1,250 square feet, the change as 98,000 square feet, for a total of 98,000 square feet. These figures do not add up. Also, in the summary table, under state permits and approvals, the New Source Approval box should be checked because a permit will be required for the community water supply for the cluster housing development, and a shared septic system will require a permit as well. From BEAT's research a permit for the shared septic system may be difficult to obtain. The state seems to frown upon a small number of owners for such systems.
The impression of our representative listening to the proponent is that the proponent expects to market these large new houses in the middle of the quiet woods to people who will use them as second or third homes. This is the epitome of sprawl. Our representative does not feel that this project is in keeping with the very rural nature of the surrounding area. |
