Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-20-CONCOM-min.pdf MINUTES - LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 20, 2000 Commissioners present: Lisa Baci, Duke Bitsko, Bebe Fallick, Angela Frick, Philip Hamilton, Joyce Miller and Richard Wolk(8 p.m.). Others present: Marilyn Nordby and Linda Gaudet. Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7.45 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building. Town Report Photo - Since Commissioners will be on vacation throughout the summer, it was decided that the photo will be taken at a site visit in the fall. This will be tabled until then. Site Visits - Saturday, July 8—Lexington Park cluster development, meet at Sullivan Road at 10 a.m., then go to Peacock Farm Road. (Dick Wolk arrived at 8 p.m.) HEARING. 188 EAST EMERSON RD T &N. Colatosti. Addition 8 P.M. Present: Mary Rimmer, consultant;Nancy and Thomas Colatosti, applicants. Others are listed in the file. Mrs. Miller read the engineering report which recommended that a test pit be dug and a percolation test done in the general area of where the stormwater mitigation system would be installed to determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation and percolation rate of the soils. Mary Rimmer presented a plan for construction of an addition to the rear of the dwelling at 188 East Emerson Road. The proposal is to convert an existing deck to a Florida room. The existing deck is semi-pervious. New piers will be installed for the addition which will be 60 feet from the BVW Stormwater runoff from the addition will be directed to two infiltrator units. Because the increase in the runoff will be minimal, the Commission was asked to consider an alternative such as an infiltrator trench. Without an infiltrator system,the runoff from the roof will infiltrate and pass over 60 feet of lawn as it does now Because she believes there won't be any increase in the rate of runoff along the property line,the system is designed to comply with the worst case scenario. An alternative would be a french drain system around the perimeter of the structure. In response to a question asking if there would be an increase in the rate of runoff with sheet flow during ice and snow conditions, Ms. Rimmer said the difference between the pre and post rates of runoff would be very similar because the runoff coefficient is similar. The drainage ditch appears to be an outflow from the subdivision closed drainage system. When water is flowing, it goes to the Vine Brook. The flow in the channel dries up during the summer. Mr. Hamilton read a letter from Christine and Steven Roth of 191 East Emerson Road confirming that the stream is dry most of the year. MINUTES - LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 6/20/00 PAGE 2 Mrs. Frick did not agree with the wording in the NOI stating that the project is located within 60 feet of the edge of BVW and this meets the minimum setback distance of 50 feet, as established under the wetland by-law She said that the Commission may allow a 50-foot adjustment but the Commission has jurisdiction over 100 feet from BVW Ms. Rimmer said they would like to work with our engineer to allow something less intensive; a french drain is a possibility The Commission agreed that if they wish to make a proposal for an alternative solution, this could be submitted for approval by the Engineer. In any event, a test pit and percolation test will have to be performed to determine the adequacy of any type of system proposed. Mr. Bitsko noted that the lawn condition and the topsoil are poor infiltrators on this site so runoff may be generated beyond the lawn. He also pointed out that the lawn is irrigated and that if the soil is saturated a large amount of time, runoff will not be absorbed. Mrs. Rimmer said the conditions on the lawn will remain the same for pre and post, and that the only difference should be the roof runoff. If all the outstanding issues are resolved, the Order of Conditions may be approved at the next meeting. With the applicant's permission, it was moved, seconded and unanimously voted to continue the hearing to July 11 at 7.45 p.m. CONT'D DET #00-5, 250 LINCOLN ST J DeHaro, Addition Mrs. Miller opened the hearing and read the Engineering report verifying that the soils will support the stormwater system designed for this site. It was moved, seconded and voted to close the hearing. Determination of Applicability 250 Lincoln Street - Det. #00-5 It was moved, seconded and unanimously voted to issue the Determination of Applicability with conditions as amended for 250 Lincoln Street. Cambridge Watershed Advisory Committee Meeting - Mrs. Miller noted these meeting are worthwhile attending.No one for the Commission will attend this year. A Guide to Lexington Conservation Land - The Guide has been updated and Commissioners given copies. Ms. Nordby noted that the maps in the Guide are on the web site. A copy will be given to the Library Hanscom AFB David Miller, the Commission's representative, is attending a meeting regarding a proposed plan for remedial actions at one of the restoration sites on the base. He will be submitting a report. MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 6/20/00 PAGE 3 CONT'D. HEARING. WINNING FARM. 4-lot Subdivision/roadwav -201-441 to 445 8.45 pm Present: Phyllis Etsell, Winning Farm Trust; Gary Sanford, representative. Others are listed in the file. Mrs. Miller opened the hearing noting that it will have to be continued because the engineering report has not been received. Phyllis Etsell, representing Winning Farm Trust, introduced Dr. Sanford from Sanford Ecological. Doug Miller,the engineer from Commonwealth Engineering, was late so Dr. Sanford gave an overview of the project. Ms. Etsell planned to show a video of two site walks of the Winning Farm site, but was not able to get the machine to work properly, therefore they will be shown at the next meeting. Dr. Sanford reviewed the permitting history of the site including a Superseding Order issued by DEP denying an earlier proposal for the same site. The new plan is designed to address the issues raised by the Commission and DEP that caused the previous proposal to be denied. One issue was the stream and its designation and origin. The original project did not address the issue of a stream,the more than 50 feet of bank and the wildlife habitat evaluation for that resource. A second issue was the proposed replication plan which was not acceptable. A third issue was that of a claim that the water on the site was class A water affecting the drinking water supply for the City of Woburn. A revised stormwater drainage system has been designed. The applicant claims that the replication area has been redesigned to meet performance standards, and the surface waters have been identified as class B. The report submitted to the Commission by the applicant identifies the stream and the wildlife habitat characteristics present and concludes that they meet the basic requirements for important wildlife habitat as defined in the regulations. The report discusses the mitigation plan and its implementation to meet the performance standards of no net loss of wetlands or wildlife habitat. The location of the wetland boundary as shown on the new plan has been reviewed and he believes the boundary is acceptable to all parties at this point. According to the applicant's calculations,the amount of wetlands to be impacted is 4,415 s.f. The replication is designed as a network of channels to mimic the existing conditions in the impact area. More detail for this design is in the submittal. Water will flow from the water quality basin and travel through the network of channels. One house,previously located closer than 25 feet to the replicated wetland,had portions of the deck removed to maintain a 25 foot separation. The other buildings are over 50 feet from the existing wetland boundary Information has been submitted on the infiltration data and test pits that were done in the area of the infiltration galleries. Ms. Etsell said that at Saturday's site walk, the Commission's consultant had additional questions to be answered by Mr. Miller. Ms. Nordby will have the questions reviewed by the Town Engineer and return them to Mr. Miller. For the record Mrs. Miller read a letter from Mr Newman dated October 25, 1999, regarding his observations of the flow conditions in the stream, which he believes is perennial, on the Winning Farm parcel. A second letter from Mr Newman dated June 16, 2000, was read regarding his MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 6/20/00 PAGE 4 submittal of a composite map for the Winning Farm project. Commissioners noted that this map was color-coded and very helpful during the site visit. Comments from the audience followed. Justin Margolskee, an abutter, said he submitted a large document several months ago and he has reviewed the new plan. His plan shows a total of 7,500 s.f. of wetland, not the 4,000 s.f. claimed by the applicant. This would require a larger replication area. He submitted a letter stating that he took a soil sample which he believes to be hydric which was located outside the area shown on the plan as wetland, he submitted the soil sample. He thought the abutters should have been notified of the site visit. Mrs. Miller said site visits are primarily for Commissioners and that the public may not be allowed on some sites. Mr. Margolskee said he thinks the grading proposal will direct the stormwater flow to 24 Peachtree Lane, and if so, it may also impact him at 23 Peachtree. It was pointed out that increase in runoff to private property is not allowed. He asked who will maintain the drainage system and asked if there are similar systems presently in Town. In response to Ms. Nordby's question about his wetlands map, he said that the blue/pink area is the area he believes to be additional wetland area. Mr.Newman said that he believes that the original wetlands line shown on the previously denied plan was re-adopted for the new plan. He thinks the area of wetlands is much larger. He said that Mr Margolskee hired Dave Sperduto, an approved soils evaluator, to look for hydric soils 25 to 50 feet outside the applicant's boundary Based on his analysis, he expanded the wetlands to the areas shown on Mr Margolskee's map. Dr. Sanford stated that the Commission has accepted the wetland line presented on the current plan. The line is not the same as shown on the former plan that was denied. Mr Colosimo, 24 Peachtree Road, said on 6/8/99 he submitted two maps to the Commission. He said the groundwater is at 220 feet and that it falls in a sharp channel across his property He is concerned that most of the water that will be coming from the road systems will collect in the solids separator and then flow down through the rip-rap directly onto his property He has calculated a substantial flow of water onto his property and wants to know if there has been any change. He is concerned that the water will be carrying pollutants from the pavement. He hopes the water going across his property will be substantially less this time. Lorraine Rogowitz Black, 18 Blueberry Lane, abutter to the proposed roadway, noted she wrote several letters with the first proposal. She said that her first swimming pool had to be replaced because of damage by the underground drainage coming from the hill. There is a lot of water flowing between lots 16 and 18 that comes from the hill. She has a french drain in her basement and is concerned about more water problems as a result of potential development. Stephan Voss, 20 Blueberry Lane, abuts the stonewall. He has noted wetland plants near his property and cannot understand why these plants don't continue on the development parcel. He believes the proposed roadway is within 25 feet of the wetland for most of its course. He thinks the wetlands adjacent to his property should be analyzed. He has seen several references to a 1985 USGS Map indicating that this is an intermittent stream. He has a picture of a 1997 USGS Map indicating it is perennial. He asked why the applicant keeps referencing the 1985 Map. MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 6/20/00 PAGE 5 Mrs. Miller said it was to the applicant's advantage if the stream is intermittent, but that it is up to the Commission to make that determination. Paul Newman asked if the wetlands delineation was firm. Mrs. Miller said the wetlands delineation has not expired, but it has been amended. Mr. Newman, representing NOPE (Neighbors Opposed to a Polluted Environment 2000), said that he has been working with the BU School of Public Health for 4 months, and their study says that there is about an acre or two of uncharacterized solid waste on the Lexington parcel as well as in Woburn. He showed photos from a BU report of an area along the ravine. He said they had permission to walk the site. He said that right now there is a proposal on the table in Woburn and also in Winchester to completely excavate the fill materials and test it. If, in the course of that process, the area is recognized as needing remediation, it will need some kind of future activity He said in the NOI there were repeated claims that there is going to be no future work in the area that would cause significant environmental affects. All of this work is in the same sub-drainage basin to Shaker Glen Brook which is being assaulted. He wants to see a map include all of the area in all of the Towns with the stormwater management plans. Ms. Etsell responded to Mr Newman's reference to the landfill area. She said no one from Winning Home Inc., nor Winning Home Trust, gave permission for BU to go on the property and asked how they could verify that the pictures were of the Winning Home property She said that the landfill area in Woburn does not extend into Lexington. She said that the solid waste area is located in Winchester and is quite a distance from the Lexington line. She showed an aerial ( photo showing the fill area. The fill was brought in by Winning Home Inc. from 1979 to 1983 She said it is not a true landfill, but because of quantities it was declared a landfill and now must be removed under the solid waste regulations. She said she believes there is no trash or rubbish in Lexington. Barbara Newman, abutter, believes there is fill on the Lexington parcel, and that it has never been tested. Mr. Margolskee said that from his lot line he can look at the Lexington Winning Farm parcel and he can see the material that has been dumped there. He doesn't have to trespass to see this. Mr. Doug Miller, representative, arrived, but it was too late for a presentation. Ms. Etsell said she wants all questions submitted to their representative so he can respond in a timely manner She wants the hearing to be closed at the next meeting. Mr Hamilton suggested that the hearing be held at a later time in order that all concerns be addressed,particularly the issue of the stream. Therefore, with the applicant's permission, it was moved, seconded and voted to continue the hearing to August 8 at 8.30 p.m. The Commission continued a general discussion regarding the project. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda A. Gaudet Secretary