Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-22-CONCOM-min.pdf MINUTES - LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 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 Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7.45 p.m. in Room G-15, Town Office Building. DET #00-7 130 Marrett Road. Wetlands Boundarv/Drainaae 8:00p.m. Present: Dave Hunter, the applicant; Al Gala, Geo Consulting Engineers. Others are listed in the file. Mr. Gala presented the proposed plan which is for the construction of one large dwelling and garage on an area that was formerly two lots. The two lots are combined and two dwellings are being demolished. The wetlands line has been delineated on the adjacent Dunback Meadow conservation land and the boundary is more than 70 feet from the rear property line. All construction is outside the 100-foot buffer, but because of the large increase to the impervious surface, they are filing under the By-Law for review of the drainage system. Mrs. Miller read the Engineering report that found the engineering for the project in compliance with the By-Law It was moved, seconded and unanimously voted to issue a negative Determination with conditions. Executive Session 8.20 p.m. Commissioners Baci, Bitsko, Fallick, Frick, Hamilton, Miller and Wolk voted to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussingland_acgnisition_ The meeting reconvened in open session. HEARING AMENDMENT LEVEL (3) COMMUNICATIONS. Installation Fiber Optic Cable (201-468) 8.30 P.M. Present: Mike Ball, ENSR representing Level (3) Communications. Mr. Ball reviewed the plan approved for the installation of the fiber optic cable in the median of Rt. 128. In the approved plan the line was installed in the median of the highway MI-ID was requiring that the line be installed on the western shoulder of the southbound lane which is within the 100-foot buffer of the Cambridge Res for approximately 750 feet. The revised plans submitted to the Commission reflect this change. The trenching will be done within existing MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 8/22/00 PAGE 2 pavement. The trench will be filled as soon as the cable is installed and the trenches are paved over as regulations require. Hay bales will be installed where the work is within the 100-foot buffer zone. The Cambridge Water Department's watershed management team has reviewed the plans and given instruction for erosion control. The Commission felt that since the work was to be done within the buffer zone,they needed to do a site visit before a decision could be made. They also want know why MHD is requiring this change. With the applicant's permission, it was moved, seconded and voted to continue the hearing to September 5, 2000. HEARING. 128 MAPLE STREET Single-Family House (201-475) 8:50 p.m. Present: Jack Eliades, applicant; Mary Trudeau, wetlands consultant. Others are listed in the file. Ms. Trudeau presented the proposal for a single-family dwelling. The existing house on the lot will be demolished. The wetland line is 60 feet from the house, on the property behind this lot. An infiltrator system has been designed to mitigate the stormwater from the additional impervious surface created with the construction of the new dwelling. Mrs. Miller read the Engineer's Report which required more information before the plan could be approved. With the applicant's permission, it was moved, seconded and voted to continue the hearing to September 5 The Commission advised the applicant that a more substantial buffer,to protect the natural area from the yard activity area, should be shown on the plan. 9 P.M. CONT'D HEARING. WINNING FARM. 4-lot Subdivision/roadway- 201-441 to 445 Present: Phyllis Etsell. Winning Farm Trust: Douglas Miller Commonwealth Engineering: and Gary Sandford, Sanford Ecological; Ingeborg Hegemann, Commission consultant. Others are listed in the file. Mrs. Miller introduced the hearing by explaining that it was continued so that that abutters and Commission concerns could be addressed regarding the status of the stream, the wetlands lines and engineering issues. Phyllis Etsell said that as a result of the site walk,the plans have been revised to accommodate some of the Commissioners' comments. They plan to submit the revised plans by Friday and request another extension to give the Commission the opportunity to review the new revisions. Doug Miller discussed the revisions to the plan. On Lot 1, changes include regrading behind the house to a 4 1 slope and adding a retaining wall with a railing and a post and rail fence as a MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 8/22/00 PAGE 3 barrier to the 25-foot buffer. Similarly on Lot 2 a post and rail fence has been added with a small retaining wall. The retaining walls are three to four feet high. The side yard had been regraded to a 4 1 slope. The work on Lot 3 includes a portion of the replication area and the detention basin. The area between the proposed dwelling and the wetland is graded at a 5 1 slope and the area sloping toward the replication varies from 3 1 to 4 1 Again they are proposing a post and rail fence as a barrier to start at the street to tie into the fence on Lot 2. The house has also been reconfigured so it is about 45 feet from the wetlands replication area. Gary Sandford explained they have identified 14 trees that provide a canopy overstory within the proposed area of replication that they would like to save. They are trying to reconfigure the replication design so that two-thirds of the area under the drip line would be a non-disturbance zone. This process has not yet been completed, but at this stage of the design they feel they can definitely save 12 of the trees. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Miller provided specific information on certain dimensions as follows: on Lot 1,the house location remains the same and is 52 feet from the wetlands with the elevation at the front of 257 and the wetlands at 251, on Lot 2,the wetlands at elevation 248 is 55 feet from the house at elevation 260; and on Lot 3 wetlands 42 feet from the house at elevation 253 with the house elevation 260. Mr. Hamilton clarified that the dimensions between house locations and the replication area may change with the redesign of the replication area to save the trees. Mr. Miller said they will make a commitment that they will not reduce the buffer area. Mr. Miller said there has been no change to the 4,400 s.f. of area impacted. The replication area will be 5,700 s.f. The Commission requested that the plans for the next presentation be colored, and in particular the 100 and 50 foot buffer lines clearly shown. Justin Margolskee, 23 Peachtree Road, said their research has shown that the wetlands line they believe to be true increases the amount of wetlands that would be filled under the proposal. They have previously submitted a plan showing a wetland line that is much larger than shown on the applicant's plan. Joyce read Tom Haves' review memnhichis_in_the ile. Hic review eon ehideththatthe_plans were not complete and additional information is needed. She read into the record letters from Stephen Voss and Paul Newman, representing NOPE. David Sperduto presented a plan showing his interpretation of the wetland line in comparison with the wetland line shown on the current applicant's plan of record. He said that with the exception of the area he actually tested, he got all the other segments of the line from the Commonwealth Engineering plans because he did not have access to the property He reviewed the results of his analysis of the vegetation and soils from test holes on each quad of his plan. The most recent field testing adjacent to the Winning Farm property was done last week and the information that was shown on the Winning Farm property was from a report he did in 1996. In response to Mr. Wolk's question about the establishment of a homeowners' association, Mrs. Etsell said the development is proposed as a single-family home development. In response to the MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 8/22/00 PAGE 4 question about who will then assume the responsibility for maintenance of the proposed Vortex drainage system, Mr. Miller said the Town Engineering Department has stated that they will not maintain the drainage system. Therefore he believes there will be a need to establish a homeowners' association to be comprised of these four lots to maintain the drainage system. In response to how this system is to be maintained, Mr. Miller said he believes the manufacturer's maintenance manual has been submitted to the Commission. Mr. Miller is not aware of any other responsibilities the homeowners' association would have other than responsibility to maintain the drainage system. The Town will be responsible for plowing and the street could become accepted, but the Town would still not be responsible for the drainage system. The Commission questioned whether there had been options and alternatives studied and presented regarding access to the site at locations other than from Blueberry Lane to prevent the impact they are proposing for their access. Mr. Miller used a plan to illustrate how there could be no access possible from either Woburn or Winchester because of ownership issues or because of difficult topography and wetlands crossings that would be required. The area north of the wetlands on the site is too limited to propose building except for the one lot. There would be greater impact to the wetland if it had to be crossed from the north. The applicants would have no difficulty with placing a deed restriction on the property to further protect the land from being accessed at other locations. The projects in Woburn and Winchester are totally separate projects and owned by others including the Towns. In response to assigning responsibility for seeing that the replication area succeeds, Mr. Sanford said that normally this is required through the Commission with annual monitoring reports being required. Normally a 75 percent success rate must be achieved within two years. The Commission would have ultimate control and without success, a Certificate of Compliance could not be issued. The replication area is on two lots, and for these lots generally money would be held in escrow at the closing to cover the costs of dealing with the replication. Again the applicants were asked, if the replication does not take, how would this be resolved? Mrs. Etsell summarized the possibilities: the Commission could require a bond that they would use if the replication was unsuccessful, the Certificate of Compliance would be withheld until the owners of the two lots on which the replication was located had satisfied the replication success. The homeowners would have money from the developer that had been held in escrow from the sale of the lot. She said replications done by this applicant have been snccessfiil. An example is located in Woburn off Julian Circle. J Mr.Newman said that if they were given access to do test pits, he feels that they would expand the wetlands line. This would expand the buffers and change the nature of the design of the development. He said they are not allowed to access the site for their study, but it will happen during the adjudicatory process. He explained that if they were given permission to go on the site now,based on the pits they dug on the site in 1996, the wetland line would expand 15 to 20 feet. Carol Barlow, 9 Thornberry in Winchester, explained that in her experience when neighbors share responsibility the work does not get done. MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 8/22/00 PAGE 5 Ms. Nordby requested that a context plan showing the entire site be submitted with the corrected wetlands line. As a result of the new information submitted at this hearing, the Commission scheduled another site visit 9 a.m. on August 29 Mr. Voss gave permission to enter his property to check that wetlands in conjunction to the line on the Winning Farm property With the applicant's permission, it was moved, seconded and voted to continue the hearing to September 19, 2000. Order of Conditions— 1 Rolfe Road(346 Woburn Street) (201-473) It was moved, seconded and voted to approve the Order of Conditions as amended. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn Nordby Conservation Administrator 1