Loading...
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.