2000-08-22-CONCOM-min.pdf - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 8/22/00 PAGE 4 question about who will then assume the responsibility for maintenance of the proposed Vortex drainage system, Mr. Miller said the Town Engineering Department has stated that they will not maintain the drainage system. Therefore he believes there will be a need to establish a homeowners' association to be comprised of these four lots to maintain the drainage system. In response to how this system is to be maintained, Mr. Miller said he believes the manufacturer's maintenance manual has been submitted to the Commission. Mr. Miller is not aware of any other responsibilities the homeowners' association would have other than responsibility to maintain the drainage system. The Town will be responsible for plowing and the street could become accepted, but the Town would still not be responsible for the drainage system. The Commission questioned whether there had been options and alternatives studied and presented regarding access to the site at locations other than from Blueberry Lane to prevent the impact they are proposing for their access. Mr. Miller used a plan to illustrate how there could be no access possible from either Woburn or Winchester because of ownership issues or because of difficult topography and wetlands crossings that would be required. The area north of the wetlands on the site is too limited to propose building except for the one lot. There would be greater impact to the wetland if it had to be crossed from the north. The applicants would have no difficulty with placing a deed restriction on the property to further protect the land from being accessed at other locations. The projects in Woburn and Winchester are totally separate projects and owned by others including the Towns. In response to assigning responsibility for seeing that the replication area succeeds, Mr. Sanford said that normally this is required through the Commission with annual monitoring reports being required. Normally a 75 percent success rate must be achieved within two years. The Commission would have ultimate control and without success, a Certificate of Compliance could not be issued. The replication area is on two lots, and for these lots generally money would be held in escrow at the closing to cover the costs of dealing with the replication. Again the applicants were asked, if the replication does not take, how would this be resolved? Mrs. Etsell summarized the possibilities: the Commission could require a bond that they would use if the replication was unsuccessful, the Certificate of Compliance would be withheld until the owners of the two lots on which the replication was located had satisfied the replication success. The homeowners would have money from the developer that had been held in escrow from the sale of the lot. She said replications done by this applicant have been snccessfiil. An example is located in Woburn off Julian Circle. J Mr.Newman said that if they were given access to do test pits, he feels that they would expand the wetlands line. This would expand the buffers and change the nature of the design of the development. He said they are not allowed to access the site for their study, but it will happen during the adjudicatory process. He explained that if they were given permission to go on the site now,based on the pits they dug on the site in 1996, the wetland line would expand 15 to 20 feet. Carol Barlow, 9 Thornberry in Winchester, explained that in her experience when neighbors share responsibility the work does not get done.