Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-09-CONCOM-minTOWN OF LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday February 9, 2016 6:30 P.M. Training Room, Public Facilities Building 201 Bedford Street Chair Phil Hamilton opened the meeting at 6:32 pm in the Training Room of the Public Facilities Building Commissioners Present: Alex Dohan, Kevin Beuttell, Dick Wolk, Phil Hamilton, Joyce Miller, Duke Bitsko Others Present: Karen Mullins, Conservation Administrator and Casey Hagerty, Conservation Department Assistant 6:32pm Informal Hearing Presentations by Dunback Meadow community gardeners Mr. Hamilton explained that the discussion of moving the Dunback Meadow Community Garden has been on the agenda of the Commission since 2012. He stated that a community garden subcommittee was formed with Mr. Beuttell and himself as the members. Alix Bartsch, the coordinator of the Dunback Meadow gardens and Marita Hartshorn, a longtime Dunback Meadow gardener, were included as consultants to the committee. They and other community gardeners were included in the conversations as well as in site visits to other potential garden sites. Mr. Hamilton stated that no time table has been set for moving the garden to another location and no vote has been taken to do so. However, the committee recommends moving the garden in the following way. An alternative garden location will be ready for the 2017 growing season. Dunback Meadow gardeners who choose to move in 2017 will have their choice of plots in the new location. Dunback Meadow gardeners who do not choose to move will be able to garden in the Dunback Meadow location for the 2017 growing season. They will be guaranteed a plot in the new location in 2018, but will be treated as new applicants and will be assigned a plot. The Dunback Meadow gardens will be closed permanently at the end of the 2017 growing season. Alex Bartsch, the Dunback Meadow garden coordinator, told the commission that she has been gardening there since 2008. She said that the universal feeling amongst the gardeners is that they want to stay in their current location. Ms. Bartsch explained that the garden has been there for over 30 years. Ms. Bartsch also explained to the commission that they got a letter from a Wetland Consulting company that explained that the garden would have only a temporary impact on the wetland and was not causing permanent damage. Winifred McGowan, a gardener at Dunback Meadow, explained to the commission that a new garden is a lot of work. She is not sure that she would want to put the effort into creating a new garden. She stated that the Wetland Protection Act leaves room for agriculture. She read an excerpt from an article that mentioned agriculture in wetlands. She also mentioned that there was no talk of moving community gardens in the Town's Open Space and Recreation plan. Anastasia Bartsch, a Lexington High School student and community gardener, explained that moving the community gardens will affect more than just the people who garden there. She explained that students often go there to learn about farming. She said that the garden has given many children gardening opportunities that they would not have at home. She stated that she did not feel there would be the same sense of community at a new garden. Tom Ryan, a gardener at Dunback Meadow, stated that he has been community gardening since the 1980s. He went on the alternate site walk and found the other sites to be unsuitable. He said that the Waltham Street site would not be able to thrive as an organic garden because of the other farming that has happened there. Manta Hartshorn explained that she has been at both Dunback Meadow sites for over 38 years. She explained to the commission that it would be very expensive to move the garden. Beyond the monetary expense, there will also be the loss of perennial plants, loss of time and effort, and a loss of community. She also said that the Dunback gardeners prefer to have a no -till garden. She stated that the garden should not be moved until a full wetland delineation is completed. Karen Longteig, a gardener at Dunback Meadow, stated that the entire Dunback Meadow is full of invasive species. The garden is a good source of pollination and enhances the biodiversity of the meadow. She stated that there was no net gain in reverting the garden back to the meadow since the invasive species would take over. Questions and Comments from the commission: The commission asked how many gardeners are currently at the garden. Ms. Bartsch explained that there are 25 gardeners. The commission asked how many plots there are. Mr. McCarron explained that it is somewhat confusing because several people have acquired more than one plot. Mr. Hamilton suggested that the commission could discuss and decide whether to move the gardens later in the meeting, which could be quite late, or postpone the discussion to the beginning of the commission's next meeting. The commission decided to postpone the discussion until the meeting of February 23. New Hearings 7:14pm DET 16- 7 RDA, 35 Fottler Ave Applicant /owner: Leon Fay Project: New sliding door with landing and stairs Documents: RDA Package, Building plans Leon Fay- homeowner Mr. Hamilton explained that the applicant wishes to build a small porch on the back of his dwelling across from a wetland. Another lot separates this property from the resource area. Motion to issue a Negative Determination with conditions made by Mrs. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. 7:16pm DET 16- 9 RDA, 113 Hartwell Avenue Applicant /Owner: King Street Properties Project Drain Connection Motion to continue to February 23, 2016 at the applicant's request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. 7:17pm DEP File No. 201 -1021, BL 978 NOI, 10 Churchill Lane Applicant /Owner: Dan Moeller, Metrowest Builders LLC Project: Raze and rebuild Single Family home Motion to continue to February 23, 2016 at the applicant's request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. Continued Hearings 7:19pm DEP File No. 201 -1020, BL 977 NOI, 24 Hancock Street Owner /Applicant: Kevin and Leslie Sargis Project: Remove existing barn from its foundation and temporarily move the barn Motion to close the hearing at 24 Hancock Street made by Mrs. Dohan and seconded by Mrs. Miller. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. Motion to issue the Order of Conditions made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. 7:20pm DEP File No. 201 -1013, BL 970 NOI, 99 Hancock Street, Diamond School Owner /Applicant: Town of Lexington Project: School addition and associated site appurtenances Fred King- Project engineer, Ken DiNisco- architect, Vivian Lowe- engineer Documents: Building Plans 2/4/2016, Supplemental Information 2/4/2016, additional supplemental information 2/9/2016 Mr. King explained that the applicant had submitted an updated set of plans that address the issues that were discussed at the last meeting. He provided the commission a detailed description of each of the revisions including details about how they will protect the underground recharge system, the tree species within the buffer zone, a detailed mowing plan, compost filter sock detail, detail of the bio- retention basin seed mix, as well as correcting small errors on the original plan. He explained that the schools will use the existing operation and maintenance plan and that they are working with the schools to create a curriculum that incorporates the environmental aspects of the building project. Mr. King added that they included the one year storm calculations. Mr. King explained that they looked into using porous pavement in the parking lots, but that the cost was very high and that it wasn't the most effective best management practice for managing the stormwater. Instead, they needed to find ways to recharge and have detention capability. Questions and comments from the commission: The commission questioned why the project could not meet the one -year storm standards. Mr. King explained that it would be extremely expensive to meet that standard. They would have to either reduce pavement or reduce the size of the building. The applicant said they would do more research into meeting this standard. The commission asked about the invert along Sedge Road and whether it would dewater the wetland. The applicant explained that they could put a barrier on the wetland side to keep it from dewatering. The commission stated that they had a problem with the design of the bio retention system. They want to be assured that the soil is adequate for drainage. The applicant answered that they would use a loamy sand. The commission expressed concern over what would happen if the project did not meet the performance standards for the one -year storm. The commission stated that, without mofe specific information, they did not feel that cost was a legitimate reason to not meet their standards.. The commission requested that the applicant revisit the width of the road along the side of the school, along the 25 -foot buffer to the wetland. Motion to continue the hearing at the applicant's request to February 23, 2016 made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. 8:15pm 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 Fred King- engineer, Ken DiNisco- architect, Vivian Lowe- architect Documents: Building Plans 2/4/2016, Supplemental Information 2/4/2016, additional supplemental information 2/9/2016 Mr. King explained that unlike the Diamond School, here was no issue with meeting the one year storm event. He explained the supplemental material to the commission which included a new roof drain system with a grass swale, the inclusion of plant plugs in the wetland restoration area as well as some boulders and tree compost, a detailed mowing plan, and a tree species inventory. The applicant will also work with the schools to create a curriculum about the building. Questions and comments from the commission: The commission stated that they were concerned about the stabilization of the bank. That want to see erosion control fabric and shrubs. The commission asked why the retaining wall was within the 25ft buffer. Mr. King answered that the existing sidewalk was closer to the wetland than the proposed wall. The commission asked that the applicant look at bettering their tree replacement. They stated they would work with the landscape architect. The commission requested that the outlet pipes be covered with mesh to keep animals from getting in. The commission requested that they use a seed mix and planting plan similar to the one used at the Public Works building. Motion to close the hearing made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. 8:37pm 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 McGeough- owner and builder, Robert Bibbo- Surveyor, Scott Jordan- Ecotech, Bruce Fitzsimmons- attorney Documents: Drainage Plans 2/4/2016, Supplemental wetland information 2/4/2016, updated plot plan 2/4/2016, Operation and Maintenance plan 2/9/2016 Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record. Mr. McGeough explained that he is submitting two different projects. This, the first, is the continuance of an NOI for 92 Grant Street. The second is an RDA for a drainage connection at 90 Grant Street. Mr. Bibbo went onto to explain the changes made to the 92 Grant Street proposal since they last appeared before the commission. A new stormwater system will involve a detention basin at the edge of the property that will slowly leach into the town drainage system if it overflows. Mr. Jordan went on to explain the alternatives analysis for the driveway. He stated that the proposed design meets the stormwater requirements. The first alternative was to create a driveway using switchbacks. He explained that this would include more alterations to the riverfront area. Another alternative was to take the driveway outside of the riverfront area, but that would involve significant blasting to meet the grade requirements. The existing driveway is the most feasible option. The changes to the existing driveway will reduce the impervious area on the site. Additionally, this option will result in removal of the fewest trees. Questions and comments from the commission: The commission asked why the overflow to the town drainage system is necessary. Mr. Bibbo explained that it is only necessary in the 100 -year storm. The commission questioned why the sizes of the subsurface chambers differ on the plans from what is shown in the engineering calculations. Mr. Bibbo answered that the dimensions may have changed, but they will still hold the recommended 1,000 gallons. The commission requested that the manhole connecting to the detention basin include a sump pump. The commission asked that filter fabric be used on the top and sides of the drywell. The commission requested that the stone be labeled as washed stone. The applicant agreed to all of those suggestions. The commission asked how the home owner will maintain the detention basin at the bottom of the hill. Mr. McGough stated that they will put a deed restriction on the property that would obligate the homeowner to care for the land. Motion to close the hearing made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. DET 16 -8 RDA, 90 Grant Street (New Meeting) Owner /Applicant: Joh McGeough, J and N Build LLC Project: Connection to the town drainage system John McGeough- owner and builder, Robert Bibbo- Surveyor, Scott Jordan- Ecotech, Bruce Fitzsimmons- attorney Documents: RDA package 1/19/2016, Drainage Plan 2/4/2016, Operation and Maintenance plan 2/9/2016 Mr. McGeogh explained that a similar deed restriction would provide for the maintenance of the infiltration system at 90 Grant Street. Motion to issue a Negative Determination with conditions made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. 9:14pm DEP File No. 201- 1019 BL 976 NOI, 6 Bryant Road Owner: Kan Lui and Katherine Wang Applicant: Kevin Xu Project: Raze and rebuild Single Family Dwelling Kevin Xu- builder, Debbie Anderson- wetland scientist, Tom Ryder- engineer Documents: updated drainage and plot plan 2/4/2016 Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record. Mr. Xu explained that he and the engineer met with the town engineers to review the comments and make the necessary changes. Mr. Xu also said the owner agreed to keep two trees. Ms. Mullins explained that she met the wetlands consultant on site and looked at soils. There was some inconsistency in soils, but the applicant agreed to restore the wetland area. She also added that the applicant has agreed to raise the basement above the seasonal high water table. They also agreed to have an overflow to the town drainage system. Questions or comments from the audience: Allison Abdu, 4 Bryant Road, asked for clarification of what the height the basement will be at. She also asked what the standards were for removing trees. Mr. Hamilton said there is no town by -law that protects trees beyond the town set back. Marjorie Radlow, 8 Bryant Road, asked which trees would be saved. She also asked how the connection to the town drainage system would work. 9:37pm DEP File No. 201 -1017, BL 974 NOI, 139 Wood Street Owner /Applicant: Raj Janu Project: Proposed garage addition and home and landscape improvements Raj Janu- Owner Documents: Updated drainage plan 2/9/2016, Updated plot plan 2/9/2016 Mr. Hamilton entered the engineering report into the record. Mr. Janu stated that the requests of the town engineer were fixed. Erosion controls with sediment sack were added and the infiltration trenches were labeled. The soil test pits were also marked and the foundation drain pipe was changed. Questions and comments from the commission: The commission requested hat detail be added for inspection port clean outs. The commission requested that an 0 and M plan be included. The commission requested the geotextile fabric be removed from the bottom of the trench. The commission discussed whether the additional pavement needs to be reviewed by the town engineer. Mr. Janu explained that the pavement already exists, it just may need to be replaced during construction. The commission requested that the area be labeled as "repair as needed." Motion to close the hearing made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. Enforcement at 139 Wood Street Ms. Mullins explained that work had continued at 139 Wood Street after she add ordered work to stop. The house was torn down to the foundation and was reframed. On January 29, 2016, work was done in the 100ft buffer and there was a rock pile present. It was clear that an excavator had been dragged through the 100ft buffer. Mr. Janu said he did not authorize his contractor to start work and had told him to stop as soon as Ms. Mullins told him to stop work. He stated that his contractor will not be paid until the order is issued. The commission discussed whether to fine the contractor, the homeowner, or both. They decided to fine the contractor for one day, and Ms. Mullins would check in to see if more days needed to be added. Motion to issue the enforcement order made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. Motion to issue a fine to the contractor for one day made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. 10:11 pm Plan Change for 60 Munroe Road Ms. Mullins explained that there was a 22 inch maple that the builder originally planned to keep, but it was found to impact the sewer line. She stated that the commission can condition the planting of another tree. The commission discussed having them plant another tree within the 50ft buffer zone. Motion to approve the plan change made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. 10:14pm Update on Enforcement at 31 and 55 Allen Street Ms. Mullins stated that the enforcement orders were mailed by certified mail as well as first class mail. As of the meeting, the Binas had not received their certified mail copy of the Order, but Mr. Carroll had. The Bina's stated that they would have the erosion controls up the next day. Ms. Mullins explained that the Binas would appear before the commission on February 23, 2016. Questions and comments from the audience: Jay Parsons, 65 Allen Street, explained that he thought the enforcement order meant that all of the work on the site had to stop. The commission explained that the other work had been permitted and they did not have to stop building the ring. The commission added that they cannot do any restoration work until they receive permission from the commission. Marie Tulin asked if anything was being done to address the trucks driving over the wetland. The commission stated that any wetland that had been filled or covered would have to be restored. Jay Parsons also asked that the commission look at the existing outdoor riding ring as part of the enforcement order. Ms. Mullins asked the commission what they should do if the erosion controls are not put in place. The commission authorized her to fine both the tenant and homeowner in that case. 10:38 pm Site visits were scheduled for Saturday February 20th, 2016. 10:39 pm The commission discussed the Town's right of first refusal on a section of land owned by the Belmont Hill Country Club and which the club would like to sell. The commission looked at maps and decided that the land was not desirable as conservation land since it is not connected to other conservation land and it does not have good public access. Motion to advise the Town that the commission has no interest in purchasing the land made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6 -0 in favor. 10:49pm Motion to adjourn made by Mrs. Miller and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6 -0 in favor.