Loading...
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