Loading...
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