The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-08-10-CONCOM-min JS MORWIN ?�G 2=W ,O O ,Q PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES _ � n Conservation Commission Meeting broadcasted byLexMedia APRIL IY— LFXING'�O� AGENDA Monday,August 10, 2020, 6:30 p.m. 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 will be 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 your computer was encouraged. Commissioners Present: Philip Hamilton, David Langseth, Kevin Beuttell, Alex Dohan, Ruth Ladd (arrived at 6:50 pm), Duke Bisko and Holly Samuels Staff Present: Karen Mullins, Conservation Director and Sharon Coffey, staff assistant 6:30 pm New Business/Pendine Matters Plan Change: Arlington Reservoir off Lowell Street(DEP File 4201-1117, BL 1075) Bathing Beach Improvements and Walking Path Improvement Pilot Test, Modify Path Improvement Pilot Test location Joe Connelly, Director of Recreation for the Town of Arlington, presented before the Commission. He stated the new location would create easier access for the contractor and be more financially feasible. Danielle Desilets, landscape architect with Kyle Zick Landscape Architecture, presented before the Commission. She stated the details have not changed from what was originally permitted. It is a two inch porous paving system going down over two inches of three quarter inch aggregate. The goal is to understand if this flexible porous paving system is what will work. The perimeter loop has exposed roots and makes a hazard so they are looking to make that situation better. The new area is more readily accessible. The Commission asked how long they are going to run the test. It should go over the winter in order to understand how it is functioning. Leslie Mayer, Chair of Arlington Park Commission, presented before the Commission. She stated the intent was to get variability in the weather to know if it is a good solution. They may have to make a decision early winter. On a motion by Mr. Langseth and seconded by Ms. Dohan, the Commission voted 6-0 by roll call vote to approve the plan change. Ms. Ladd arrived at the meeting late and was not present for this vote. Record of vote as follows: Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Issue Partial Certificate of Compliance: 7 Lois Lane (VPC COC-20-14, VPC CNOI-19-9, DEP 201-1152, BL 1108) Cerise Jalelian, Homeowner of 7 Lois Lane, presented before the Commission. She stated this request is based on an Order of Conditions that was approved last August. Construction was completed. There was a site visit by the Conservation Administrator with a request for additional down-gradient sediment solutions that will be taken care of. The Conservation Administrator stated she did identify a few items to be done having to do with some downspout outlets. On a motion by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 6-0 by roll call vote to issue a partial certificate of compliance. Ms. Ladd arrived at the meeting late and was not present for this vote. Record of vote as follows: Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Issue Certificate of Compliance: 67 Turning Mill Road (COC-20-16, DEP 201-1168, BL 1123) The Conservation Administrator stated this is not ready. Issue Certificate of Compliance: 20 Maguire Road(COC-20-1, DEP 201-1147, BL 1103; DEP 201-1160, BL 1116) The Conservation Administrator stated this does comply. On a motion by Ms. Ladd and seconded by Ms. Samuels, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Ch. 130 Regulation Amendments: Rules Section 5 Performance Standards: Section 5(5) Buffer Zone On a motion by Mr. Langseth and seconded by Ms. Samuels, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to approve the draft. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Schedule Site Visits for 8/24/2020 Meeting The Commission determined that the site visits will take place on Thursday August 20, 2020 at 5:30 pm. 7:00 pm New Public Meetings/Hearings ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CDOA-20-24 Request for Determination of Applicability, 0 Lincoln Street Applicant: City of Cambridge, Water Department Project: Control knotweed outbreak with mechanical and cut and daub herbicide applications Documentation Submitted: - MassDEP Request for Determination of Applicability application prepared by Davis Kaplan, Watershed Manager, dated 7/21/2020 - Project plans, "Area Maps", dated 7/21/2020 - Photographs of Site, dated 7/21/2020 - Plan showing treatment areas uploaded to VPC on 8/4/2020 David Kaplan, Watershed Manager for the City of Cambridge Water Department, presented before the Commission. He stated they wish to treat a stand of Japanese Knotweed that has been identified behind the Grey Oaks Circle subdivision. They have marked up plans and maps identifying the areas to be treated but those areas start about 400 feet into the path and curve around to the northwest to a brook. Some work is shown within the 25 foot no disturb zone and some outside of the 100 foot buffer. Concerns of the Commission: - What is planned for treatment methods? AquaNeat was suggested to be used. Responses of the Applicant: - The work will be conducted by licensed applicators that provide invasive species removal services. They will use a cut and squirt technique to directly apply a portion of the herbicide into the hollow stem of the knotweed. If some of the smaller leafy material grows back, they will spot spray with a low pressure application. They plan to use glyphosate but whatever they end up using, they will make sure it is safe for wetlands. Mr. Kaplan stated some of the outbreak is on the Condo Association's property. They have reached out to see if they would consider partnering with the Water Department to maintain this area. Would the permit lie with the parcel or would it cover the area they are proposing to complete? The Commission stated the permit is limited by the property line. Concerns of the Abutters: - They have personal experience with this and stated the use of herbicides can be dangerous. They would support any precautions the Commission might choose to take. On a motion by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Ms. Ladd, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to issue a Negative Determination with conditions. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CDOA-20-23 Request for Determination of Applicability, 15 Lillian Road Applicant: Rohit Bhargaba Project: Installing pavers on top of the existing hot top walkway with 3 in. of stone dust. Documentation Submitted: - MassDEP Request for Determination of Applicability application prepared by Rohit Bhargaba, dated 7/20/2020 - Site Photographs Rohit Bhargava, homeowner of 15 Lillian Road, presented before the Commission. He stated they have a walkway made of asphalt and they plan to replace it because it is broken up and a tree trunk is coming out of it. It will be replaced with pavers. The surface will not be raised more than 2 inches. They will be removing soil in another area of the yard for water accumulation. Concerns of the Commission: - Is there a plan to show where the soil is being removed? - The granite step looks to be more than a 2 inch differential. How will the steps be even? - Suggested a condition that the location where soil is being removed not be left as mud and have appropriate vegetation. - Suggested as a condition that the applicant submit a plan showing location of the excavation before the work is done. Responses of the Applicant: - There is not a plan but they chose the area that was suggested by the Commission. - They are just left with 2 inches and they will sink the granite step down to make up for the difference. - The applicant can submit a plan showing location. On a motion by Ms. Samuels and seconded by Ms. Dohan, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to issue a Negative Determination with conditions. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CDOA-20-22 Request for Determination of Applicability, 1060 Waltham Street Applicant: Grossman Companies Project: Re-Use an existing Drainage connection to a municipal storm drain Documentation Submitted.- - ubmitted:- MassDEP Request for Determination of Applicability application prepared by Core States Group, dated 7/20/2020 - Project Plans, "Locus Plans", dated 5/21/2020,prepared by Alan Roscoe, PE - Supplemental Memo, prepared by Alan Roscoe, PE, dated 5/21/2020 - Waltham and Lexington Plot Plan, prepared by Bryce Norwood, dated 1977 The Conservation Administrator stated they would need a continuance because the applicant did not present any drainage information. On a motion by Ms. Samuels and seconded by Ms. Dohan, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing until August 24, 2020 at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CNOI-20-20, DEP File 201-XXX Notice of Intent for: 11 Norton Road Applicant: Jason Brickman, Speedwagon Partners, LLC Project: raze and rebuild Single Family Dwelling Documentation Submitted.- - ubmitted:- WPA Form 3- Notice of Intent application, prepared by LEC Environmental Consultants, dated 7/20/2020 - Project plans, "Pre- Development Conditions", "Post-Development Conditions prepared for Speedwagon Partners, LLC, prepared by Frederick Russell, PR - Stormwater Analysis, prepared by Frederick Russell, dated July 15, 2020 - Notice of Intent Application and Wetland Resource Area Analysis, prepared by LEC Environmental Consultants, prepared for Speedwagon Partners, LLC, dated 7/21/2020 Rich Kirby, LEC, presented before the Commission. He stated they delineated resource areas associated with 11 Norton Road for a tear down and rebuild of a single family dwelling. They delineated the resource areas which occur adjacent to Arlington's Great Meadow property which is contained within the Town of Lexington but is on property owned by the Town of Arlington. The lot measures 12,760 square feet. He then explained the plan to build. They are proposing a significant amount of riverfront restoration and stormwater management. The proposed infiltration system in the back will collect all roof and driveway runoff. There is no increase in runoff for the 1, 2, 10, and 100 year storm events. There are several trees that will be removed. Little site grading is proposed. They put together a planting plan but that has been revised. They are proposing to revegetate the 0 to 100 foot riverfront area and a portion of the 100 to 200 foot riverfront area on the site. Mr. Kirby then explained the revised planting plan. They have extended the Feno markers to occur along the property boundary and proposed three boulders at the end of Norton Road to allow for pedestrian access but prevent vehicular access. The Arlington Conservation Commission is generally in favor of this but they did have some suggestions. Concerns of the Commission: - Add another one or two boulders to the Norton Road access, three might allow for too large of a gap. Suggested a condition that the space between boulders is no more than 5 or 6 feet. - There is a marker for Arlington Great Meadows, is there an intention for this to be a path opening? If this is true could the trail from the road to the existing trail be wood chips or something that would suppress growth? - There are existing boulders, could those be extended along the end of the road? - It can be tough to get a lot of the plants that are being specified in the planting plan. If they have to go off the list it has to happen before the plants are planted. - On the Meadow Restoration area across the street, a lot of the shrubs died. How will these trees and shrubs be monitored? - How do they handle watering of the new plant material? Responses of the Applicant: - Adding the boulders would not be a problem. - They are putting in leaf compost to the edge of each of the shrubs and trees. Requiring more of that is fine. - Whatever they need to do to prevent vehicles from going through there is fine. - Typically the Order of Conditions requires a two year monitoring period for restoration. There will be annual monitoring and observations are made. If they see dead shrubs they will suggest they be replaced. After two years they provide a report to the Commission. - The new houses come with irrigation systems for the lawn. They recommend 360 degree water heads be installed. The Commission added that, if the applicant proposes a fence, they will have to come back for a plan change. On a motion by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to close the Hearing. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Continued Public Meetings/Hearings ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CDOA-20-18 Request for Determination of Applicability, 83 Grant Street Applicant: David Sperduto Project: Construction of accessory apartment addition and attached garage to single-family dwelling Previous Meeting Date: 7/27/2020 Supplemental Documentation Submitted.- -Site ubmitted:-Site Plan, prepared for Richard McDonough. Prepared by Frederick Russell. Dated June 8, 2020 -Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan, dated 8/4/2020 David Sperduto presented before the Commission. He stated the Engineer submitted a revised comment which appears to find the sediment basin acceptable. On a motion by Mr. Langseth and seconded by Ms. Samuels, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to issue a Negative Determination with conditions. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Mr. Beuttell and Ms. Dohan did not participate in the vote as they were both absent from the previous hearing on July 27, 2020. ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CDOA-20-21 Request for Determination of Applicability, 196 Woburn Street Applicant: Pamela Brown Project: Shed relocation Previous Meeting Date: 7/27/2020 (Applicant No Show) Supplemental Documentation Submitted: None Sonny Ferrante presented before the Commission. He stated they moved the shed to the back and then realized they needed a permit. They did not think Conservation approval was needed but a neighbor re-delineated the wetland and that moved the buffer zones so now they need approval. The shed abuts a detention basin. Concerns of the Commission: - The detention basin is full of wetland vegetation, there was indication that it has been abandoned. - Is the detention area connected to anything else? - What is the purpose of the shed and what does it hold? - Why can't the shed be moved outside the 50 foot no build zone? - Did engineering sign off on this? - Water off the roof of the shed. - Not comfortable letting the shed stay within the 50 foot buffer just because the applicant already put it there. It sets a bad precedent. - The concrete pad has to be removed. Responses of the Applicant: - The idea of that detention basin was to take the runoff from the parking lot. The owners do a poor job of maintaining it. - The applicant is not sure but it never has had standing water. - The shed holds hand tools, barrels, etc. - They poured a pad for the shed to sit on but it could be moved to another area. The neighbor to the right might not be happy with that. - Could put drainage back into the detention area. The Conservation Administrator stated this did not need Engineering review because it did not have any engineering calculations, but it is over the 100 square foot threshold &thus does need a permit. The Commission stated even though this was an innocent mistake, the judgment they need to make is they would be permitting something that is in violation of their performance standard. They would be in favor of it if it was moved outside the 50 foot buffer zone. Mr. Ferrante stated if the shed sits on the parking lot, the storm water will come off the shed roof and go into the drain. Concerns of the Abutters: - Doesn't oppose the shed's current location, but if the shed doors open facing their property then they would oppose it. It would be disruptive to them with the owner rolling their equipment in and out of the shed. They eliminated all bushes that block the view of the back end of the parking lot. The Commission stated they cannot tell the applicant how they have to position the shed. However, the applicant seemed concerned about causing the neighbors any problems. On a motion by Ms. Samuels and seconded by Ms. Ladd, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing until August 24, 2020 at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CNOI-20-18, DEP File 4 201-XXX Notice of Intent, 29 Constitution Road Applicant: Markus Pinney Project: Addition to a single-family dwelling Previous Hearing Dates: 7/27/2020 Supplemental Documentation Submitted.- -29 ubmitted:-29 Constitution Road NOI Comments, dated 8/4/2020 Markus Pinney, representative for the property owners of 29 Constitution Road, presented before the Commission. They received the memo from the Town Engineer stating they are in compliance. On a motion by Ms. Ladd and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to close the Hearing. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Mr. Beuttell and Ms. Dohan did not participate in the vote as they were both absent from the previous hearing on July 27, 2020. ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CNOI-20-16, DEP File 4 201-XXX Notice of Intent, 25 Peacock Farm Road Applicant: Bharath Krishnan Project: Addition to a single-family dwelling Previous Hearing Dates: 6/29/2020, 7/27/2020 Supplemental Documentation Submitted: - Engineering Drainage Calculations prepared by Gala Simon INC. Revised June 30, 2020 Markus Pinney, representative for homeowner of 25 Peacock Farm Road, presented before the Commission. They received the memo from the Town Engineer stating they are in compliance. On a motion by Ms. Samuels and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to close the Hearing. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Mr. Beuttell and Ms. Dohan did not participate in the vote as they were both absent from the previous hearing on July 27, 2020. ViewPoint Cloud Permit 4CNOI-20-19, DEP File # 201-XXX Notice of Intent, 1050 Waltham Street Applicant: Nicholas Skoly, VHB Project: Redevelopment of Commercial Property to construct new commercial building and parking garage Previous Hearing Dates: 7/27/2020 Supplemental Documentation Submitted: Nicholas Skoly, Civil Engineer, presented before the Commission. They did receive the engineer comment. There were minor comments and they had responses to that. He reviewed the comments and his responses. Concerns of the Commission: - Is this the site where the applicant was using the same curve number for open space and good condition for group A and group D - Using test pit two data, the infiltration will be extended a hundred feet to the north. How do you know that sand covers that whole area? Responses of the Applicant: - It was this site. They went through those numbers. They have the 80 curve number for the greater than 75% grass cover in good condition which is what they modeled the existing site on and they also used it for the proposed landscape area. There is no area associated with the other hydraulic soil groups. - Everything is group D. The description is incorrect, this can be updated. - They can do an additional test pit during construction to confirm appropriate soils. It was a recommendation from the geotechnical engineer. On a motion by Ms. Samuels and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing until August 24, 2020 at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —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, 6/15/2020, 7/13/2020, 7/27/2020 Supplemental Documentation Submitted.- - ubmitted:- Form 11-Soil Suitability Assessment for On Site Sewage Disposal- Prepared for Meridian Lexington Owner, LLC by Chris Hodney, PE. Dated 7/17/2020 - Stormwater Report- Prepared for Paul Finger Associates by Nitsch Engineering. Revised 7/29/2020 - Memo- Permitting Document Updates- Prepared for Paul Finger Associated by Matthew Brassard, Nitsch Engineering, dated 7/31/2020 - Floodplain Volume Update- Prepared for Paul Finger Associates by Nitsch Engineering. Dated 7/31/2020 - Site Plans- Prepared by Paul Finger Associates dated 8/3/2020 • Hartwell Ave Entry/Exit(Layout and materials) • Hartwell Place/Ave Intersection (Layout and materials) • Grading Sketch 1 (Lab and Office) • Grading Sketch II(Parking Garage) - Inspection and Maintenance Log Rich Kirby, LEC, presented before the Commission. At the last meeting they presented hydrologic analysis which increased groundwater elevations. They have revised the storm water report that elevates the seasonal high groundwater table. The proposed rate of runoff remains less than pre-construction runoff for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm events. They provided updated compensatory flood storage calculations. They submitted test pit data and a draft drainage and utility plan. Paul Finger presented before the Commission. He reviewed some changes made to the plans as a result of the Planning Board comments. Matthew Brassard presented before the Commission. He stated they conducted test pit excavations on Hartwell Place. The test pits revealed that, when the road was constructed, there was a 3 to 5 foot overburden that had been placed over the natural soils to construct the roadway. They put together a plan that shows the reconstruction of the replacement of the catch basin on Hartwell Place. This will lead to an infiltration trench along the south side of Hartwell Place Concerns of the Commission: - How did they deal with the change in flood storage with respect to the seasonal high groundwater table? The impression was they weren't going to change any physical grading under the building but just account for the higher water table and not count that as part of the storage. Responses of the Applicant: - They may have been under the incorrect impression during the discussion at the last meeting, they thought the Commission wanted them to build it up. They can go back to the original design. On a motion by Mr. Langseth and seconded by Ms. Samuels, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing until August 24, 2020 at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Ruth Ladd—Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye On a motion by Kevin Beuttell and seconded by Ms. Dohan, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call to adjourn the meeting at 9:32 PM Ruth Ladd—Aye Kevin Beuttell—Aye Alex Dohan—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Duke Bisko —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Respectfully Submitted, Meghan McNamara Conservation Department Assistant Approved: 2/16/2021 Submitted: 2/19/2021