Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-15-CONCOM-min Ov5 MOROVI" Off` OP a �w ) PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES APRIL 19- Conservation Commission Meering broadcasted by LexMedia L£xrxc'°� AGENDA Monday, June 15'h, 2020, 6:30 p.In. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §18, and the Governor's March 15, 2020 and subsequent Orders imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the Lexington Conservation Commission was conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and/or parties with a right and/or requirement to attend this meeting can be found below. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time, via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the Town of Lexington website or through LexMedia an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. This Conservation Commission meeting was held remotely via Zoom, an online meeting platform. Public Participation via calling in or using computers took place. Commissioners Present: Philip Hamilton, David Langseth, Kevin Beuttell, Alex Dohan, Duke Bitsko, Ruth Ladd, and Holly Samuels (Arrived at 6:45 pm) Staff Present: Karen Mullins, Conservation Director and Sharon Coffey, staff assistant DIRECTIONS TO ATTEND MEETING Please click the link below to join the webinar: https:Hzoom.us/j/95597656590 Or Telephone: US: +1 301 715 8592 or+1312 626 6799 or+1 929 205 6099 or+1253 215 8782 or+1346 248 7799 or+1 669 900 6833 Webinar ID: 955 9765 6590 6:30 pm New Business/Pendine Matters Discuss and Approve Land Use Permit Application by Lisa Tewksbury for the Weed Biocontrol Research(swallow-wort) at TBD site Ms. Tewksbury, a researcher with the University of Rhode Island Biocontrol Lab, presented before the Commission. She stated she was asked by the commission to specify the location that would be used for the release of the Hypena opulenta. Last Friday she met with two stewards, Donald Grant and Steven Perkins at the following conservation areas: West Farm, Lower Vine Brook and Chiesa Farm. They decided West Farm was the best option. She showed the location on the displayed map and explained why West Farm was the best option. The Commission asked for clarification on the conservation area. Donald Grant clarified the location for the Commission. On a motion by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Ms. Ladd, the Commission voted 6-0 by roll call vote to issue a Land Use permit with conditions requiring annual monitoring and reporting on the success of the control. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Discuss and Approve Insignificant Plan Change: CPM-20-7, 500 Shire Way, Modify expand scope of work to reconstruct gravel way entire length versus at each electrical duct manhole Mr. Hart, an architect with the SMMA, presented before the Commission. He stated last spring they came before the Commission. There is a gravel access road in the back of the Takeda Campus behind 500 shire way that extends through the conservation easement area out to Shade Street. The road is 1,500 feet long. There is an electric service for the campus that comes along that road. They are required to keep the road open for emergency access. Over a number of years the manholes became exposed and there was a problem with plowing. They came before the Commission to improve the areas around the manholes. They met with the contractor at the sight and went through protocols and conditions. There is a desire to improve the entire road at this point. They had erosion controls on both sides of the road that extends 75 percent of the road already shown on approved plans. Theywill now propose to line the entire road with erosion controls and accept all the conditions the Commission asked for before. The Commission stated the biggest concern was potential erosion in the steep section of the road resulting from prior planned improvements closets to Shade Street. Mr. Hart stated they had addressed that in August. They showed proposed grades in that area. The Commission asked what the erosion control device is that they are proposing. Mr. Hart stated it is 100% biodegradable 12 inch compost wattles. There will be no plastic netting. On a motion by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by Ms. Ladd, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to issue an insignificant plan change. Record of vote as follows: Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bitsko —Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Issue Orders of Conditions: 11 Sherburne Road ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4AOOC-20-7 DEP 201-1095 On a motion by, Ms. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 6-0 by roll call vote to issue an order of conditions approving the amended referenced plans. Record of vote as follows: Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bitsko —Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Philip Hamilton—Obstained Karen Mullins stated for the record that this action for 11 Sherburn Road is an amended Order of Conditions. Issue Order of Conditions: 109 Reed Street for Subdivision Right of WayViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CNOI-20-12, DEP 201-1183 On a motion by, Mr. Beuttell and seconded by, Ms. Samuels the Commission voted 6-0 by roll call vote to issue an order of conditions approving the project per referenced revised plans. Record of vote as follows: Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bitsko —Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Philip Hamilton—abstained Request for Certificates of Compliance: 2287 Massachusetts Avenue, VPC 4COC-20-9, DEP 4201-1121, B-1078, VPC4 22759 (C-19-16) Mr. Novak, engineer, presented before the Commission. He stated there was a 48 square foot overage on the driveway. The driveway does contribute to the infiltration system so they have a drainage concern. The idea is to remedy that and to reduce the overage on the driveway and to have it relocated and recalculated before the additional information submission deadline for the following meeting. Mr. Gelormnini stated the drainage system can handle the 48 square feet but he would have to go through a new submittal per the Commission's protocol when changes involve impervious surface and drainage modifications. It is a 4 inch cut on the driveway and there is an impervious patio in the front that can be made pervious. They plan to have the work done on Wednesday to make the site incompliance with the approved amount of impervious surfaces. He stated they made the circle driveway a little too wide and hope to be on the agenda for next Monday once corrected. Ms. Mullins asked if part of the overage included the impervious patio in the front. Mr. Gelomnini stated he didn't have to do a pervious patio on the front. He can easily switch it to impervious. Ms. Mullins asked what the full overage of the driveway totaled. Mr. Capachietti stated there was a slight increase of 48 square feet. He is offering to change the front patio to porous paver instead of impervious and slightly decrease driveway. They wanted to see if that would be amendable to the Commission for giving the COC. Ms. Mullins asked for clarification of what the request is being asked of the Commission. Mr. Gelomini stated instead of cutting a foot out of the driveway he was going to cut less and turn the front walkway to a pervious surface so he is less than the total 48 square feet that was over. Mr. Novak stated they are looking for what the Commission would consider a remedy for the overage to be an insignificant plan change versus an Amended Order of Conditions process. The Commission stated if they change the impervious patio to pervious that would require submittal of new calculation that would need engineering review. The simplest way would be to bring it back into compliance with the plan. Mr. Gelomini stated he will remove a 48 square foot area of driveway accordingly and return at next meeting with a request for Certificate of Compliance. Request for Certificates of Compliance: 25 Middleby Rd, VPC 4COC-20-10, DEP 4201- 1165, B-1120, VPC-CNOI-19-24 Mr. Capachietti, engineer, presented before the Commission. He stated there was a concern with elevations on the drainage system in the submitted as-built plan. This was an error by Meridian. He can certify that there is two feet separation between bottom of the chamber system and the noted 30 inch chambers are actually 12 inch high chambers. Ms. Mullins stated the as built doesn't certify the high points required when they enter the driveway and at the rear of the driveway to stop runoff from going into the street and wetlands. Mr. Capachietti stated there are high points but it was not on the plan. He explained the high points. The Commission stated these items should be corrected on a new set of as built plans and then they will be ready to proceed with issuing this certificate of compliance. The issuance of a issuing a partial certificate was discussed tonight. It was decided this will be issued when the Commission can review the corrected as built plan. 7:00 pm New Public Meetings/Hearings ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CDOA-20-13 Request for Determination of Applicability, 121 Hartwell Avenue Applicant: Ed Spezzano, Agilent Technologies Project: water line replacement Documentation Submitted.- - ubmitted:- MassDEP Request for Determination of Applicability application with attachments, prepared by Ed Linn, Chicago Design Nework, prepared for Ed Spezzanp, Agilent Technologies, dated 5/26/2020 - Project plans, "Existing Conditions", prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc., dated 6/11/2015 Ed Linn, architect, presented before the Commission. The applicant is proposing to replace the water main because it has been leaking. Investigation has shown that it is beyond repair. The water main will follow the same path and will be brought up to plumbing codes. Concerns of the Commission: - The commission noted they did not know the location of the water main because there was no plan marking the location. On a motion by Mr. Beutell and Seconded by Ms. Samuels, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to continue the meeting until June 29, 2020 at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CNOI-20-17 Notice of Intent, 180 Lincoln Street Applicant: Malar Pannirselvam Project: Raze and rebuild a SFD Documentation Submitted: - MassDEP Notice of Intent Application with attachments, prepared by Richard Kirby, LEC Environmental Consultants, Inc., prepared for Mala Pannirselvam, dated 5/21/2020 - Project Plans, "180 Lincoln Street Permit Site Plan of Land", prepared by Meridian Associates, signed and stamped by Michael K. Novak PE450696, dated 5/26/2020 - Stormwater Analysis and Calculations, prepared by Meridian Associates, signed and stamped by Michael K. Novak PE450696, dated 5/26/2020 - Drainage Plan, prepared by Meridian Associates, dated 5/26/2020 Richard Kirby, Senior Wetland Scientist with LEC Environmental Consultants, presented before the Commission. The applicant is proposing to tear down and rebuild the single family house on the property of 180 Lincoln Street. The homeowner was going to enlarge the existing house but found it was more cost effective to rebuild. The Commission had a site visit Saturday. He then explained the proposed design. Michael Novak, engineer, stated there are two infiltration systems. One in the rear and the front. There is a trench drain at the entrance of the garage. Concerns of the Commission: - The overhangs are close to the 50 foot buffer line. - Which parts of the house go to which infiltration system. - The Commission has not received an engineering report signing off on the design. Response of the Applicant: - The proposed overhang is the dotted line around the buffer zone. The existing house is in non-compliance with the front setback and they want to make the house conforming which created a tight space. The builder will be okay with this zero tolerance. - System 1 is receiving about 850 square feet of the roof and system two is receiving the remainder. It is a 2 to 1 split. On a motion by Ms. Dohan and Seconded by Mr. Beuttell, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing until June 29, 2020 at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Continued Public Meetings/Hearings ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CNOI-20-15 Notice of Intent, 15/17 Fairland Street 3 Applicant: Mark Barons, Barons Custom Homes Project: Connect residential subdivision to town drainage Additional Documentation Submitted: - Letter with Summary and HydroCADD report, James Burke, PE, Decelle-Burke-Sala, 6/4/2020 - Email from Jamie O'Connell, Cambridge Water Dept,Re: Re: 15-17 Fairland Rd, 6/8/2020, Comments Jamie O'Connell, from Cambridge Water Department(CWD), presented CWD comments before the Commission. This site is in the headwaters of the drinking water supply from the Cambridge water shed. Although the overflow discharges outside the watershed the parcel is in the watershed. This means the water that gets infiltrated in the infiltration system on-site is relevant to their drinking water supply. The applicant explained the infiltration system needed 44 percent Total Suspended Solids (TSS)removal pre-treatment prior to infiltration. Her concern that the 44 percent is to be achieved by going from a catch basin to an online manhole. There is concern that the inline setup will cause water resuspension of the sediments in the manhole. They need to take the manholes off line to get credit or to install proprietary water quality device. The watershed has been listed as impaired. It is important to have sites in the watershed have a low salt strategy. Mr. Burke stated he designed the system to meet the storm water management standards. The 44 percent is achieved by the tandem deep sump structure which ends up being a two structure water quality tank. You can achieve up to 56 percent TSS removal by this design. The hoods keep the items in check. The Town Engineer had a capacity issue and the Engineer seems to be satisfied with what they presented. Ms. O'Connell stated it is about making sure the infiltration system gets the full 44 percent TSS removal and that it happens properly. The concern is the design does not meet this standard. The use of de-icing salt is also a concern. Concerns of the Commission: - The latest revised engineering report was not received by the Commission to be entered into the record. - Adequacy of the current water quality design. Response of the Applicant: - An email was received by the applicant from the Town Engineering stating the letter was fine. - The system meets the 44 percent. Everything meets the standards. On a motion by Ms. Ruth and Seconded by Ms. Dohan, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing until June 29, 2020 at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye ViewPoint Cloud 4CNOI-19-27 DEP 201-1163 BL 1118 NOI, 91 Hartwell Avenue Applicant: John Cappellano Project: Construction of lab and office building, above ground parking garage and associated infrastructure Previous Hearing Dates: 11/18/2019, 2/24/2020, 5/18/2020 Additional Documentation Submitted: - Project Plans, "91 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington Planning Board and Lexington Conservation Commission, Response to Comments",prepared by Dimella Shaffer, prepared for Meridian Associates, dated 5/11/2020,rev. 5/19/2020 not stamped - Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Lexington Form 11- Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal, Signed by Chris Hodney, PE413687, dated 4/16/2020, rev. 5/13/2020 - Plans, "91 Hartwell Watershed Inverts", date 12/14/2019 - Project Plans, "91 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington Planning Board and Lexington Conservation Commission, Snow Storage Map", prepared by Dimella Shaffer, prepared for Meridian Associates, dated 5/19/2020, not stamped - Letter, from Paul Finger Associates, to Conservation Commission, "Peer Review Comments, 91 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA", dated 4/8/2020 (12 pages), rev.4/20/2020 (20 pg.), rev. 5/20/2020 (34 pg.) - Letter, from Nitsch Engineering, to Mr. Paul Finger, "Nitsch Project 13067— Floodplain Volume", date 5/20/2020, 2 pages - Stormwater Report, prepared by Nitsch Engineering, prepared for Paul Finer Associates, signed and stamped by Joshua M. Soares, PE452305, dated 10/29/2019, rev. 5/11/2020, rev. 5/20/2020 - Email Correspondence, "RE: 91 Hartwell submission"between Karen Mullins and Paul Finger, date 5/26/2020 Paul Finger, from Paul Finger Associates, presented before the Commission. He stated they submitted a preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is something that will continue to be developed. It is difficult to complete 100 percent of the SWPPP at the design phase because they do not have a site contractor who is responsible to complete these documents. The site is predominantly in the flood plain. Another concern is dealing with the treatment of the one year storm event. They have done enough test pits to indicate they have a silty loom soil that is not permeable. They cannot meet 100 percent of the one year stormvolume control. They have come up with an alternative to manage the one year storm event as it flows out. They agree there will be times when the systems will be inundated with high ground water and limited in function for certain times of the year but with proper system maintenance they will function over the major portion of storm events over the year. There was concern about the hydraulic connection from the compensatory flood storage underneath the building to the existing floodplain and wetlands. They propose to remove culverts and construct swales to the adjacent wetland. They received minor suggestions from the Planning Board to add crosswalks and Handicap curb cuts. Those will be amendments to the plans. Concerns of the Commission: - DEP requires a table to show how much fill will be placed in the flood plain and how much will be excavated to compensate for the fill. - The test pit data provided is difficult to read. The applicant was asked to provide something more clearly labeled and something that shows how they came up with the seasonal high ground water elevations based on the test pit data. - Plan 7.1 has information yet to be filled in. The inverts and dimensions were missing. - Are there any areas counted as both storm water mitigation and flood storage mitigation? - With regard to the issue with degree of the hydraulic restriction of flow between compensatory flood storage and existing flood storage and wetlands, the proposed design has been changed from the June 8h letter. Are there any calculations that demonstrate the adequacy of the connection? - A less restricted connection would be better. There may be potential for clogging from debris. Not having a bridge reduces the possibility of obstructions. - The applicant should propose something to minimize the potential for resuspension of the accumulated sediments that have been captured in the management systems during the smaller storms. - Ground water level is high. The observation was made during the driest times of the year. Every time the Commission visited the site, the drainage Swale has been filled with water. The proposed flood storage area seems like it will be filled with water a good portion of the year. How can a flood storage area that is for flood compensation provide water storage if it's full of water. - Water will sit under the building and become a mosquito breeding area, what will help the water drain and why is there a berm? - The porous asphalt and freeboard space was raised as a concern. - The permeable pavement may have high stress. It is not as strong. The relatively small net benefit may not be worth it in the high traffic areas. - Waiver setbacks were raised as a concern. - There is a conservation restriction.. Can this be expanded to include the part of the wetlands that are not currently included in the easement? - Test pits need to be done and left open for longer than an hour. Is the applicant open for a longer test? - Plans clearly show one corner of the garage is in the 25 foot buffer zone. Response of the Applicant: - That table showing the fill was uploaded today. - They will provide the seasonal high ground water information. - That drain inlet under the garag is going to be designed as part of the garage drainage. It is a plumbing code issue. They do not have a plumbing engineer yet but the design details will be filled in when they do. They can also make some estimates. - They have not counted any portion of the storm water systems as compensatory storage volume within the compensatory flood storage areas. It is one in the same. There are equivalencies of the Swale. The concern is the maintenance of the swales. - The areas are the lowest areas on the site which are the swales. Depending on how fast the water rises the opening may or may not provide a restriction on that flow. In the past, they have been required to provide a more robust connection. It is difficult to calculate. - As the project progressed it was asked of the project team to perform more open pit test excavations. That was done and it showed the ground water table is largely driven by soil conditions. The issues related to standing water on the site are not related to the localized ground water conditions. Test pits have been done and observations have been made. The ground water elevations identified were not at the same location as the test pit excavations. - The berm is part of the roof drainage retention area in order to meet the management of the one year storm event standard. The next set of plans will have a portion of the berm and Swale will be removed. The hydraulic connection will be wider. - The porous asphalt space is not included as part of the flood storage volume. It has been added as an added value feature. - That is exactly how it has been designed. It does change moving from the east to west. That is why they removed the permeable pavement on the east side. - They are sure expanding the restriction is a consideration they would entertain. - If you left it open long enough the water table would rise to that elevation. A certified soil evaluator made those observations. They are relying on the expertise of this person. On a motion by Mr. Langseth and Seconded by Mr. Beuttell, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing until June 29, 2020 at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Approve Minutes: 6-1-2020 On a motion by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Ms. Ladd, the Commission voted 6-0 by roll call vote to approve the meeting minutes pending recommended edits. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Schedule Site Visits The Commission determined that site visits can now take place on Thursday evenings at 5:30pm due to longer days and available daylight. Reports: Funding for accessible trail at Parker Meadow, FixingFence,ence, Adams Street Mowing Area. Mr. Hamilton reported the funding for accessible trail and other improvements at Parker Meadow went before Town Meeting and was taken off the consent agenda. People raised questions about the cost. However it passed unanimously in the end at Town Meeting. Mr. Hamilton stated he heard from David Williams and the estimate to fix the Chiesa Farm fence was $3,700. He reported that the owners of the new house on Adams Street is mowing an area of the conservation restriction. Karen will investigate and respond accordngly. On a motion by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Ms. Samuels, the Commission voted 6-0 by roll call vote to adjourn the meeting. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye 9:37pm