Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-03-CONCOM-min.pdf MINUTES - LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2000 Present: Lisa Baci, Duke Bitsko, Bebe Fallick, Angela Frick, Philip Hamilton, Joyce Miller and Richard Wolk. Others present: Linda Gaudet. Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. in Room G-15, Town Office Building. Reed's Brook Discussion The Commission discussed the article in the Arlington Advocate regarding the Reed's Brook Project and Kevin O'Brien's comments about the Order of Conditions. Ms. Baci noted that Mr. O'Brien had talked to her for clarification of the Order. CONT'D HEARING. DUNHAM STREET LOT 1 - 201-474 Mrs. Miller read a letter from the applicant, Roger DuPont, withdrawing the NOI application without prejudice. The Notice was withdrawn because the Planning Board did not approve the two-lot subdivision plan. It was moved, seconded and voted to grant the applicant's request to withdraw the NOI. 17 Sanderson Road, Porous Pavement Mrs. Miller reported that the owners received a Certificate of Compliance for their property at 17 Sanderson Road. One of the conditions to continue in perpetuity is that the driveway shall be constructed of a pervious surface. The owners have requested approval to install a new porous pavement. The Commission decided that they should file a RFD so that the details can be given an engineering review The owners will be notified. Site Visits - Saturday, October 14— 10 a.m. —6 Brookwood Road. Certificate of Compliance—30 Brookside Avenue—DET #99-21 It was moved, seconded and voted to issue a Certificate of Compliance for the nroiect at 30 Brookside Avenue. Minutes - It was moved, seconded and voted to approve the minutes of August 15, 2000, as corrected. It was moved, seconded and voted to approve the minutes of August 22, 2000, as submitted. 8 P.M. CONT'D HEARING, 58 SOLOMON PIERCE ROAD A. Vilenkin, Addition - 201-478 Present: Alex Vilenkin, applicant; Richard Kirby, LEC Consultant; Dylan James, Meridian Engineering; John Carter, 55 Solomon Pierce Road. The Engineer's report was read which finds that the design was prepared using standard and accepted engineering practice and he concurs with the engineer's methods and conclusions. MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 10/3/00 PAGE 2 Mr. James presented plans for the proposed addition to a single-family house at 58 Solomon Pierce Road. The project is detailed in the NOI on file and will be conducted within the buffer zone to BVW and Bank. The wetlands are 65' from the deck and 73' from the addition. A Cultec infiltration stormwater system will be installed to mitigate runoff generated by the new addition. A revised plan moving wetlands flag#4 nine feet and showing the 50-foot setback line, was submitted. When asked about the ditch to the left side of the house, Mr. Vilenkin said it has always been there. It was moved, seconded and voted to close the hearing. Order of Conditions. 32 Lincoln Street - 201-476 It was moved, seconded and voted to approve the Order of Conditions for 32 Lincoln Street as submitted. Order of Conditions. Pine Meadows Golf Course. Irrieation - 201-477 It was moved, seconded and voted to approve the Order of Conditions for Pine Meadows Golf Course Irrigation as amended. Executive Session Commissioners Baci, Bitsko, Fallick, Frick, Hamilton, Miller and Wolk voted to go into Executive Session for the purpose of approving minutes and discussing potential litigation and land acquisition. The meeting resumed in open session. CONT'D HEARING. WINNING FARM. 4-lot subdivision/roadwav - 201-441to 445 8:45pm Present: Phyllis Etsell and Gary Ruping, Winning Farm Trust; Douglas Miller, Commonwealth Engineering; Gary Sanford, Sanford Ecological, Ingeborg Hegemann, Commission consultant. Others are listed in the file. Phyllis Etsell submitted a written response dated 10/2/00 from Doug Miller, Commonwealth Engineering, to Mr. Hayes' engineering report, and a construction schedule for the project. Doug Miller reported that the plans have been revised to reflect the change in the grading behind the houses to a 3 1 or 4 1 slope. They have added post and rail fence to reinforce buffer protection. These plans show the wetlands line revised as the result of the recent site inspection. This includes additional wetlands against the wall of the Voss property and an isolated wetlands. The driveway on Lot 4 has been revised to avoid additional alteration of the newly delineated wetlands. Doug Miller responded as follows to some of the comments made in the Engineer's Report. The soils from the test pits were analyzed using the Middlesex County Soils Report and the profiles were done by a DEP soils evaluator, and used to determine the leaching capacity of the soils at II each location. He does not believe a percolation test will provide any additional information or MINUTES - LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 10/3/00 PAGE 3 require a revision to their design. Mr. Miller said that Mr. Hayes' requirement to use percolation tests to verify the soils infiltration capacity was an old fashioned way of determining the conditions for an infiltration system, although perc tests are still required for septic systems. He said that most other states don't use that methodology because in his opinion it is not any more reliable that a good soils analysis. The detention pond is designed as a wet pond. An additional detail for the weir in that pond was provided on the plan for the Engineer's review whose concern was with the maximum velocity coming over that weir. The maximum velocity during the 100-year storm is .66 feet per second, which is typical of a weir. It discharges a significant amount of water at a very low velocity He does not anticipate any scouring at the outlet. Mr Hayes questioned whether the discharge point for the street drainage could be moved further upstream so there would be treatment to the runoff before it reached the Colisimos' lot. He also questioned who would maintain this system which includes the Vortechs unit in the future. If the system is not maintained there could be an impact on the wetlands. Doug Miller said that a drainage maintenance manual, which was reviewed by Mr. Hayes, has been submitted. The applicant proposes the establishment of a homeowners' association for the maintenance of the roadway and associated utilities so that maintenance will not be the Town's responsibility He said that Mr. Hayes recommended that the Vortechs unit be placed outside of the right of way He strongly disagrees because it would be more difficult to maintain outside the right of way and the likelihood of continued proper maintenance would be reduced. In his opinion it should be in the roadway where it can be seen. The manufacturer recommends that it be cleaned four times a year The amount of sand used in the winter will determine the number of times it should be cleaned. There are examples of this system in Lexington, one is in the Stop & Shop parking area. Ms. Baci said that the Engineer asked about the storm velocities during various storm events. Doug Miller said he only gave the 100-year storm event because this is the peak velocity to be developed during the highest head inside the pond. Ms. Baci reminded Mr. Miller that he should respond to all the points in our Engineers review Mr. Miller said he would provide this information. In response to a questions from Mr. Wolk, Mr. Miller agreed that the discharge point on Lot 1 is just a few feet from wetland flag A-2 with the riprap extending about eight feet beyond. Dr. Sanford responded to some of the issues in Ingeborg Hegemann's review One issue was whether the proposed braided stream, created to replicate for filled wetlands, is going to serve a dual purpose to also remove pollution. He said that the replacement area as proposed is meant to serve only as a replacement area. The stormwater management system would remove the required amount of suspended sediments. Dr. Sanford will submit his response in writing. In regard to groundwater monitoring at the roadway crossing, he intends to establish the baseline at the point where leaf discoloration indicates the extent of flooding. This will be marked, surveyed and placed on a plan. He suggests that the wetland monitoring program be conducted over a two-year period and that it be addressed in the Order of Conditions. The height of the spring water would be monitored in the areas where the baseline is established. He agrees that a wetlands scientist should supervise the construction and that this was included in the wetland filing. Chairman Miller read a letter from Frank Capezzera, from Murtha Cullina, Roche Carens & DeGiacomo, Counsel for Winning Home, Inc., dated 9/18/00, into the record. Mrs. Miller said the Commission was concerned about a reference in the letter regarding a statement that the MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 10/3/00 PAGE 4 Town of Lexington expressed no interest in discussing the acquisition of this land in 1997 when the possibility existed. Mrs. Miller said she remembers very clearly that Selectmen Leo McSweeney contacted the people who were selling Winning Farm and asked to be included in talks as were Woburn and Winchester. We were told by Mr. McSweeney that they would not discuss this with the Town of Lexington. The Commission has never been approached by Winning Farm to buy that land. Mr. Ruping clarified for the record that they are the purchasers of the property, not the owners, and they had no comments or influence over the referenced letter Also with reference to the letter, Mrs. Miller also stated that the BU report is part of the record and cannot be removed. Mrs. Miller read for the record the report from Ingeborg Hegemann 9/29/00, the Commission's consultant. Also read into the record the following: a letter from Mr &Mrs. Colosimo from 24 Peachtree Road 9/17/00 regarding their concerns about being impacted from the project; and a letter from Gary Sanford 9/22/00 regarding the vegetation analysis and overstory trees in the replacement area, and an affidavit. Ms. Baci asked about the affidavit which mentioned a site walk on 9/6/00. He said that he went on this site walk by himself. He thought it was important for the Commission to know that that stream ultimately dried up after the Commission's walk. Ms. Baci asked about the status of permits from other Boards, specifically the Planning Board. Ms. Etsell said that have not submitted to the Planning Board. They filed with the Commission first because they thought there would be more Conservation concerns to overcome. Ms. Baci said sometimes it is best to do these things simultaneously; this project will have to come back to Conservation if the plan changes substantially In response to Commission concerns that alternative access plans were never reviewed, Ms. Etsell and Mr Ruping said there is no other frontage to access the site. Even if the land in Woburn is purchased for this purpose, a major wetland crossing would be required. Mr. Hamilton articulated the concern expressed by the Colosimos and the Town's reviewing Engineer regarding the maintenance of the Vortech system. He has difficulty in understanding how a Homeowner's Association is going to be motivated to maintain this unit four times a year. Also, with the discharge pipe in a location that is not obvious, there may be little motivation to maintain it. Mr. Hamilton asked if there is an alternative placement for that unit where it would he more visible to the homeowners. Mr Miller said that was a good point hut they located the Vortechnics unit in the roadway because of the elevation of the two catch basins which are at the low point of the roadway The roadway is at the existing grade. The detention pond is for the runoff that takes place farther up the road. They think that the only place to discharge those two catch basins is down that slope because of grade. If they raised the road, it would have more impact on the wetlands and result in more filling. By keeping the road at the existing grade,the location of the catch basins is fixed. Mr. Ruping suggested that the establishment of a Homeowner's Association to maintain the Vortex Unit can be required, in perpetuity, in the Order of Conditions. Mr Hamilton noted that such a condition would be very difficult to enforce, and there is a high risk that the Unit won't be maintained because of the land and site. The Commission tries to establish conditions that protect the wetlands and adjacent properties without requiring the Commission police the situation. Mr. Miller said the applicant does not intend to have the Town maintain the roadway or the Unit, and this would be so addressed in the Homeowner's Association agreement. MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 10/3/00 PAGE 5 In response to Mr Bitsko's question, Doug Miller said the depth of the eight-inch pipe will vary from 18 feet where it goes under a hill to 8 to 10 feet before it emerges on a slope. Mr. Miller said they will blast if they hit bedrock. The calculations for the water discharging from the 8- inch pipe have been performed for different storm events and have been reviewed and approved by the consulting Engineer. Regarding the drainage from the pipe near the Colosimos' property, Mr. Miller said that the stormwater runoff from most of the site now collects in the stream and flows to the wetlands at the bottom of the site near the Colosimo's property Under the proposed drainage plan, much of this flow from the center of the proposed plan will be redirected to the detention pond. Only the overflow will find its way back into the stream. The pipe near their lot transports only the runoff collected in the catch basins from an area near Blueberry Lane. One of the criteria for the drainage plan is that peak flows not be increased off site. The consulting Engineer has agreed that this criteria has been met. Dr Sanford said that he does not believe there will be a change to the stream channel. It is a low flow stream channel that is fed by groundwater and this will continue. The discharge from the pipe is approximately 25 feet from the wetland and 90 feet from the stream channel. The edge of the riprap is approximately 10 feet from the edge of the wetland and 70 feet from the stream channel. Mr. Wolk is concerned that on Lot 1,there is only 51 feet, with an eight-foot drop in elevation, between the house and the wetland at flag A7 On lot 2 the nearest flag at All is about 55 feet from the house with 12 foot change in grade. The concern on lot 3 is that the wetland line is outside the detention basin and the braided stream which means a new wetlands line will be created. Mr. Miller said he does not consider the detention pond a wetland. The corner of the proposed dwelling will be about 54 feet from the new wetland line. The slope is from elevation 263 to 253 Mr. Wolk said a 5 1 slope in such a short distance is a problem for the Commission particularly in regard to preventing wetlands pollution from pesticides and fertilizers that the stormwater will transport to the wetlands over this narrow steep buffer. Mrs. Frick commented that the replication area, being on a private lot, may be trouble when it is the responsibility of that owner. The Commission has found that homeowners with wetlands on their lots fill them, or want to fill them. Ms. Baci is concerned about how this plan differs from the plan originally submitted. Mr. Miller said that there is no change to the houses or their locations on lots A-1 and A 2, but retaining walls were added to reduce the grading; the house on A-3 has been made smaller but is in the same location, with the side slopes regraded from the edge of the house to the wetland area; and on lot A-4 the house and location are the same, with minor regrading in the front for the infiltrator. The driveway to lot 4 was changed to avoid a wetland. There is no change in the subdivision roadway Mr. Miller said that there is no landscaping plan for the project. Ms. Baci said that a landscaping plan for this project is a critical component to protect the wetland, and that the Commission would prefer to see it before the Order of Conditions is written. Mr. Wolk asked Ms. Hegemann for a further explanation regarding the braided swales mentioned in her review letter. Ms. Hegemann said the applicant has proposed to remove a certain amount of suspended solids by means of Best Management Practices (BMP's) which includes the Vortechnics, the catch basins, and the detention pond. The replicated wetlands (the braided stream)were not used in the calculations for the solids removal. Although ideally, long MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 10/3/00 PAGE 6 term, the wetlands should provide additional pollutant attenuation, she didn't want that replicated area used for stormwater management. It should not serve as a BMP which serves a different function than a replicated wetland that is required by the By-Law in the Wetlands Protection Act. She wants to be sure they are meeting their goals for stormwater mitigation without also using the wetland replication area. The other concern is that the velocity of water coming over the weir does not cause scouring on the stream side before the ground is stabilized. Point 066 cfs has some velocity and in the more frequent events, it would be helpful to know what the velocities are for purposes of construction control until the area is stabilized. Mr. Miller said the braided area was not counted twice. Mr. Wolk said one of the alternatives not looked at was having fewer houses. If there were fewer houses, you may not have to be as close to the wetland. Ingeborg Hegemann asked if the slope of the pipe from the two catch basins at the front by Blueberry Lane is at 0 percent. Mr. Miller said yes, but the diameter is 12 inches. Additional concerns are: the maintenance of the flat pipe which has no access points for maintenance where it is buried 12 feet down; groundwater conditions may be encountered during the installation of the catch basins,the Vortechnics and pipe; and the four-foot sumps of the catch basins must be water tight in the event they are in groundwater. Mr. Miller said they are water tight which is a standard requirement. He said that the gravels and sands used as the base of the road, where it crosses the wetland, will be consistent with the groundwater plan that has been presented so that the groundwater can continue to move laterally Ms. Hegemann suggested to Dr. Sanford that the Commission will need help on understanding how to evaluate the success of the replicated wetland and how the monitoring of the groundwater is to be done. This should be detailed information. Joe Colosimo of 24 Peachtree Road is concerned that with the destruction of so many trees more water will be getting into the stream. The detention basin only redirects the water for a time, but eventually it goes to the stream. The stream is clean now, but with homeowners wanting nice yards, the contaminants will get into the stream. He can't believe that another location for the outflow pipe cannot be found so that all the salt and oils will not be directly dumped on his land. Justin Margolskee, direct abutter, questioned the impact on wetland. Initially the proposal indicated about 3,000 feet to be impacted; now the figure was 4,800 feet. His study, which was done before he was prohibited access to that land, was submitted to the Commission and indicated more than 6,000 feet were impacted. He does not believe the revisions to the plan have changed that much. The point is that they are proposing to replicate an area smaller amount than 5,000 feet and he thinks it is grossly too small, it should be doubled. Meredith Doesschate, Barberry Road, Winchester, thanked the Commission for trying to get the questions answered. She is looking at the negatives of the bigger picture such as impact on open space, ecological functions,the environment, the trees and the impact downstream. She is very concerned about the loss of all this for four homes. MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 10/3/00 PAGE 7 Patricia Miller, 22 Thornberry Road, Winchester, wondered how the Homeowners' Association would be held liable for the maintenance of the Vortech unit and if they would be fined if they were negligent in the maintenance. She understands the Town engineer's problem in it being in the right-of-way because when that private way becomes public,the taxpayers will have to pay for its maintenance. Mr. Hamilton responded that the Commission can levy fines for violations of the WPA and the By-Law But it must go to court to do this and it can be very difficult. The most effective enforcement mechanism would be for the abutters to sue the Homeowners' Association if they suffered damage because there would be a cause of action against them. That would be more money than the fine. There is an enormous amount of work and expense to bring a suit. That is why the Commission is so reluctant to approve anything that has the potential of causing damage to the wetlands or to other property Mr. Ruping said that it can be written into the Homeowners' Association that the Town would have access to the roadway for maintenance issues. At that point, the DPW and Town Engineer, and Town officials can then charge the Homeowners' Association for that maintenance if there is a failure. There can be a provision in the language that the Town could put a lien on the properties if the Association does not pay This has been done for other Homeowners' Associations that they have set up. The Town would access this only if there was a failure or if on an inspection, it was found not to be cleaned out. The Commission responded that this would be a burden on the Town and the Town may not have enough staff,be able to afford litigation, or to hire people to go around cleaning systems that were the responsibility of someone else. A member of the audience wanted clarification of the people attending and who they represent. Gary Ruping, of Winning Home Trust, said he is one of the principals and applicant who wants to purchase the property Winning Home Inc. is the current owner of the property Patricia, President of the WSNA Westside Neighborhood Association, said they are on record as being opposed to having construction roads into the site from Woburn or Winchester. Roads built for such purposes would not be demolished and their quality of life in Woburn, Winchester and Lexington will be diminished. Ms. Baci clarified for Mr. Voss that she understands from the plan that water running down Blueberry Lane will not enter the site due to a higher grade at the entrance road. Mr. Voss is also concerned that with consideration given to margin of error,the 4873 s.f. noted as impacted wetlands is too close to 5,000 s.f. and more that 1 1 replication should be required. Mrs. Miller asked Dr. Sanford what the percentage of error would be. He said you can't look at it from a perspective of error because you have a continuum from a wetland to an upland. The new boundary is manmade and by definition actually doesn't exist in nature. There is a method of delineation that includes looking at the vegetation and the soils. Two different delineators may delineate wetlands boundaries differently That is why there is so much effort coming to an agreement about what should be considered the wetland boundary and what shouldn't. Ms. Hegemann said the other factor that comes into play is what kind of a wetland transition it is; if there is a nice topographic distinction you can pinpoint it to that. If it is a broad transitional zone, it is very difficult. One should look at the wetlands that are being proposed for alteration MINUTES LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 10/3/00 PAGE 8 to get a sense of the potential for error. A portion of that was a fairly clearly topographic break on the western side where the majority of the impact is. She thought Gary answered the question well. Paul Newman asked for clarification of the wetlands line on the Voss property Ms. Hegemann said there is no surface hydraulic connection. The part of the wetland that was flagged on the Winning property was a depression by the stonewall that supported the arrowwood, and that was determined in the field. Because of the depression and the stonewall, it appeared that water was getting caught in there causing hydric soil. When looking at the soils on the Voss property, we could see the transition in the vegetation from the red maple to the Norway maple. On the Winning side, there was a distinct change in the vegetation from arrowwood to rose and white oak. She noted that, with the Commission and others present, the area was evaluated very thoroughly on the site visit. There may be groundwater flowing in a certain direction, but that the method that the Commission uses to determine wetlands is by vegetation or the soils, whichever is broader. The vegetation was not a contiguous layer. She reminded Mr. Newman that he was there while they were installing the wetlands delineation flags. She also remembered that as they stood on the Voss property at flag I-5, she suggested that flag I-5 connect to I-1 and asked them all if they would agree. She believes all present agreed with this suggestion. The local By-Law wetland on this site is more expansive than what she would consider to be a real functional wetland. It is vegetation and not soils. She thinks it is a good line where it is. She told Mr Voss that a soils analysis in an altered situation becomes more difficult but certain indicators can still be detected. These indicators were not present. Discussion took place regarding continuing the hearing. Ms. Hegemann reviewed the list of items to be addressed in writing by the applicant and submitted to the Commission. One was an alternatives analysis which states writing the concerns raised by the Westside Neighborhood Association, in terms of traffic. Given that the subdivision road is to remain private, does it have to be as wide as it is or need a full cul de sac? Can the elevation closest to Blueberry Lane be raised slightly with retaining walls to eliminate the discharge point constraint that currently exists, so it could be pulled back or adjusted slightly Ms. Etsell reviewed the list of issues they must cover: Mr. Miller will submit the velocity calculations for each storm event; Dr. Sanford will submit in writing the testimony he made this evening to include the groundwater monitoring method he proposes. Ms. Baci clarified for Ms. Etsell that the alternatives the Commission is looking for are consideration for minimizing the impacts, including ones that have been rejected such as reducing the size of the roadway, fewer and smaller houses, and an alternative access that involves wetlands issues, but might involve different or fewer wetlands issues and relocating the outlet pipe. Mrs. Miller said a response is needed to all the Commission's questions including written responses to the Town Engineers report and to Ingeborg Hegemann's letter regarding the impervious cover and the recharge and By-Law issues about groundwater. A landscaping plan should be submitted. With the applicant's permission, it was moved, seconded and voted to continue the hearing to October 17, 2000. 1 MINUTES - LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION 10/3/00 PAGE 9 The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda A. Gaudet Secretary