The Conservation Commission on Tuesday discussed a glitch in the Charleswood School plans, as an intermittent ditch was discovered north of the site.

“I wish we were before you guys under better circumstances,” said Claire Hoogeboom, a wetlands scientist at LEC Environmental Consultants who has been involved with the school project. She and project team members appeared before the commission, which met in person at the Hopkinton Senior Center, to explain the circumstances.

About three weeks before this meeting, the development team was notified about the presence of an intermittent ditch north of the school’s eventual location at 147 Hayden Rowe Street. The ditch flows to the south and enters a 12-inch concrete pipe beneath the school site. This impacts where the school’s secondary exit is proposed.

Hoogeboom reached out to Joe Orzell, the commission’s wetlands consultant. They visited the site to determine if the intermittent ditch was impacted by the bordering vegetative wetland. While they didn’t find a connection on the surface, she noted that it is protectable under the town’s bylaw regulations as an intermittent stream.

Samiotes Consultants submitted an updated plan that demarcated the buffer zones. Proposed landscaping within the buffer zones will include native plantings. A plan sheet was added to alert the contractor upon its selection that it would need to confirm that it could protect that area during construction.

“We just wanted to bring this to your attention as a sort of new discovery before getting into construction,” said Hoogeboom.

Because of the ditch discovery, the planting plan for abutter mitigations now is in the middle of the intermittent stream’s path. The team asked commission members if their adjustments could be handled administratively with the two abutters.

Member Jim Ciriello questioned if the ditch was at the head of Beaver Brook. Hoogeboom believed that was the case, “depending on what maps you look at.”

“I just find this incredibly troubling,” said member Ed Harrow. “I don’t see this as just a little thing. I see this as a big boo-boo.”

Chair Melissa Recos said she was glad this was discovered now instead of during construction. She proposed amending the notice of intent and order of conditions to make note of the revised plan.

She added that she did not see any issues with what the development team is proposing to do.

Hoogeboom noted that the project is out to bid, which adds a time crunch to the situation. She asked that the work on the abutters’ properties not be included in the school plans, but that a letter be added about the commission being aware of the activity.

This issue will be revisited at the next meeting on April 29.

Hearing for ANRAD off Wood Street continued

The commission continued a hearing on a request for an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD) for property off Wood Street going up to Interstate 495 after receiving new information from a consultant.

Mark Arnold with Goddard Consulting represented the applicant, Ravenwood LLC. He explained that the “major delay” in presenting the plans was “getting detailed topography” of two isolated wetlands on the property.

He noted that he wanted to clarify whether this land could have been classified as an ILSF (Isolated Land Subject to Flooding) under the Wetlands Protection Act.

One parcel connects to the subdivision off Whisper Way, Arnold explained. The area requested for ANRAD designation continues down to the rear of parcels off Valleywood Road.

“These areas are of large extent which needed to be evaluated for ILSF,” he said.

Part of the site was deemed to be an ILSF because the designation “is based on the actual contours, lay of the land and elevation volume, not based on field conditions.” If the valley there flooded, it would hold more than 10,880 cubic feet of water, which is the criteria for ILSF designation.

“There’s no evidence that it does that,” Arnold continued. “It’s a very small watershed in terms of the water that actually collects here.”

The second wetland area Arnold described is “much more confined.” It does not qualify as an ILSF, and it’s not subject to flooding.

“This is a unique situation,” he told the commission. “You probably don’t see a lot of ILSF calculations all the time.”

Arnold requested that the hearing be continued to allow time for Orzell to review the new information. It was unanimously approved.

Trails Club granted exemption

Chuck Dauchy, a Trails Club member and director of the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT) requested an exemption to allow for vegetation clearing on the Colella property, which the town recently acquired. It abuts the Hughes Farm conservation area.

He said the site is “densely overgrown with mostly invasives.” The clearing would be a cooperative effort among HALT, the Trails Club and the Trails Committee.

Harrow added that there eventually will be a trail there that will use the right of way.

The request was unanimously approved.

Tree clearing at State Park discussed

Nicole Keleher, the forest health program director for the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation, appeared before the board to discuss a potential violation regarding tree clearing that occurred recently at Hopkinton State Park.

Conservation Administrator Judy Day explained that DCR previously requested an exemption from the commission for the installation of guard rails at Hopkinton State Park. In late March, she observed several trees there marked with red stripes. She learned that they were slated for removal “because of public safety concerns,” but she had not been previously notified.

Because they are in a wetland area, they fall under the Wetlands Protection Act and require the commission’s approval for removal.

Said Day: “The following day, the trees were removed without that approval being sought.”

Twenty-six trees were removed from the buffer zone, she added. In their place was “a significant amount of wood chips.”

Keleher explained that this was part of a hazard tree removal project along the highway. It was considered a small project and performed by a contractor.

She added that she believed this was “regular maintenance” and does not typically seek a community’s approval because she believed that state agencies were exempt from local approval.

“We do want to be conscious that we’re treating all of our property owners and applicants equally,” said Recos.

Day added that the removal was in land covered under the Wetlands Protection Act, “which the commission is here to enforce.”

Recos said she wanted to ensure there is a “partnership” moving forward so that the town is kept aware of any work.