2012-08-21 CONCOM-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7:50 pm Request for modification to existing plan to remove trees and replant: 9 Tufts Road (201-835, BL 793) Documentation: Norse Environmental Services, Inc. Letter and Photocopy of Site Map Present for the Applicant: Miljana Bovan Ms. Bovan proposed the removal of diseased Hemlock trees around the edge of the lawn and the pool. Ms. Bovan provided a report from Norse Environmental stating that the Hemlock trees are infested with woolly adelgid. Comments from the Commission as follows: Mr. Langseth commented that the proposed number of trees replacing the diseased Hemlock trees (20 native trees) is greater than the number of trees being removed (18 Hemlock trees). Ms. Warren asked about the 6 trees out front that are outside of the 100 foot buffer zone and if Ms. Bovan planned on keeping them. Mr. Kennedy commented that the Hemlock trees were badly infested and some of the tree removal is beyond the limit of work line. Ms. Mullins asked if Ms. Bovan would be digging up the stumps or grinding the existing trees to the ground. Ms. Mullins and Mr. Langseth questioned the type of machinery that would be used. Mr. Langseth stated that a plan needs to be submitted showing the limit of work line. Ms. Mullins suggested that she do a site visit when the work is completed. Motion made and seconded to approve the proposed tree removal and replacement with conditions, administrative review, and limit of work line plan, 7-0 in favor. 8:00 pm 2006 Enforcement Order Compliance Status - Rear of 7 Mass Ave, Mal’s Documentation: Option C Plan August 21, 2012 Present for the Applicant: Bill Dailey, Sloane and Walsh, LLP Mr. Dailey proposed a new plan (Option C), with the purple showing the new area to provide a buffer and the yellow area, which will increase disturbance. The guardrail would be erected 5 feet away from the back boundary and the trench would be behind the guardrail. He stated that the guardrail would be in a better position and farther away from the brook than the 2006 Enforcement Order called for. Comments from the Commission as follows: Mr. Langseth questioned if the proposed plan would be complied with because history shows that no orders have been complied with in the past. Mr. Kennedy stated that out of all three options that were proposed, he did not see any more protection than the Enforcement Order provided. Mr. Kennedy also commented that the Conservation Commission should keep the 2006 Enforcement Order and that Mal’s should comply. Ms. Miller stated that there was no reason for the Conservation Commission to believe that Mal’s would be in compliance with any