2000-08-08-CONCOM-min.pdf - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 8/8/00 PAGE 5 of organic substrate. The WPA identifies that an intermittent stream may have those ponding conditions with no flow inbetween. The Commission should make their own judgement on their future walk. Ms. Hegemann pointed out the low point on the map near A-4 Dr. Sanford said that information/affidavit by M. Verrell was supplied to the Commission on an observation taken on June 14, 1999, when he found there was no flow in the stream. There was no flow downstream at the culvert at Woburn Street at a time of no extreme drought. There was discussion between the Commission,the applicants and Mr.Newman regarding the status of the stream on various maps which can be used as one of the indicators to establish the status of a stream -whether perennial or intermittent. These maps include the USGS Map (older and revised), the 1997 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Map, and the 1998 DEP Priority Resources Map. Copies of the various maps are in the file. Regarding the proximity of the replication area to that dwelling, the applicant is willing to put stone bounds or fence or vegetative border as the Commission pleases. Ms. Baci commented that since the hearing was open over a year ago, it has taken a long time to show the video. Ms. Etsell said the Town's consultant's report said the stream was intermittent, and the plans were revised. There was no specific reason for the timing. It was noted that the wetlands line has not been approved for this project. The flagging was done in the late spring/summer of 1999 Ms. Hegemann revised a small area originally flagged. Lisa questioned that the video was taken in 1998, and the flagging appears to have been done in spring/summer of 1999 The video was taken on Sept. 2, 1998. Ms. Baci wants to see the flag numbers on the map that correspond to the video. She wants to know where and when. Dr. Sanford explained that a braided stream channel is composed of multiple channels,where the channel breaks up into three or more smaller channels. They will try to mimic the braided channel system in the replication. Mrs. Frick has a problem that the replication area is so close to a house. It has now been moved from 20 feet to 40 feet. Recognizing the sensitive nature of this site, Mr. Bitsko is concerned that the stabilization for the grading within 25 feet of the wetland has not been addressed. Mr. miller-said_thatthe_slope_on_ot3_is_5_to 1_before_itgetstothe_detention_pond;_the_y—wauld_be willing to stabilize that area before construction. Mr. Wolk asked about the grading and would appreciate larger plans. He requested that Mr. Miller describe the grading around the two houses on the circle in more detail. Mr. Miller measured the plans and provided the dimensions which illustrated that the backyards were very steep, sometimes with a 2.1 slope. Mr. Wolk has concerns about the runoff going directly to the wetlands off these steep slopes and the possibility that owners will want to use land at the bottom of the slope leading to further encroachment closer to the wetlands. He said the 50-foot buffer is not a hallowed barrier, it is a minimum. The steep slope would lead him to want more of a buffer that he might consider not necessary if the lot was relatively flat. From the audience Mr. Margolskee (24 Peachtree Road) commented that he submitted a map showing their interpretation of the stream in a July 28, 1999 packet with enclosures. The stream was shown as a solid line on those maps. At the last meeting he heard that the wetland was