Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-30-CONCOM-min TOWN OF LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, November 30, 2015 6:30 P.M. Parker Room, Town Office Building 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Chair Philip Hamilton opened the meeting at 6:33 pm in the Parker Room of the Town Office Building. Commissioners Present: Kevin Beuttell, Alex Dohan, Joyce Miller, Dick Wolk, Phil Hamilton Others Present: Casey Hagerty, Conservation Department Assistant 6:33 pm th Site visits were scheduled for Saturday December 5, 2015 for the December 14 meeting 6:35pm Issue Order of Conditions for 6 John Hosmer Lane, DEP File No. 201-986, BL 943 Motion to issue an Order of Conditions made by Mrs. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 4-0 in favor. Mr. Hamilton and Mrs. Miller did not vote. 6:36pm Issue Certificate of Compliance for 124 Adams Street DEP File No. 201-952, BL 910 Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 6:36pm Issue Certificate of Compliance for 25 Ledgelawn DEP File No. 201-919, BL 879 Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mrs. Miller. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 6:37pm Plan Change Request for 33 Fottler Ave, DEP File No.201-978, BL 936 Lexington Development Realty Trust Steve Carvello Mr. Carvello explained that he wished to place three gas storage tanks along the side of the house in the back. The tanks would rest partially on a permeable patio and partially on dirt. This location was the only viable option for the tanks. Comments from the commission: The commission asked how the tanks would be filled. Mr. Carvello explained that a hose would be able to stretch around the house and a truck would not need to drive back there. Motion to approve the plan change made by Mrs. Miller andseconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 5-0 in favor. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 6:40pm Plan Change Request for 2 Viles Rd, DEP File No.201-961, BL919 Lexington Development Group Steve Carvello, Lexington Realty Trust Mr. Carvello explained that this project had previously gotten permission for a pervious patio, but they now wish to expand the patio and move it. The new patio would be roughly 24’x16’ and have a fire place. It would be outside of the 100ft buffer zone. Motion to approve the plan change made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 6:44pm Ms. Hagerty reported that there would be a joint meeting between the Conservation Commission thst and the Conservation Steward Directors on January 19 2016 and June 21 2016. 6:45 Motion to approve minutes from 10//2015 with edits made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0 in favor. Motion to approve minutes from 10/19/2015 with edits made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0 in favor. Motion to approve minutes from 10/26/2015 with edits made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0 in favor. Motion to approve minutes from 11/2/2015 with edits made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 6:47pm Motion to approve 2016 Meeting Calendar made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 6:48pm The commissioners discussed how they would like to be involved in the planning of large scale projects before they are presented in front of the commission. 6:53pm RDA DET 15-31 41 Eldred Street Applicant/owner: Zhixiang Liao Project: Proposed porch construction Zhixiang Lao and Li Xiaoe- Owners Documents: RDA Package 11/9/2015, Building plans 11/9/2015, Certified plot plan 10/28/2015 Ms. Xiaoe explained that they wish to build a mudroom that would connect their house and garage. It would not have heat. Comments from the commission: The commissioners confirm that the wetlands are located across the street from the houses and have another set of houses as buffer. Motion to issue a negative determination with conditions made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 6:56pm DEP File No. 201-1007, BL 964 NOI, 61 Turning Mill Road Applicant/owner: Paola Arlotta and Claudio Mare Project: Proposed additions to a Single Family Home Mary Trudeau- wetlands scientist, Mike Julian- Eagle Brook Engineering Documents: NOI Package 11/9/2015, Stormwater Management 11/9/2015, Site Plan 11/9/2015, Engineering review 11/30/2015 Mrs. Dohan recused herself from this hearing. Ms. Trudeau explained that her client wishes to expand their home that is currently surrounded by wetlands and streams. She stated that there are three small projects the owners are proposing. The first would involve closing off the front entrance way to create an external foyer. This project is 27.8 ft away from the closest wetland. The second project that is proposed is a garage at the east end of the property. Ms. Trudeau explained that there is currently a wooden deck in that location. The applicant is proposing a green roof to go on the roof of the garage as mitigation. This structure would be no closer to the wetland than the current structure. The third project would consist of an addition on the north end of the house. This addition would include moving a three season room and adding on office off of that. Some plants would have to be removed. An infiltration system would be installed and direct water towards the drywells. Soil testing was completed and location for the infiltration trench is appropriate explained the project engineer, Mr. Julian. Mr. Julian also explained that the drywells would handle the garage runoff as well as the majority of the roof. Comments from the commission: The commission confirmed that the entire house would be infiltrated except for a small portion. That small portion would drip into the stone driveway. The commission asked what the total increase in impervious surface would be. Ms. Trudeau answered that the total increase would only be 386 sq. feet of impervious surface. The commission explained that this project is a problem because of how close it is to the wetlands. The commission asked why the whole roof could not be a green roof. The applicant explained that the green roof can only go over the garage. Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record. The commission asked about the curve number for the green roof. Mr. Julian stated that the curve number for the roof is 50. The commission asked how critical the green roof was for meeting the stormwater requirements. Mr. Julian answered that without the green roof, another infiltration chamber may be needed. The commission questioned whether the green roof was mitigation or if it was necessary to meet the stormwater requirements. The commission stated that unless the applicant can demonstrate that they can meet the stormwater, the green roof cannot be considered mitigation. Mr. Julian told the commission he would provide them with updated calculations. The commission asked what would happen if the house was sold and the new owners did not want to keep up with the care of the green roof. Ms. Trudeau told the commission that upkeep of the green roof could be an ongoing condition in the Order. She also stated that they could create an O and M plan for the green roof. Mr. Julian stated that they could add another chamber to meet the peak flows as an extra precaution. The commission asked if the stormwater calculations were reviewed. Mr. Julian explained that the stormwater calculations met all the by-law requirements. The commission requested a plant list for the green roof. The commission questioned how the grandfather clause and town by-laws worked regarding this property. The commission asked why the addition could not be kept out of the 50ft no build buffer. Ms. Trudeau answered that it is for architectural reasons. The applicant added that they would be willing to do more mitigation to make up for that fact. They stated they are willing to remove a patio and return it to permeable area as well as move a shed to a less sensitive area. The commission asked what the grading would be. Mr. Julian told them that the grading would tie into the existing grading. The commission asked how the emergency overflow would work on the infiltration system. They requested that the detail be added to the plans. The commission requested an O and M plan for both the drywells and the green roof. The commission requested that there be a way for the home owner to know when the infiltration system isn’t working. Mr. Julian said that they could work on a system. Th Motion to continue the hearing to December 14, 2015 at the applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 7:33pm DEP File No. 201-1008, BL 965 NOI, 92 Grant Street Applicant/owner: John McGeough, J and N Build LLC Project: New Single Family home John McGeogh- Builder, Robert Bibbo- engineer Documents: NOI 11/10/2015, Stormwater Management 10/29/2015, Site plan 11/10/2015, Sketch of landscaping 11/30/2015, Engineering report 11/30/2015 Mr. Bibbo explained that that the two lots, 90 and 92 Grant Street, were created in the 1940s before the road was redefined by the town. The redefinition of Grant Street placed a town right of way through the driveway of the lots. Mr. Bibbo went on to explain the driveway of the new house would be within the second riparian zone of the Lower Vine Brook. They would create a new driveway that would be about the same size as the current driveway. He told the commission there would be two infiltration systems to avoid flowing into the town right of way as well as a tie in to the town drainage system. Comments from the commission: Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record. The commission confirmed that the Stormwater management plans were for 92 Grant Street. Mr. Bibbo confirmed that they were, they had just been mislabeled. The commission stated that they wanted the one year storm calculated into the plans. The commission confirmed that demo is not part of this submittal, just the driveway was. The commission requested that the limit of work line be added to the plans. The commission asked whether a deck and patio shown on the landscape plan would be included in the project. If they are to be included, the commission asked them to be shown on the plan. Mr. Bibbo stated that they did factor the porch and deck into the stormwater calculations, but will include it on the map. The commission asked what the slope of the driveway would be. Mr. Bibbo stated that the driveway is currently at 20-25%. The max slope for a private driveway is 12%. The commission asked that soil tests be done. The commission asked for compost filters instead of straw wattles be used and shown on the plan. The commission questioned whether this was considered a minor project or a single family home in terms of the fee associated with the project. The commission requested an alternative analysis to justify the new position of the driveway. Th Motion to continue the hearing to December 14, 2015 at the applicant’s request made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 7:58pm DEP File No. 201-XXXX , BLXXX ANRAD, 10-12 Rangeway Applicant/owner: Fisher Nominee Trust Project: Resource area delineation William McCloud- Andover Consultants Documents: ANRAD 11/5/2015, Resource Area Delineation Plan 11/4/2015, 8 Rangeway Wetlands maps 2/11/2002 Mr. McCloud explained that he brought in two different wetlands scientists to review the property. He stated that there is a ditch that cuts across a vacant lot, but on his three visits there the ditch was dry. He also explained that wetlands were flagged on the top of the bank. Comments from the commission: Mr. Hamilton entered the Wetlands map from 8 Rangeway into the record. The commission explained that they had evidence to believe that the ditch found in the back of 10-12 Rangeway flowed from a wetland and into a wetland which would make the property jurisdictional for the Conservation Commission. The commission explained that Lexington By-Laws are different and more stringent that the state or other communities. Ms. Hagerty explained that there was an issue with the filing fee at the DEP level. th Motion to continue the hearing to December 14 at the applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote 6-0 in favor. Continued Meetings/Hearings: 7:27pm DEP File No. 201-1005, BL 962 NOI, 60 Hartwell Ave Applicant: Solar City Owner: Town of Lexington Project: Solar PV Project Steve Weihe- Weston and Sampson Documents: NOI Supplemental 11/25/2015, Stormwater Management 11/19/2015, Site plan 11/25/2015, Solar Task Force letter and presentation 7/31/2015 Mr. Weihe clarified that that when his stormwater modeler talked with someone from engineering, the town engineer did not approve the project. The town engineer only provided his thoughts on the engineering report. He told the commission that they provided the commission with the one year storm analysis, an alternative analysis, and the performance criteria. He explained that they have moved the hazardous waste shed and the Bikes not Bombs shed outside of the Riverfront area. In terms of the Alternative analysis, Mr. Weihe explained that they attempted to get all stake holders involved. They had to arrive at a point that worked for everyone, but the main priority was keeping the DPW operations functional. The applicant explained that an economic analysis was also done and the town would greatly benefit from the solar plant. There would also be health benefits to the town. Comments from the commission: The commission stated that they felt the alternative analysis was not sufficient. They stated they are looking for simple information and that the economic benefits are not as important to them. The commission stated that they felt the performance standards were not met. The criteria shown to them did not include work in the Riverfront area. The commission stated that they would like to see the types of seed mixes that would be used as well as a plan describing how often they would be mowed. Th Motion to continue the hearing to December 14, 2015 at the applicant’s request made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0 in favor. Discussion The commission discussed the differences between the Riverfront area and other resource areas. The commission discussed the Grandfather clause and some of the problems they see with it. 8:47pm Motion to adjourn made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0 in favor. Respectfully Submitted, Casey Hagerty Conservation Department Assistant Approved 12/14/2015