HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-11-CONCOM-min
TOWN OF LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, January 11, 2015
6:30 P.M.
Parker Room, Town Office Building
1625 Massachusetts Avenue
Chair Phil Hamilton opened the meeting at 6:35 pm in the Parker Room of the Town Office
Building.
Commissioners Present: Alex Dohan, Kevin Beuttell, Dick Wolk, Phil Hamilton, Joyce Miller
Others Present: Karen Mullins, Conservation Administrator and Casey Hagerty, Conservation
Department Assistant
6:35pm
There were no site visits scheduled for January 23, 2016.
There were no new reports.
6:37pm
Ms. Mullins explained that there are two parcels of land that near the Meagherville area that a
resident wishes to donate to the conservation commission. She explained that the other parcels
surrounding the two in question are owned by the Commission. Both lots have wetlands issues
and are unbuildable.
Motion to accept the donation of land made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 5-0
in favor.
6:38pm
Motion to issue the Order of Conditions for 8 Lake Street DEP File 201-1009, BL 966 made by
Mrs. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
6:39pm
Issue Certificate of Compliance for 79 Maple Street DEP File No. 201-921 BL 881
Ms. Mullins explained that this certificate was not ready to be issued yet.
Issue Certificate of Compliance for Mulberry Lane DEP File No. 201-758, BL 716
The commission explained that they did a site visit there in the fall, but they want to do another
site visit when there is no snow cover. However they stated that they felt comfortable releasing
the money being held in tri-partite agreement and issuing the Certificate of Compliance at a later
time.
Motion to release the money in the tri-partite agreement made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by
Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
Issue Certificate of Compliance for 40 Ingleside Road DEP File No. 201-947 BL 905
The commission stated that they would issue the Certificate of Compliance but would not release
it until a planting plan was submitted.
Motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance made by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by Mrs.
Miller. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
Issue Certificate of Compliance for 121 East Emerson DEP File No. 201-917 BL 877
The commission stated that this project is currently on hold and they will take up the petition
once certain criteria are met.
Issue Certificate of Compliance for Hartwell Ave and McGuire Road DEP File No. 201-994 BL
951
The commission stated that this petition will be taken up at the next meeting.
6:46 pm
Mr. Beuttell reported that soil testing was completed at potential new Community Garden Sites.
He explained that some more testing should be done before a decision is made, but the initial
results looked good.
6:49pm
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
Mrs. Miller and Mr. Hamilton stated that they both watched the LexMedia video from the
12/14/2015 meeting.
Mrs. Dohan recused herself from this hearing.
Motion to close the hearing made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 4-0 in favor.
Motion to issue the Order of Conditions made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote:
4-0 in favor.
New Hearings
6:53pm
DEP File No. 201-1013, BL 970
NOI, 99 Hancock Street, Diamond School
Owner/Applicant: Town of Lexington, Facilities Department
Project: School addition and associated site appurtenances
Ken DiNisco- Architect, Fred King- Wetlands Scientist
Documents: NOI package 12/22/2015, Building Plans 12/22/2015, Stormwater Management
12/22/2015, Presentation 1/11/2016, Engineering report 1/11/2016
Mr. DiNisco began by giving a small overview of the project at the Diamond School. He
explained that an alternatives analysis was done and was available in the packets to be reviewed.
HE told the commissioners that work was expected to begin in May 2016 with an initial finish
date of August 2017.
Mr. King gave an overview of the resource areas in the region. He told the commission that there
are many wetlands surrounding the project on almost all sides and that several pieces of the
project come close to the wetland. The first is the proposed driveway turn around. The second is
the redesign of the parking facility. The third feature is the extension of the driveway to connect
both parking lots. The driveway in that area would be extended 22 feet and would run alongside
the existing fence. Additionally, along Sedge Road parking spots will be added along with a
wider sidewalk for walking and biking. This portion of the project will actually be pulled away
from the wetland.
Mr. King went on to explain the existing stormwater management system, much of which was
installed in the last renovation in 2000 and will be repurposed for this project. The new proposed
system would include a bio-retention system for pretreatment to meet the 44% TSS removal as
well as handle infiltration and peak flow. The new driveway area will have new deep sump catch
basins and a deep sump manhole. There will also be one more feature used here that will be
determined. The new road area will mostly rely on the existing system. A sub drain will go
between the sidewalk and walkway. The catch basin will also be relocated to keep the wetland
from overflowing into the road. Overall, the Sedge road system should match the existing peak
flows and there would be a slight increase in volumes, but well within the capacity of the
drainage system. The overflow system to the wetland will see similar results.
Mr. DiNisco briefly explained the landscape plan for the exterior of the school. He stated that
more detail will be added to the plan as the process goes on.
Comments and concerns from the commission:
Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record.
The commission questioned the quality of the existing stormwater treatment system. The
commission asked if they examined it. Because they are relying on the system so heavily, the
commission asked that they get more confidence that the system is functioning.
The commission requested that there be measures put in place so that sediment cannot find its
way to the existing drainage systems during construction. Mr. King told the commission they
could temporarily take the drainage system offline during the construction phase.
The commission requested more detail into how the roadway sub drain would work.
The commission confirmed that the construction along Sedge Road would be pulled away from
the wetland.
The commission asked what the mitigation was for the widening of the service road along the
fence was. Mr. King answered that the run off from the whole road, which is currently running
directly into the wetland, is getting treated by the stormwater system.
The commission requested that more detail be put into the planting plan as well as an effort to
quantify the amount of trees being taken down.
The commission requested some clarification on the detail of the bio-retention basin.
The commission requested that more information be gathered regarding the rain garden and seed
mix near the entrance to the school.
Questions and Comments from the Audience:
Sharon Fray-witzer, 27 Burlington Street, asked how this project would affect the water table.
Would there be slower drainage into her property. Mr. King answered that he does not expect a
change in the water table.
th
Motion to continue to January 25 at the applicant’s request made by Mrs. Miller and seconded
by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
7:41pm
DEP File No. 201-1014, BL 971
NOI, 17 Stedman Road, Clark School
Applicant/Owner: Town of Lexington
Project: School addition and associated site appurtenances
Ken DiNisco- architect, Fred King- Wetlands Scientist
Documents: NOI package 12/22/2015, Plans 12/22/2015, Stormwater Management 12/22/2015,
Presentation 1/11/2016, Engineering Report 1/11/2016
Mr. King stated that this is a more environmentally sensitive site compared to the Diamond
School. He explained that Clematis Brook runs through the middle of the site and there are other
wetlands surrounding the school and property. The site also contains bordering land subject to
flooding. The first part of the project would involve creating a new entry plaza that is further
from the wetland. The second part would be to create a school bus loop for drop off.
Additionally, the parking alongside the road will be moved to a newly created parking lot in the
former location of the tennis courts. For mitigation for this work, the applicant explained that
they plan to do wetland restoration, stormwater management, and create a new footbridge over a
proposed day-lighted stream.
The stormwater management system will rely on the existing stormwater system along with
some updated features. The new features include a recharge system, a bio-retention system for
the parking lot, deep sump catch basins, and improvements to the end pipes. Over all, Mr. King
said the peak flow volumes are being reduced and the volume is being reduced because of the
recharging system.
Mr. King and Mr. DiNisco explained that daylighting of the stream and the proper stream
crossing will mitigate for the new parking lot. They also added that the grading in the parking lot
provides more flood storage than previously so there is no need for a compensatory chamber.
Questions and comments from the commission:
Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record.
The commission stated that they had many of the same concerns that they had regarding the
Diamond School.
The commission asked for more detail regarding the bridge as mitigation.
The commission requested a statement as to why there is a need for encroachment into the inner
riparian zone.
The commission requested a summary of all of the resource area impacts along with the
appropriate mitigation.
The commission asked for more detail regarding the water that was discharging into the brook.
Motion to continue the hearing to January 25, 2016 at the applicant’s request made by Mrs.
Miller and seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
8:13pm
DEP File No. 201-1005, BL 962
NOI, 60 Hartwell Ave
Applicant: Solar City
Owner: Town of Lexington
Project: Solar PV Project
Steven Wiehe- Weston and Sampson
Documents: Supplemental information submitted by email 1/11/2016
Mr. Weihe explained that the applicant had submitted detail regarding the seed mix; he said that
they will use a New England semi shade mix. He also explained that they worked with the DPW
in the alternatives analysis and worked through many possibilities and determined that the
proposed project is the only option. He also explained that they have submitted a maintenance
plan for the mowing of the area covered by the seed mix.
Questions and Comment from the commission:
Some commissioners expressed concern that they would not be able to vote for the project if they
do not meet the commission’s performance standards. The applicant explained that the site is
already disturbed area and they would not be able to make this a perfect area. He explained that
they have already committed to removing two storage sheds out of the riverfront area.
The commission questioned whether the removing of two sheds should be considered mitigation
if they were never approved by the commission.
The commission suggested that they look at other areas of the site for mitigation. The applicant
explained that their contract only allows them to do work in the specific solar array area. Bill
Hadley, DPW Director, asked how the DPW could help mitigate in other areas of the site. The
commission suggested that they include plantings and invasive species removal. The applicant
said they would be open to the condition regarding invasive species removal.
Comments from the audience:
Mark Sandeen, Chair of Sustainable Lexington, explained the greenhouse gas mitigation
information that the solar array would bring to Lexington. He also explained that this is a time
sensitive issue because they need to lock in their SREC credit before the state incentives run out.
Jay Parsons, 65 Allen Street, questioned the safety concerns that may be associated solar panels.
Motion to close the hearing made by Mrs. Dohan and seconded by Mrs. Miller. Vote 5-0 in
favor.
8:48pm
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
Motion to continue the hearing at the applicant’s request made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by
Mrs. Dohan. Vote 5-0 in favor.
8:48pm
DEP File No. 201-1012, BL 969
ANRAD, 10-12 Rangeway
Applicant/owner: Fisher Nominee Trust
Project: Resource area delineation
Denis Kreachy- Andover Consultants, Maureen Herald- Norse Environmental
Documents: Soil Report 1/6/2016, Resource Area Delineation plan 1/6/2016
The applicants explained that soil tests were completed again with the commission and no hydric
soils were found in the area adjacent to the lot at 8 Rangeway. The applicant’s stated that they
had submitted a video showing that the pipe on the site was obstructed and could not carry flow.
Ms. Mullins explained that she was out at the site on January 11, 2016 and saw water flowing
through the pipe. Mr. Kreachy explained that he was out on the site also and he only saw water
pooling at the bottom of the pipe. Ms. Herald stated that there is no up gradient wetland from
which the water could flow through the pipe and thus the pipe is not jurisdictional. She also
stated that the applicants were unable to locate the invert to the pipe invert and that the video of
the pipe proves that it is completely blocked.
Questions and comments from the commission:
After watching the video, the commission questioned whether the debris on the pipe was in fact
sufficient to completely block any flow through the pipe. The debris never appeared to
completely fill the pipe. The commission expressed an opinion that, in spite of the obstruction
shown in the video, functional flow could still occur, consistent with Ms. Mullin’s observation.
Motion to close the hearing made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
Ms. Herald stated for the record that no BVW was found in the part of 10-12 Rangeway that
abuts 8 Rangeway.
9:14pm
DEP File No. 201-1011, BL 968
NOI, 37 Justin Street
Applicant/owner: Muhammed Rahman
Project: Raze and rebuild Single Family Dwelling
Documents: Updated plan with planting plan 1/11/2016
Mr. Mankaryous - Engineer
Mr. Mankaryous explained that he made the requested changes to the plan. Erosion controls are
now shown around the trees that are being protected and a planting plan was provided. He also
added that they added the markers to demarcate the wetland area.
Motion to close the hearing made by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 5-0 in
favor.
9:16 pm
DEP File No. 201-1010, BL 967
NOI, Rt.2/I-95 Intersection
Applicant/owner: Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Project: Swale Restoration
Chris Naylor- Transystems, Alex Murray MassDOT
Documents: O and M plan 1/4/2016, Historical drainage detail 1/4/2016
The applicant explained that they provided an operation and maintenance plan for this specific
site. He also stated that they provided a backup plan in case they did not find a cobble stone
ditch.
Motion to close the hearing made by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by Mrs. Miller. Vote: 5-0 in
favor.
9:19pm
DET 16-1
RDA, 1-5 Forbes Road
Applicant: The Sign Center
Owner: Wellford Corporation
Project: Installation of wayfinding signage
Jay Compton- the Sign Center
Documents: RDA Package 12/22/2015, Sign details 12/22/2015
Mr. Compton explained that the project would involve removing six feet of material to dig two,
two foot deep holes to install the signs.
Motion to issue a negative determination with conditions made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
9:22pm
DET 16-2
RDA, 5 Mason Street
Applicant: Douglas Touart
Owner: Joyce Paulson
Project: Remodeling of an existing screened in porch
Doug Touart- Contractor
Documents: RDA package 12/22/2015, Building plans 12/22/2015, town GIS maps 12/22/2015
Mr. Touart explained that he is redeveloping the screened in front porch into an office. The
footprint is not being altered and there will be no increase in impervious area.
Questions and comments from the commission:
The commission requested that the applicant use orange construction fence to keep the project
and materials from extending towards the riverfront area.
Motion to issue a negative determination with conditions made by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by
Mr. Wolk. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
9:26pm
DET 16-3
RDA, 74 Hancock Street
Owner/Applicant: Jim Lutterman
Project: Removal of staircase and walkway and modifying bay window
Jim Lutterman- home owner
Documents: RDA Package 12/22/2015, images of proposed work area 1/11/2016
Mr. Lutterman explained that as part of a kitchen remodel they will be removing a stairway and
walkway and an existing bay window will be replaced with a smaller one. He stated that the bay
window will run off into the driveway which already has an infiltration system.
Motion to issue a negative determination with conditions made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by
Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
9:28pm
DET 16-4
RDA, 15-17 Bedford Street
Owner: Ron Rossi
Applicant: Matt Thenen and Co.
Project: New siding, roofing, and windows
Matt Thenen- Architect
Documents: RDA Package 12/22/2015
Mr. Thenen explained that there would be no footprint change or impervious additions. There
would be no foundation changes.
Comments and questions from the commission:
Ms. Mullins questioned the porch construction that was mentioned in the building permit, but not
in the conservation application. Mr. Thenen answered that they have to replace the foundation of
the deck as part of the renovation, but those plans were included in the building permit.
The commission questioned where the air condensers would go for the HVAC system. Mr.
Thenen stated that they were going in the back of the house and he was not aware that this was in
the jurisdiction of the commission.
Motion to issue a negative determination with conditions made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mrs. Dohan. Vote 5-0 in favor.
9:37pm
DET 16-5
RDA, 121 Hartwell Ave
Owner: Chicago Design Network
Applicant: Allen and Major Associates
Project: Partial Demolition and proposed exterior improvements of existing building
Carlton Quinn- Engineer
Documents: RDA package 12/22/2015, Engineering report 1/7/2016, Plans 12/22/2015
Mr. Quinn explained that the majority of the project is outside of the 100ft buffer zone,
specifically the partial demolition of the two story building. He explained that they also wish to
add a vestibule and do some cosmetic improvements. The proposed improvements would
involve a new side walk, patching of the parking lot, a new exit, new sign lighting, invasive
species removal, some new stairs, and a new exit.
Questions and comments from the commission:
The commission asked if they are planning on adding new parking spaces. Mr. Quinn stated that
they are not adding new spots, they are just restriping the parking lot and moving the
handicapped spaces.
The commission asked what will be going in place of the demolished building. Mr. Quinn
explained that they are planning to remove the whole foundation and loam and seed the area.
Trees will be added.
Motion to issue a negative determination with conditions made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mrs. Miller. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
9:47pm
DET 16-6
RDA, 31/55 Allen Street
Owner: JPC LLC
Applicant: Coryn Bina, Bina Farm
Project: Installation of an indoor riding ring
Kevin Fleming- Cyprus Design
Documents: RDA Package 12/22/2015, Plans 1/11/2016
Mr. Cyprus explained that the applicant has revised the original proposal. The proposed project
now will be located approximately 140 feet away from any wetland shown on the town GIS
maps. He stated that there will be crushed stone on the sides of the structure and erosion controls
will be put in place on the down gradient side. Orange construction fencing will be used to show
the limit of work line. Additionally, Mr. Cyprus explained that the proposed stockpiling area
would be within the limit of work line.
Questions and comments from the commission:
The commission stated that they were not approving any wetland lines in this filing.
Questions and comments from the audience:
Jay Parsons, 65 Allen Street, questioned the validity of the wetlands lines. He stated that he and
several other neighbors are against this project.
Marie Tulin, 65 Allen Street, told the commission that the brook that used to flow there has been
filled in. The commission told Ms. Tulin and Mr. Parsons that those issues would be addressed
when they discussed an enforcement order for the property.
Motion to issue a negative determination with conditions made by Mrs. Miller and Mrs. Dohan.
Vote: 5-0 in favor.
10:03pm
DEP File No. 201-1015, BL 972
NOI, 435 and 439 Lincoln Street
Owner: Leo P. and Margaret M. McSweeney, John R. Dailey
Applicant: North Shore Residential Development Inc.
Project: Balanced House residential development
Rich Kirby- LEC Environmental, Jack Sullivan- Project Engineer, Gary Larson- Landscape
architect
Documents: NOI 12/22/2015, Plans 12/22/2015, Cambridge Water Letter 1/8/2016, Engineering
report 1/11/2016, Stormwater management 12/22/2015
Mr. Kirby explained that the site currently has two houses on it as well as a machine shop. The
proposed development would include 14 dwellings on a cul-de-sac that ranges from 20-25 feet
wide. The property is next to the Cambridge Reservoir and has wetlands in the upper corner of
the property. Mr. Kirby stated that each dwelling would have its own driveway and patio with an
infiltration system. Lincoln Street will also have an infiltration system. Mr. Kirby added that
Cambridge Water has approved of this project. The applicant explained that they will be going
in front of the planning board at the end of January.
Comments from the Commission:
Mr. Hamilton entered the Engineering report and Cambridge Water letter into the record.
The commission requested an erosion control plan and an O and M plan.
The commission asked about a walking path that will connect through the property.
The commission asked for the wetland line to be delineated again since it was done some time
ago.
The commission requested more details for the storm water management features.
,
Motion to continue the meeting to February 82016 at the applicant’s request made by Mrs.
Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
10:20pm
DEP File No. 201-1016 BL 973
NOI, 29 Fairlawn Lane
Owner/Applicant: 29 Fairlawn Lane LLC
Project: Raze and rebuild existing single family home
Rich Kirby- LEC Environmental, Roy Antonelli, Fred Russell- engineer
Documents:
Mr. Kirby explained that this proposed project is a raze and rebuild of a single family home. The
proposed home 80 ft. away from the wetland. There would be two infiltration systems for the
property, one for the driveway and one for the entire roof. Mr. Kirby explained that the limit of
work line would run alongside the existing lawn and five trees will be removed.
Questions and comments from the commission:
Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record.
The commission asked the engineer about the stormwater calculations. Mr. Russell explained
that although a decrease in water volume is rare, it makes sense in this situation because of the
type of soil and the fact that the whole lot is wooded. He added that the town engineer approved
of the report.
The commission asked what the proposed landscaping would be for the back of the house. Mr.
Kirby answered that lawn and landscape will make up the flat part of the land the hill will be left
with ivy.
The commission requested that in the order of conditions there is a reference to the new owner
instructing them to keep the hill natural. The applicant agreed with that condition.
The commission asked if the existing fence was going to be replaced. The applicant answered
that it is possible that it will need to be replaced.
Motion to close the hearing made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
10:32pm
DEP File No. 201-XXXX, BL XXX
NOI, 48 Brandon Street
Owner/Applicant: Rob Burge, Lexington Development Realty Trust
Project: Demo existing single family home and convert site to lawn
Rich Kirby- LEC Environmental
Mr. Kirby explained that the applicant wishes to demo the existing house and return the site to
lawn. He stated that the foundation would be removed.
Comments and questions from the commission:
Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering review into the record.
Mr. Hamilton entered the interdepartmental reviews into the record. Mr. Hamilton followed up
on the Zoning board comments and asked whether the lot will be combined with another lot. Mr.
Kirby explained that there is no plan to combine the lot with another one, although he stated that
the lot may be built on in the future.
10:37pm
DEP File No. 201-XXXX, BL XXX
NOI, 139 Wood Street
Owner/Applicant: Raj Janu
Project: Proposed garage addition and home and landscape improvements
Raj Janu- Owner
Documents: NOI Package, Plans, Engineering review
Mr. Janu explained that the wetlands on his property were delineated in by LEC Environmental.
HE stated that the majority of his house is outside of the 100 ft. buffer. His first goal of the
project is to remodel the main house and at a later point he will renovate the garage. He
explained that in the first stage of the renovation, the main house will extend slightly and the
concrete patio will be removed to create a covered porch. He added that some landscape work
would be done including some grading and retaining walls. He explained that eventually he
wishes to demo the garage and rebuild it.
Questions and comments from the audience:
Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record.
The commission explained that if a demolition was to take place, stormwater calculations must
be submitted. They stated that a demolition requires infiltration. The commission said that even
without the garage being done, there is still significant work being done and that stormwater
calculations are necessary.
Motion to continue the hearing to January 25 at the applicant’s request made by Mrs. Dohan and
seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
10:57pm
DEP File No. 201-XXX, BL XXX
NOI, 24 Hancock Street
Owner/Applicant: Kevin and Leslie Sargis
Project: Remove existing barn from its foundation and temporarily move the barn
Kevin and Leslie Sargis- Home owners, Steve Hurley- architect, Russ Waldron- wetland scientist
Documents: NOI Package 12/22/20415, Stormwater management plan 12/22/2015, Plans
12/22/2015
The applicant explained that the applicant wishes to temporarily move the barn in the backyard
over four or five feet while they excavate and dig a new foundation. He stated that they will
move the barn back to the foundation. The sheds one either side of the barn would be expanded
for parking. The proposed plan also included a deck off the back of the barn. The applicant
explained that there would be an infiltration system near the back of the barn that will infiltrate
the run off from the barn and the two sheds.
Questions and comments from the commission:
Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record.
The commission asked about the sump pump included in the plans for the basement of the barn.
The applicant explained that right now they are not putting in a sump pump but they have sized
the system so that one can added if needed.
The commission asked about the materials that would be used for the basement floor. The
architect explained that the two sheds would be used for parking and would have a concrete
bottom. He stated that the barn would have a small crawl space rather than a basement because
of the high water table. The porch would have a gravel base.
The commission explained that this hearing did not have a DEP File number yet and could not
close.
Motion to continue the hearing to January 25, 2016 at the applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk
and seconded by Mrs. Miller. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
11:05pm
DEP File No. 201- XXXX BL XXX
NOI, 6 Bryant Road
Owner: Kan Lui and Katherine Wang
Applicant: Kevin Xu
Project: Raze and rebuild Single Family Dwelling
Debbie Anderson- Wetlands consultant, Tom Ryder- Engineer, Kevin Xu- Builder
Documents: NOI Package 12/22/2015, Stormwater management plan 12/22/2015, Engineering
report 1/11/2016, Plans 12/22/2015, 18 Sanderson Road wetland delineation 4/23/2015
Ms. Anderson explained that this project is a raze and rebuild of a single family home. She
explained that the existing /home does not fall within the buffer, but the new home will extend
into the100ft buffer. The applicant proposed an infiltration system as well as three drywells.
They also proposed a planting plan for the 25ft buffer. Mr. Anderson stated that they are
planning on removing 3 trees outside of the buffer, 1 in the 50ft buffer, and 2 in the 100ft buffer.
Questions and comments from the commission:
Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record.
The commission requested that test pits be done at the spots where infiltration trenches will be
placed. The commission requested these at all three sites so that the commission can be
convinced that this area will infiltrate.
Questions and comments from the audience:
Marjorie Radlo, 8 Bryant Road, expressed concerns over water issues in the basement. She
explained that the previous owner of the house always had a hose running from the basement
because of flooding. She also expressed concern over the trees that are proposed to be cut down.
The abutters from 20 Sanderson Road also expressed concern over the high water level in the
area. He also called into question the validity of the wetlands maps. He explained that the
wetland delineation for his property does not match up with the wetland delineation of 6 Bryant
Road. He gave a copy of his wetland delineation to the commission. The engineer for the
applicant explained that they are mitigating any increase in flow so that water run off should be
less than it was before.
The abutters also brought up the fact that large trees were already cut down without a permit.
Ms. Mullins explained that at that time there was no knowledge of wetlands and that work was
stopped when they were alerted that wetlands were in the area.
Motion to continue the hearing at the applicant’s request to January 25, 2016 made by Mrs.
Miller and seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
11:24pm
Enforcement: 31 and 55 Allen Street
The commission discussed the need for an enforcement order on this property. The commission
stated that a great deal of work has been done without a permit including a new paddock and
ramp as well as a horse stall shed. Ms. Mullins explained that new LIDAR imaging showed that
there is evidence that a stream channel was filled in.
The commission agreed that they want to issue an enforcement order for the property, but they
need to do some more research into what has happened and who is responsible.
11:41pm
Issue Order of Conditions for Rt.2/I-95 Project, DEP File No. 201-1010, BL 967
Motion to issue an order of conditions made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote:
5-0 in favor.
11:42pm
Motion to adjourn made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Casey Hagerty
Conservation Department Assistant
Approved 2/9/2016