HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-23-CONCOM-min
TOWN OF LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, January 23, 2017
6:30 P.M.
Hudson Room, Cary Hall
1605 Massachusetts Ave
Chair Philip Hamilton opened the meeting at 6:39pm in the Hudson Room of the Cary Hall
Building.
Commissioners Present: Phil Hamilton, Duke Bitsko, Alex Dohan, Kevin Beuttell, Dick Wolk,
David Langseth
Others present: Karen Mullins, Conservation Administrator and Jennifer Gingras, Department
Assistant
6:39pm
Follow up discussion, Maguire and Hartwell Ave Intersection and Bridge Improvements, Town
Engineering
Mr. Beuttell abstained from the informal hearing.
Dave Cannon- Lexington Engineering Department, Simon Hilt and Tom Hanson- Stantec
Engineering
Mr. Cannon explained that they had presented the options of the roadway reconstruction to the
Board of Selectmen, who had expressed a preference for a roundabout. The Board of Selectmen
asked that they go back before the Conservation Commission to propose both options and get a
better understanding of their opinion.
Mr. Hilt showed the commissioners the two options that they are considering. The signalized
intersection option would have the same lanes but would result in a smaller footprint. Mr. Hilt
presented a chart comparing the different options and listing the square footage impact.
Questions and comments from the Commission:
The Commission stated that from a wetland perspective, the best option is the one with the
smallest impact – signalized intersection with the walls; however, that doesn’t take the cost into
consideration. The applicant presented a cost comparison for the different options.
The Commission stated that the more disturbance, the more replication that is required under the
by-law. It would not be possible to replicate the disturbance from either roundabout option.
Mr. Hilt stated that in the Southeast quadrant, there is approximately 8,000 sq. ft. available for
replication.
The Commission asked if the construction costs include wetland replication costs. Mr. Hilt
responded yes.
The Commission asked what the difference is between the impervious surfaces of the options.
Mr. Hilt stated he didn’t know and that the reason the roundabout has a bigger impact is because
it’s occupying more space. The Commission asked if there is a difference between the options
from a safety/traffic pattern standpoint. Mr. Hilt responded that they would all have a similar
impact.
The Commission asked if the Engineering Department would like a formal recommendation to
give to the Board of Selectmen from the Conservation Commission.Mr. Cannon responded that
they would like a formal recommendation to give to the Board. Mr. Hamilton stated that the
wetlands associated with the project are important as they are part of the water supply to
Burlington. Mr. Hamilton stated that his intention will be to explain to the Board of Selectmen
the importance of the resource areas that would be altered by the proposed construction. He will
also tell them that the Conservation Commission prefers the option that has the least wetlands
effect – the signalized intersection with the walls. They would also be agreeable with the option
of 1.5 side slopes because it limits the wetland impact.
Mr. Hamilton will draft a letter to the Board of Selectmen and will circulate to the Commission.
Consent: Reissue Letter of Support for Hayden Woods 2017 RTP Grant application
6:57pm
The Conservation Stewards applied again for the Hayden Woods 2017 RTP Grant and are
seeking a letter of support from the Conservation Commission. This is a re-submission of a
request that was not granted in 2016.
Motion to re-submit a Letter of Support for Hayden Woods 2017 RTP Grant application made by
Mr. Langseth and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6-0 in favor.
Issue Order of Conditions at 6 Milk Street, DEP 201-1039, BL 996
7:00pm
Motion to issue an Order of Conditions made by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote:
5-0 in favor.
Issue Amended Order of Conditions at 63 Winter Street, DEP 201-1003, BL 960
7:01pm
Motion to issue an Amended Order of Conditions made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr.
Beuttell. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
Discuss Certificate of Compliance Request: 6 Bryant Road, DEP 201-1019, BL 976
7:03pm
Mr. Tom Ryder – Project engineer
Mr. Ryder explained that 200 sq. ft. of impervious coverage added at the site. A patio was also
added to the rear of property that was not approved.
Questions and Comments from the Commission
The Commission asked if the increase in impervious surface resulted in a greater runoff to the
wetlands. Mr. Ryder explained that there is no change.
The Commission asked how the change occurred without notice to the Conservation
Commission. Mr. Ryder responded that it was outside of the 100ft buffer zone and he was not
involved in the design so he doesn’t know. The Commission stated that once the Order of
Conditions and plans are submitted, it doesn’t just apply to areas within the 100ft buffer, it
applies to the whole structure.
The Commission asked for a plan clearly showing the changes. The applicant explained they are
working on the final As-Built.
The commission stated the applicant should request a continuance until the down spout
overflows are installed and they have an updated as-built plot plan.
Motion to continue the hearing at the Applicant’s request made by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by
Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0
The meeting will be continued until the meeting on 2/6/17.
CONTINUED MEETINGS/HEARINGS
7:15pm
DEP 201-1042, BL 999
ANRAD, 7 Crosby Road, Hastings School
Owner/applicant: Town of Lexington
Project: Resource Area Delineation
Fred King- Schofield Brothers Engineering and Vivian Low- DiNisco Architects
th
At the last meeting on January 9, the Commission requested back up information on how Mr.
King determined that the stream was intermittent. Mr. King submitted additional documentation
demonstrating that the stream was intermittent.
Motion to close the hearing made by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0.
Motion to issue an Order of Resource Area Delineation made by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by
Mr. Wolk. Vote: 5-0. Mr. Langseth did not vote.
NEW MEETINGS/HEARINGS
7:17pm
DET 17-4
RDA, 3 Fairland
Applicant: Britton Homes
Project: Home Addition
*Applicant requested withdrawal*
Motion to accept the withdrawal at the Applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mrs. Langseth. Vote: 6-0.
7:18pm
DEP 201-1045, BL 10002
NOI, 288 Concord Ave
Applicant/owner: Thomas and Donna Denoto
Project: Home addition and driveway expansion
Mr. Dave Crossman, representing the applicants.
The Commission did a site visit and have since made a revision to the wetland line. They have
eliminated flags 6 and 7, making the line connect flags 5 and 8. There was a request for a
revised plan to show the trees that will be cut along the edge of the new driveway. In a previous
hearing from 2008, the Conservation Commission made a determination that the stream that runs
through this site was intermittent.
Questions and Comments from the Commission
The Commission stated they will review the previous filing regarding the stream determination.
Mr. Crossman explained that regardless of the stream determination no work being done is closer
than 60 ft. from the wetlands.
The Commission asked if the existing curb cut driveway will remain. Mr. Crossman responded
that it will remain.
The Commission stated that the shed located on conservation land will have to be moved. Mr.
Crossman agreed.
The Commission stated that will need a plan describing the proposed restoration.
The Commission stated that the 25ft. buffer should be left undisturbed.
Mr. Hamilton entered the Town Engineering report into the record.
Questions and comments from the public:
The neighbor at 280 Concord, stated that there are currently trees that divide the area and asked
the Commission how the restoration will help the wetlands. The property owner, Mr. Denoto
stated that the plan is to replace the Hemlock trees because they are dying and they have to
continue spraying them. They are proposing to put in evergreens.
Mr. Erec Sanders, a neighbor at 280 Concord Ave., stated that he purchased the property 10
years ago and has enjoyed the Hemlock trees that divide the properties. The trees are in good
health and there are deer in the area. He is in disagreement with removing the trees. He is also
concerned about the construction noise.
Mr. Hamilton explained to the abutter that the Conservation Commission’s goal is to protect the
wetlands in the area and they can’t stop any homeowner from doing work on the property unless
it affects the wetlands. With regard to the noise and scenic beauty, they are beyond the
Commission’s jurisdiction.
Motion to continue the hearing at the Applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mr. Langseth. Vote: 6-0.
7:42pm
DEP 201-1046, BL 1003
NOI, 52 Turning Mill Road
Applicant/owner: Jeong-Ju Cho
Project: Garage Addition
Ms. Dohan recused herself from the hearing.
Ms. Mary Trudeau- wetlands scientist
Ms. Trudeau explained that the house sits on a hill and is bordered by wetlands. The proposed
location of the garage is on an existing bituminous driveway. The proposal they have includes
work in the 0-25 ft. buffer zone but it’s within the existing driveway footprint. Ms. Trudeau
stated that the site is difficult because the mitigation and the infiltration of roof run off is
problematic. They are going to have someone confirm that the area behind the house is ledge
and could not be used as an infiltration area. The architect felt that a green roof is something that
could be explored.
Questions and comments from the Commission:
The Commission asked for clarification regarding how close the structure would be to the
wetlands. Ms. Trudeau stated it’s within the 25ft no disturb zone. Ms. Trudeau stated that she
will get the setbacks for the next meetings.
The Commission stated that, in regard to the stormwater mitigation, there is an issue of heavy
equipment. The commission stated they would rather see the area in the front of the house be
considered for the garage.
Mr. Bitsko stated that the non-conformity on the site may pose an issue.
Motion to continue the hearing at the Applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mr. Langseth. Vote: 5-0.
The hearing was continued to 2/6/17.
7:57pm
DEP 201-1044, BL 1001
NOI, 45, 55, 65 Hayden Ave
Applicant/owner: CRP/King Hayden Owner LLC, c/o King Street Properties
Project: Parking lot expansion
Doug Hartnett, Principal Engineer of High Point engineering and Mike Diminico, King Street
Properties.
The applicant explained that they are proposing to expand the parking area on site. The site
comprises of mostly surface parking. There was a Notice of Intent and Order of Conditions
issued previously for the parking garage.There is a parking element, stream channel
maintenance and landscape maintenance in their proposal. There are vegetated wetlands in the
north and west parts of the site. The parking expansion is proposed because King Street would
like to have an additional tenant in the building and will be doing interior renovations on the
garage to accommodate that need. They will replace some of the paving in the parking areas
with pervious surface.
The applicant explained that the stream channels were not being maintained by the previous
owners and an area of Hayden Woods was back-flooding. They proposed a plan to clean the
culverts and dredge the stream channel. There are small pockets of debris that are creating
additional obstruction of the drainage. They are proposing to dredge the channel and re-shape it
and then re-seed the area. That would require temporary wetland impact. They would use hand
tools to remove areas of vegetation. The benefits of improving the stream channel are included
in the report provided to the Commission.
Questions and comments from the Commission:
The Commission stated a preference for an additional parking garage rather than additional
parking spaces.
The Commission asked for clarification regarding the stream channel clean-out as well as the
proposed check dams.
The Commission asked for clarification about what types of machinery will be used for the clean
-out. Mr. Hartnett responded that they are anticipating using the equipment in only a few areas.
Much of the work will be done using hand tools. They will have a bypass pump to enable de-
watering. Part of the site would be closed to traffic during the work. The work will be staged in
intervals. They will use hand tools for work in the downstream area. They just want to remove
the debris and open the stream channel.
Mr. Hamilton entered the Town Engineer’s comments into the record.
The Commission stated that the stream channel performs an important drainage function. The
area will be prone to sediment retention on an ongoing basis. The commission suggested that a
long term maintenance plan be done for the sediment retention.
The Commission would like assurance that the old issues and new issues will be taken care of.
There is a lot of sand, salt and other debris in that area, and, even when snow isn’t put there,
water flows towards the wetlands and adds more sediment. A snow management plan should be
put in place. Stream A is more of a water conveyance than a restoration piece. Stream A has
cattail, silky dogwood and red maple and if they were designing a restored wetland, those would
be the things the Commission would like to see there. Mr. Bartlett stated he will talk to the
landscape architect, but is reluctant about cattail because it can cause sediment issues.
The Commission stated that in Streams B and C, there is a great deal oriental bittersweet, which
killed all the trees there. There should be more of a restoration plan for streams B and C. Mr.
Bartlett stated that there was a proposal in the report to remove the invasive species.
The Commission stated that they didn’t see a grading plan and only sees two proposed trees on
the landscape plan. They would like to see a plan to keep what’s in there or replace what’s lost.
The Commission mentioned the need for a sediment management plan for Stream A.
The Commission asked for clarification on what the dot with a circle near the red maple swamp
means. Mr. Bartlett will obtain that information.
Questions and comments from the public:
Ms. Kim Woodard of 2030 Mass Ave expressed concern about the mitigation and asked the
Commission if there was a condition in the previous NOI concerning this. Ms. Woodard also
wanted clarification about disturbing the 50% of the natural community in the buffer zone.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the applicants put pervious paving in so that the impervious surface
they were adding wouldn’t violate the 50% rule. The applicants aren’t offering mitigation for the
new parking spaces; they are addressing a flooding problem caused by lack of maintenance and
sedimentation. The Commission is determining whether they should treat this as a wetland issue
or stormwater drainage issue. They can’t address the parking outside the 100 ft. buffer zone.
Motion to continue the hearing at the Applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6-0.
The hearing was continued to February 6, 2017.
CONTINUED MEETINGS/HEARINGS
8:49pm
DET 16-42
6 Lothrop RDA
Owner/applicant: Yu Wei
Project: Construct addition to an existing single-family home
*Applicant requested continuance to 2/6/2017*
Motion to continue the hearing at the Applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0.
The hearing was continued to February 6, 2017.
9:49pm
DET 17-1
RDA: 47 Ledgelawn RDA
Owner/applicant: Pannetta Construction Co. Inc
Project Second Story addition and limited site work
Mr. Frank Pannetta – Owner/builder
The applicant is proposing to build a second story addition. The house and grounds have been
neglected. The applicant wants to salvage and restore the 1920 home. The footprint of the house
will not increase except for the proposed deck, which will increase by 102 sq. ft. He will also re-
pave the existing driveway to reduce the impact in the 100 and 200 ft. buffer zone. He are also
proposing to remove three trees and build a retaining wall. There will be mitigation plantings
near the stream.
Questions and comments from the Commission:
The Commission asked if the only structure outside the existing footprint is the deck. Mr.
Pannetta confirmed that is the case and he will be doing some landscaping work.
The Commission asked the applicant about the fence along the 25ft buffer zone. Mr. Pannetta
stated that the FENO markers will demarcate the 25 ft. buffer.
The Commission stated that a limit of work line be added to the plan.
The Commission stated that the proposal will improve the conditions that are currently on site.
The Commission stated that the 25-foot buffer is in a forested area and they would like to see it
re-populated with trees instead of shrubs that don’t belong in the buffer zone. Mr. Pannetta
stated that he has gone to great effort to minimize the impact and will be restoring the 25 ft.
buffer with seeding and shrubbery. He feels it’s unreasonable to ask him to re-forest that area.
The commission stated that 10 – 6 ft. tall trees should be planted. This will be added as a
condition.
Motion to close the hearing made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0.
9:09pm
DET 17-2
RDA, 36 Sanderson RDA
Applicant: William Caira
Project: New front portico and rear deck addition
Mr. William Caira – Contractor
th
Mr. Caira was previously before the Commission on January 9 to increase the front portico and
add a rear deck. They have since removed the deck from the proposal and are instead proposing
to re-build the deck to its existing size. In an effort to expand the deck without violating
anything, he wanted to know if he could remove the stairs out of the 50ft buffer and put them in
the 100ft buffer zone. In regard to the landscape, the owners are requesting permission to install
a fire pit and walkway. Mr. Caira is additionally requesting to strip and re-side the front wall and
backside of the house.
Ms. Mullins stated that she would sign off on the siding project administratively and would only
need to meet with the Contractor beforehand.
Questions and comments from the Commission:
The Commission asked for clarification on what the applicant is proposing to do with the
concrete walkway going to the deck. Mr. Caira intend to remove the steps and walkway.
The Commission requested that the applicant provide more information on the walkway to the
fire pit and the fire pit itself.
The Commission requested that the applicant provide a more detailed drawing on what is being
done with the deck.
Motion to continue the hearing at the Applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0.
The hearing was continued to February 6, 2017.
9:27pm
DET 17-3
RDA, 95 Hayden Ave
Applicant: 95 Hayden LLC
Project: New light poll installation
Mr. Chris Gajeski with Meridian Associates.
The proposal is for a lighting fixture upgrade and proposed footings for new lighting fixtures.
The applicant was advised to file an RDA on 1/9/2017. Since that time there have been two site
walks. The applicant proactively took care of erosion control.The existing footings have been
replaced with new footings and where needed, new trenching was done for new conduit. The
Commission had proposed that they suspend the installation of new fixtures until the spring since
they can’t see the conditions in the buffer zone because of the snow. The applicant is asking the
Commission if they can lower the lighting fixtures into the footings that are already there. The
applicant presented a poster board showing the photos of the different proposals for the light
poles. Right now there is no lighting in the area and there are safety concerns. He doesn’t
believe there has been encroachment to the vegetative buffer in the area.
Questions and comments from the Commission:
Ms. Mullins stated that she had advised the applicant they would need to file in August 2016.
The applicant stated that the old footings would be covered by subsequent footings. They
wouldn’t do anything with the pit until spring.
The Commission acknowledged that the applicant started work without the Commission’s
permission but thinks they should let them fill the pit.
The Commission asked that the applicant’s submittal include a restoration proposal.
The applicant requested a continuance until the February 21, 2017 meeting with the intent of
having the final plans and a submittal with a more detailed description of the installation and
removal process for the area that has been disturbed.
The Commission agreed to approve the installation of the new lighting and to continue the rest of
the applicant’s request until the February 21, 2017 meeting.
Motion to continue the hearing at the Applicant’s request made by Mr. Langseth and seconded
by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6-0.
The hearing was continued until February 21, 2017.
9:45pm
DEP 201-939, BL 898
30 Oakmount Circle, Amended Order of Conditions
Applicant/owner: Copley Design
Modification to the house footprint and watershed areas and realign drainage systems
*Applicant requested continuance to 2/6/2017*
Motion to continue the hearing at the Applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mr. Bitsko. Vote: 6-0.
9:46pm
DEP 201-1043, BL 1000
NOI, 98 East Street
Applicant/owner: Sean and Jennifer Kennedy
Project: New covered entryway, woodshed, patio, and sports court
*Applicant requested continuance to 2/6/2017*
Motion to continue the hearing at the Applicant’s request made by Mr. Wolk and seconded by
Mrs. Dohan. Vote: 6-0.
Pending Continued
Issue Certificates of Compliance
The Certificates of Compliance will be addressed at the following meeting.
9:47pm
Discuss Steep Slope Regulation
Mr. Hamilton stated that he distributed some information to the Commission at the last meeting
regarding a New Jersey bylaw for steep slope regulation.
Mr. Bitsko stated that on the 45-55-65 Hayden project, they wouldn’t be able to build if this
regulation was in place.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the Commission had discussed waivers for economic hardship in the
past.
The Commission will discuss this further at the next meeting.
Request to install bee hives Upper Vine Brook-Cotton Farm Conservation Area
9:59pm
A local beekeeper is proposing additional bee hives in the Upper Vine Brook-Cotton Farm
conservation area. She would be working with a beekeeping group at the high school and they
will be collecting honey and selling it. The Commission would need to give her a license to
cultivate and allow sales.
Mr. Langseth asked if there has been any complaints about the bees at Idylwilde. Ms. Mullins
responded there have not been. Mr. Langseth is in favor of granting the request.
Mr. Bitsko asked if there is any legal ramifications for bee stings. Mr. Hamilton stated he is
unsure but part of the proposal would be to make it evident there are bee hives in the area.
Approve minutes: 1/9/2016
Motion to approve the minutes made by Mrs. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6-0 in
favor.
Schedule Site Visits for the 2/6/2017 meeting
10:05pm
Site visits were scheduled for Saturday, 2/4/17 at 9:30am.
Reports: Bike Advisory, Community Gardens, Community Preservation Committee, Greenway
Corridor Committee, Land Acquisition, Land Management, Land Steward Directors, and Tree
Committee
Mr. Hamilton stated that there is a meeting with the Conservation Stewards on Monday 1/30/17.
Mr. Langseth received a request from a Lincoln Street group that wants the town to install a
sidewalk near Idylwilde. He told them to see Conservation staff about an informal discussion
and they will need to meet with the Commission. Ms. Dohan stated that they also came before
the GCC.
Mr. Wolk asked Ms. Mullins if she had been able to hire an appraiser to work on the balanced
housing issue. Ms. Mullins said she had not.
10:10pm
Motion to adjourn made by Mrs. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 6-0 in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Casey Hagerty
Conservation Department Assistant