HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-06-CONCOM-min TOWN OF LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
Monday August 6, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Parker Room, Town Office Building
1625 Massachusetts Ave
Acting chair David Langseth opened the meeting at 6:35 pm in the Parker Room of the Town
Office Building.
Commissioners Present: David Langseth, Alex Dohan, Duke Bitsko, Dick Wolk, Kevin
Beuttell
Others present: Karen Mullins, Conservation Administrator and Jennifer Gingras,
Administrative Clerk
NEW BUSINESS/PENDING MATTERS
6:35pm
• Request for Insignificant Plan Change, Fire Station, 45 Bedford St., DEP 201-1097,
BL 1054, Revise property boundaries per survey, utility locations, and connections
The commission had questions on a catch basin. The Commission discussed concerns
about oil run off.
On a motion by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Ms. Dohan, the Commission voted 5-0 to
approve the property boundary revisions only. The commission asked the applicant to
further investigate the drainage/oil-water separator issue.
• Request for Insignificant Plan Change, Vine Brook Bank Restoration Project, between
East St. and East Emerson Rd., 201-974, BL 932, Modify limit of work and expand
bank stabilization to address new erosion concerns
There was a portion of Vine Brook that had failed and threatened the trails. They are
ending a 3 year monitoring project. As part of monitoring visits, they have identified
erosion occurring upstream that's a 3 x l Oft area. They are proposing to protect the
investment by putting in 30 live stakes of dogwoods and also 12-15 24"rocks. By
extending the rock protection along embankment,they are helping the flow away from
the stream and embankment.
Ms. Dohan asked if she thinks the change will move the scour further upstream (It's
responsive to failure. Not what they would recommend for a comprehensive stream
wide). Ms. Dohan stated that she thinks they will just be back in 18 months with
another issue.
Mr. Bitsko asked if they have done any monitoring of the sediment(yes —when they
go out to do their monitoring, they don't see this level). Mr. Bitsko asked if they
noticed it happening during the past 3 years slowly (every year it has had about a 1 ft
lengthening). Mr. Bitsko asked if there is a safety issue with the path(no). Mr. Bitsko
asked if it would make more sense to monitor the issue over the next 2-3 years and
then do something if there was a significant change (yes, they will be continuing to
monitor it). Mr. Bitsko asked if the contract with the Town is ending (yes).
Mr. Langseth stated that the option to just monitor it is better because in 1-2 years they
would have a better sense of what is going to happen.
Mr. Beuttell asked if there is a reason to think it would stabilize (no it won't stop over
2 years. Given the flow direction, she does think it will continue to erode away).
The applicant stated that there is a purchase order now to do the work and it's
available to them to do the project right now.
Ms. Dohan stated that she's not against doing what is proposed but it's not the last
thing they need to do.
Mr. Wolk stated that he likes the idea of doing observation. Money should be spent
for a long term study for a more permanent solution.
Applicant doesn't want to over inflate money in the budget. A level of study that
would involve looking at specific velocity and entire Vinebrook, is probably not
something to be done with the spare money they have now.
On a motion by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Beutell, the Commission voted 5-0
to allow an insignificant plan change with the condition to require a report from the
Engineering Department annually
• Informal Meeting Request, 43 Sanderson Rd., Krisoula Varoudakis-Archadeck and
Evan Freeman-owner, pre-filing comments for proposed new deck construction
Ms. Varoudakis with Archadeck stated that they are extending a deck to the left side
of the property and they are looking for input on applying it. The deck would be
constructed using helical footings.
Mr. Bitsko asked if there are existing pavers (the crushed stone will stay as is).
Mr. Langseth asked if the mulch will go up to the wetlands (There are bushes that are
pre-existing. They are proposing to restore the area instead of doing mulch). Mr.
Langseth asked if they would consider bringing the line of restoration in further since
they often look for 25 ft from the edge of the wetland.
Ms. Mullins stated that they have an ongoing condition to not have a roof on the deck.
NEW PUBLIC MEETINGS/HEARINGS
7:23 pm
DET 18-16
RDA, 57 Cary Ave
Owner/Applicant: M. Berliner
Project: Rear cantilevered roof awning over deck within the 100-foot bordering vegetated
wetland (BVW) buffer zone
The applicant has requested meeting continuance to August 20, 2018 due to a scheduling
conflict. A motion was made and seconded to continue the hearing to August 20, 2018.
7:24 pm
DET 18-17
RDA, 5 Hadley Road
Owner/Applicant: Q. Chen
Project: Install new helical pier footings to reinforce support to room above and restore trees
and plantings within altered BVW and 100-foot BVW buffer zone
Presentor: Fred Torossian, General Contractor
Mr. Torossian stated that are proposing to do an addition to the house and need to install new
helical pier footings 4.6 ft deep. They will restore plantings after the project is complete.
Questions and Comments from the Commission:
Mr. Beuttell asked if the porch on the home was permitted originally. Ms. Mullins responded
that the porch is historic to the structure. This project was caught by finding work being done
without a permit. The footings were already removed when she went out there.
Mr. Beuttell asked Ms. Mullins if she can put in the enforcement order that the applicant put
in footings to support the existing structure.
Mr. Langseth asked the applicant for clarification on whether the project is to repair the deck
or to expand it. The applicant responded that this is just for a repair and replacement of the
deck, no expansion.
Mr. Beuttell stated that they need to establish a limit of work line for the helical piles.
Mr. Bitsko asked the applicant if the trees are being removed. The applicant responded that
he is not going to be removing trees but the homeowner has a plan to restore the trees and
plantings.
The Commission discussed the plan included with the application for the proposed plantings.
Ms. Mullins stated that part of the enforcement order is restoration because the homeowners
had already removed trees without permission.
Mr. Bitsko asked the applicant how he accesses the property. Mr. Torossian responded that
he goes to the right behind the building and will take photos throughout the
Motion to issue a Negative Determination with Conditions made by Mr. Beuttell and
seconded by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 5-0 in favor with the condition that a restoration plan will be
needed by a month from the hearing date.
7:34 pm
DET 18-18
RDA, 15 Goffe Road
Owner/Applicant: H. Huang
Project: Reconstruct a new expanded deck within the 100-foot BVW and BLSF buffer zone
Presenter: Mr. Hon-Ren Huang
The applicant stated that he is proposing to replace the current deck.
Questions and Comments from the Commission:
Mr. Langseth asked if the the new deck will be closer to the wetlands than the existing deck
(it will not be any closer). Mr. Langseth asked the applicant if he is aware of the conditions
for crushed stone and spacing (yes).
Mr. Bitsko asked if the shed is in an active wetlands area(yes).
Ms. Mullins stated that she had met with the previous owners who had started to
redevelopment the property. When the new owner purchased the property he proposed to
replace the deck.
Mr. Bitsko asked the applicant if the shed is sitting on blocks (yes).
Mr. Langseth stated that he didn't notice the shed but if it ever needed to replace it, the
Commission would not approve placing the shed in the same location.
Motion to issue a Negative Determination with Conditions made by Mr. Wolk and seconded
by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 5-0 in favor
7:46 pm
DEP File No. 201-1105, Bylaw No. BL 1063
NOI, 3 Third St
Owner/applicant: M. Levitt
Project: Construct an addition within the 100-foot BVW buffer zone
Presenters: Russell Waldron with Applied Ecological Sciences and Mark Levitt, owner
The applicants are proposing to build an addition.
Mr. Langseth read the Engineering Comments into the record.
Mr. Beuttell stated that he has questions/comments for the Engineer. He would like the plans
revised to state that the stone is wash or double wash. He would also like the fabric removed,
which is prone to clogging. He also thinks that there is conflicting information in the plans
and doesn't agree that they should be approving wetland lines at this time. They need to refer
to the engineering plan and not the survey.
Ms. Dohan asked if the driveway comes of Third Street and then goes into another driveway
(yes).
Mr. Langseth asked if there is a retaining wall on the right hand side (yes).
Mr. Langseth stated that the Engineering Department hasn't had a chance to review the
material so they will need to continue the hearing and pending a satisfactory review, the
applicants won't need to appear again after next time.
On a motion made and seconded, the Commission voted 5-0 to continue the meeting to the
August 20, 2018 meeting.
7:56 pm
DEP File No. 201-XXXX, Bylaw No. BL XXXX
NOI, 17 Banks Avenue
Owner/applicant: P. Zhou
Project: Construct an addition within the 100-foot BVW buffer zone
Presenter: Mr. Zhou
Mr. Zhou stated that the existing deck is about 15-16 years old. Mr. Zhou purchased the
house with the deck and it may not have had conservation approval. The wetlands are on the
abutting property, the town property. This is the low point of the neighborhood that collects
run-off from the neighborhood. When the wetlands fill up, it drains into the manhole. They
are proposing to convert the deck into a enclosed structure. They will also be putting in a
storm water discharge system.
Mr. Langseth read the Engineering comments into the record.
Mr. Beuttell asked the applicant who did the wetland delineation (ENC Associates). Mr.
Beuttell stated that there wasn't a written description that went along with the delineation and
the wetland line needs to be clarified by the consultant.
Mr. Wolk asked the applicant if the infiltrators are just taking care of the addition (yes). Mr.
Wolk stated that there were issues with flooding approximately 3 or 4 years ago. He has an
issue with this proposal because of the elevated grading. The by-laws stated they don't have
to infiltrate the whole thing but this will be overburdening the lot and further burdening the
neighborhood.
Mr. Bitsko asked if the application is just for the rear addition (yes). Mr. Bitsko stated there
may be an issue with the run-off and the 2 existing large trees. They may want to look at
solutions for filling on top of the root system.
The Commission discussed the need for spot elevations on the plot plan.
Mr. Langseth stated that they never allow a slope like that to meet the grade of the property.
Mr. Langseth asked the applicant what a drainage board is (a HDP sheet of wood that has
drainage train inside so it channels the water flow down instead of into the foundation). Mr.
Langseth stated that they need to have the overflow outlet justified because it's not something
they typically allow. The applicant responded that it's supposed to be a cleanout not overflow
outlet. Mr. Langseth stated that as proposed, he doesn't see how they could approve this
because it increases the non-conforming nature. The corner of the building is about 20 ft from
the wetland line. They will have to go back and re-think the addition.
The Commission discussed the wetland line on the proposal and the issues with how it's
portrayed in the submittal. The Commission stated there are issues with the wetland line, the
proposal increasing the degree of non-conformance, and the issue of the retaining wall and
pulling sub-surface structures outside of 25 ft. There is also an issue of runoff from new slope
and potential impact of the neighbors.
The applicant asked the commission if they cut the building line back on the existing deck if it
would be sufficient. The Commission responded that it may or may be adequate. The issue is
that they cannot go any closer to the wetlands than the existing house. The existence of the
deck is not the defining principal. The issue is the distance of the closest corner of the house
to the wetland line.
Mr. Wolk stated he would like more precise elevations and flow patterns.
On a motion made and seconded, the Commission voted 5-0 to continue the meeting to the
September 4, 2018 meeting.
DEP File No. 201-XXXX, Bylaw No. BL XXXX
NOI, 213 East Street
Owner/applicant: M. Sundaram &P. Radhakrishnan
Project: Construct a sunroom addition within the 100-foot BVW buffer zone
The applicants stated that the client is looking to install a sun room in the back of the house
and a small bump out in the front of the house. They did a soil test in the front and found
reasonable soils. They realized they could take a portion of the existing roof and infiltrate it.
They will put 2 Caltech chambers in the front and 713 sq ft of roof.
Mr. Langseth read the comments from Engineering Department into the record.
Mr. Beuttell stated that there are no comments about the proposed addition and stormwater.
He likes the fact that the stormwater system is picking up more roof area. He has an issue
with the shed being within the wetland area along with the raised garden. The applicant stated
that they are willing to move those things. The owner of the property stated that the shed was
there when they purchased the home and has been there since the 1960s. The garden they put
in but they can move it.
The Commission discussed the removal of the shed and garden.
Ms. Dohan stated there is no DEP number. Ms. Mullins stated that as of Thursday, it hadn't
been issued.
The Commission asked the owners if they would be okay with a condition that the shed and
garden area has to be moved 25 ft or more from wetland line.
Motion to issue a Negative Determination with Conditions made by Mr. Wolk and seconded
by Mr. Beuttell. Vote: 5-0 in favor
Continued Public Hearings
8:44 pm
DEP File No. 201-1103, Bylaw No. BL 1060
NOI, 1 Fulton Road
Owner/applicant: R. Salafia and P. Rice
Project: Construct sunroom, shed, and deck additions within the 100-foot BVW buffer zone
Presenter: Rob Salafia
Mr. Salafia asked the Commission if they have any further questions or comments on the
plans.
Ms. Mullins stated that they had asked for a limit of work line to be completed.
Mr. Langseth read the Engineering comments into the record. Mr. Langseth also stated that
the drainage comments from the Engineering Department have not been addressed.
Mr. Beuttell stated that the size of the structure exceeds the threshold. As long as they are
comfortable with how the water is getting to the stone underneath, he isn't concerned about a
precedence issue.
Ms. Mullins stated that usually they require drainage calculations. There isn't sufficient
information to do the review.
Mr. Langseth stated that they need drainage calculations. The applicant responded that this
would be highly invasive and asked the Commission how they could get the information
without doing invasive digging.
The Commission discussed that they need to assume the worst soil type when they do
calculations. This type of system can be used but not without calculations. They can do that
with assuming the worst possible soils.
Ms. Mullins stated that she suggested they do a small hole in a wetland.
Mr. Langseth stated that they need information on how deep the groundwater is and they need
to know what type of soil is under the shed.
Mr. Bitsko asked if the easement is a concern. Ms. Mullins responded that they got it cleared
up and the oil company approved it.
On a motion made and seconded, the Commission voted 5-0 to continue the meeting to the
August 20, 2018 meeting.
9:00 pm
DEP File No. NA, Bylaw No. BL 1061
NOI, 16 Cedar Street
Owner/applicant: 16 Cedar Street LLC
Project: Demo and construct new house within the 100-foot buffer zone from isolated
wetlands
Mr. Langseth read the additional Engineering comments into the record.
Presenter: Johnathan Shuster, Oxbow Associates.
Mr. Shuster stated that they considered the input from the Commission and increased the
distance from closest point of wetlands to nearest point of the house. They pulled the house
back from the 52 ft and moved the erosion control to protect the hemlocks. There is also a
slight reduction of 20 sq ft of the house.
Mr. Wolk asked if they already discussed the potential runoff toward the neighboring houses
(yes —it was touched on briefly). Mr. Wolk asked if there were concerns from abutters (one
abutter did share a concern of run-off but with the drainage run-off there will be a net benefit).
Mr. Langseth stated that the 306 contour shows the intent of a Swale along the applicant's
property to control the issue but the 305 doesn't. He has a concern that the 305 contour
suggests the Swale is not intended to continue. The applicant responded that he doesn't know
the intent of the Engineer but they are open to recommendation.
On a motion made and seconded, the Commission voted 5-0 to close the hearing.
9:10 pm
DEP File No. 201-1104, Bylaw No. BL 1062
NOI, 0 Diana Lane
Owner/applicant: Seaver Construction
Project: Construct new house within the 100-foot BVW buffer zone
Presenter: Scott Smyers with Oxbow Associates
Mr. Smyers stated that the issue at the last hearing with the location of the house being at the
50 ft setback has been addressed. They can twist the house so it will be 50 ft at the closest
point. They also reconfigured the erosion control barrier.
Mr. Langseth asked if there is a sump pump (no).
Mr. Beuttell stated that the basement is 9 inches below test pit 2 so the direction of flow is
right to left. The basement is below where groundwater was found a few feet away.
Mr. Langseth stated that he is not sure they can regulate that.
The Commission discussed the possibility of having a sentence in the Order of Conditions
that the Commission is concerned with the elevation but does not have the ability to regulate
it.
Ms. Mullins stated that they have the engineer's follow-up statement that they don't need a
sump pump. They also have an ongoing condition that they can't have another drain.
On a Motion made and seconded, the Commission voted 5-0 to close the hearing.
9:20 pm
DEP File No. 201-1102, Bylaw No. BL 1059
NOI, 99 East Street
Owner/applicant: 99 East Street LLC
Project: Demo and construct new house within bordering land subject to flooding (BLSF), the
200-foot riverfront area, and the 100-foot buffer zone from bank and BLSF
Ms. Dohan recused herself from the hearing.
Presenter: Scott Smyers with Oxbow Associates
Mr. Smyers stated that there was an outstanding issue with the flood plain elevation and they
were waiting for a response from FEMA. FEMA's response was that they couldn't say
whether it was or wasn't in the flood zone and that most of the site was in a 100 year flood
elevation. They were able to provide flood plain calculations. They've now made a much
smaller driveway location and moved the house further from the wetland. There is now less
impervious surface on the property than there was.
Mr. Beuttell stated that they had previously discussed getting more spot elevation data. Mr.
Smyers stated that in each corner of the structure,the engineer put an elevation.
The Commission discussed the issue of flood plain elevations. The Commission also
requested that the applicant provide a revised summary of how they propose to meet the
Riverfront Area performance standards.
On a motion made and seconded, the Commission voted 5-0 to continue the meeting to the
August 20, 2018 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS/PENDING MATTERS CONTINUED...
9:53 pm
• Enforcement: 4 Lake St., Chan [past permit approvals: 201-940, BL 899 (2015) and
13-19 (2103)]
Ms. Mullins stated that the applicants had a 10 ft no-disturb buffer that was marked
and had not proposed to build a patio. Within the last 2 months, she was contacted by
a new owner of 2243 Mass Ave who stated there was clearing in the wetlands and they
noticed that a patio was built at 4 Lake St. The owners at 4 Lake St did contact Ms.
Mullins but couldn't make it to tonight's meeting and made an appointment to meet
with her on August 27th. At some point they will need to come before the
commission with a restoration plan.
• Enforcement Compliance: Wetland and Buffer Restoration, 442 Marrett Rd., D. Curtin
On a motion by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr. Beuttell, the Commission voted 5-0 to
clear Mr. Curtin of the Enforcement Order for 442 Marrett Rd.
• Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance:
167, 173, 177 Cedar Street Subdivision, 201-1058, BL 1015, Partial to release Lot 4
Release lot 4 from Cedar sheet and Winding Rd.
The Commission asked Ms. Mullins why it's a Partial Certificate of Compliance (Ms.
Mullins stated that they aren't completely finished with the roadway portion and are
still finalizing. In order to close on the house, they need to release from lot 4. It won't
be tied to the restrictive covenant).
On a Motion by Mr. Beauttell and seconded by Mr. Work, the Commission voted 5-0
to issue a Partial Certificate of Compliance.
• Requests for Full Certificates of Compliance:
23 Hamblen St., 201-1072, BL 1029
On a Motion by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Beauttell, the Commission voted 5-0
to issue a Certificate of Compliance.
19 Bellflower St., 201-891, BL 850—Dick, Kevin 5-0
On a Motion by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Mr. Beauttell, the Commission voted 5-0
to issue a Certificate of Compliance.
82 Grant St., 201-988, BL 945
The Commission stated they need to determine whether they have met all the
conditions of planting and restoration and they need to go back to video to determine
if the driveway was brought up. Mr. Beuttell stated he will create a list for the next
meeting.
• Approve Cotton Farm Orchard Management Plan, budget, and funding
There was an $1,100 donation received in Jordan McCarron's name. The total budget
is $4,400. The goal is to make the orchard a functioning orchard. There will be
another event on October 23, 2018.
On a Motion by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Bitsko, the Commission voted 5-0 to
approve the Cotton Farm Orchard Management Plan, budget and funding.
Consent Agenda:
o Insignificant Plan Change Request, Minuteman Sewer Replacement, 17-18,
Modify location to save trees
On a motion by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by Mr. Wolk, the Commission
voted 5-0 to grant the Insignificant Plan Change.
o Insignificant Plan Change Request, 4 Peach Tree Rd., Naplex, 201-1076,
BL 1033, Construct rear retaining wall
On a motion by Mr. Wolk and seconded by Ms. Dohan, the Commission voted
5-0 to grant the Insignificant Plan Change.
o Insignificant Plan Change, HAFB Sewer Replacement, Hartwell Ave., 17-32,
extend sewer main replacement by 100 If to the south
Project Cancelled
• Approve minutes: 7/9/2018 Kevin, Alex 5-0
On a motion by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by Ms. Dohan, the Commission voted 5-0
to approved the minutes of July 9, 2018.
• Planning Board Project Comments
The Greenway Corridor Committee wants to put in a trail. The Commission is
requesting a conceptual plan and layout.
• Buffer zone Regulation Amendments
The Commission will wait until Phil Hamilton is back. They may want to revisit how
the handle retaining walls.
• Reports: Bike Advisory, Community Gardens, Community Preservation Committee,
Greenway Corridor Committee, Land Acquisition, Land Management, Land Steward
Directors, and Tree Committee
On a Motion made and seconded, the Commission voted to adjourn at 10:23 pm.