Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-27-CONCOM-min JS MORNIN ?�G 2=W ,O O ,Q PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Conservation Commission APRIL tY— Meeting broadcasted by LexMedia LFXING'�O� Monday, July 27, 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. 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, Duke Bitsko, Ruth Ladd and Holly Samuels (Not in attendance: Alex Dohan and Kevin Beuttell) Staff Present: Karen Mullins, Conservation Director 6:30 pm New Business/Pendine Matters Issue Certificate of Compliance: 18 Cooke Rd, DEP 4201-1119, B-1077, VPC 4COC-20-11, VPC# CPM-20-6, VPC422580 (C49-7) On a motion by Mr. Langseth and seconded by Ms. Ladd, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Issue Certificate of Compliance: 494 Lowell Street, DEP 4201-1129, BL# 1086, VPC 4COC-20- 12 On a motion by Mr. Langseth and seconded by Ms. Samuels, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Issue Partial Certificate of Compliance: 3 Penny Lane (Lot 6 Cedar St), VPC 4COC-20-13, DEP #201-1069 On a motion by Ms. Ladd and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to issue the Partial Certificate of Compliance. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Ch. 130 Regulation Amendments: Rules Section 5 Performance Standards: Section 5(5) Buffer Zone The Commission discussed suggested edits and commentary made by members regarding vegetated and natural buffers. Approve Minutes: 6-15-2020, 6-29-2020, 7-13-2020 Ms. Mullins is in the process of completing the draft minutes and the Commission will vote to approve at the next meeting. Schedule Site Visits for 8/10/2020 Meeting The site visits will take place the Thursday before the meeting, on 8/6/2020 at 5:30 PM 7:00 pm New Public Meetings/Hearings ViewPoint Cloud Permit#CDOA-20-15 Request for Determination of Applicability, 30 Dewey Road Applicant: Niranjan Santhiyavathan Project: Expand driveway area Documentation Submitted.- Conservation ubmitted:Conservation Plan, dated April 17, 2018 by Rober Survey Photographs of Site Mr. Niranjan Santhiyavathan presented before the Commission. Ms. Ladd asked if riverfront was involved in this proposal, and Ms. Mullins answered that because the previous project on this lot was a second story, the resource areas were not previously approved. Whether or not this proposal is within jurisdiction is the question, as the resource area has not been delineated. Mr. Langseth asked what the plan was for dealing with the large amount of soil to be dug out and Mr. Santhiyavathan responded that he does not know yet. Mr. Langseth added that if the soil were to be piled up on the property that the Commission would care about that, even though it may be outside of jurisdiction. It was asked what the planned slope of this project is and whether it will drain down to the grass or to the street. Mr. Santhiyavathan said he was not sure but believes towards the street or side. Ms. Samuels clarified for the applicant that the Commission wants to make sure the driveway isn't pitched down into the 100 foot buffer zone. Mr. Langseth requested two conditions to be included in the decision, including that whatever soils are generated to not be stockpiled on site without protection, and if the driveway is pitched to the outer perimeter that a stone trench of 1 foot by 1 foot be included. Mr. Bitsko asked if a tree T-10 was proposed to be removed and it is not. 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: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye (44:25 for LexMedia Recording) ViewPoint Cloud Permit#CDOA-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 Documentation Submitted.- Site ubmitted:Site Plan, dated June 81 2020 by Fredrick Russell, PE Letter to Conservation Commission, dated June 26, 2020 prepared by David Sperduto, PLS Photographs of site Stormwater Analysis, dated June 8, 2020 prepared by Frederick Russell, JR Mr. David Sperduto, representative for the applicant, Mr. Richard McDonough, presented before the Commission. The applicant is proposing to infiltrate the additional impervious area that is created by the addition and an additional driveway area. The stormwater analysis was done by Mr. Frederick Russell. There is a net decrease in the peak flow and volume of runoff for all the storms, including 1-year, 2-year, 50-year and 100-year. Questions from the Commission: — Where does the new driveway expansion drain to? — Is there driveway on top of the infiltration system? — Where is the entry to the garage? Response from the Representative: — Everything currently drains to one point and the proposed driveway has asphalt that will carry any runoff to a drain inlet at a downward slope. The topography is leading to the drain inlet. — Yes, if you mean vertically on top of it. There is existing driveway from the top left corner of the plan by the entrance to the street. — The entry to the garage is on the top right of the proposed addition, as shown on the plan. The additional parking is necessary for the accessory apartment. Ms. Mary Ellen Maloney, property owner of 44 Fletcher Avenue, asked if the hedge was going to remain between her property and 83 Grant Street. Mr. Sperduto answered that the applicant is not proposing to remove the hedge, and that there will actually be a 10-20 percent reduction in the water flow at the bottom of the driveway towards her property. On a motion by Ms. Ladd and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to approve the applicant's request for a continuance to the next meeting on August 10, 2020. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye (1:04:08 for LexMedia Recording) ViewPoint Cloud Permit#CDOA-20-19 Request for Determination of Applicability, 1 Village Circle Applicant: Sarah French Project: Replacement of underground electrical conduit in the existing roadway easement of Woodpark Circle, as well as installation of four (4)new fiberglass splice boxes Documentation Submitted: USGS Site Location Map dated July 1, 2020 Aerial Locus Map dated July 1, 2020 Environmental Site Resources and Construction Plan dated July 7, 2020 Request for Determination of Applicability dated July 2020 prepared by VHB Photography Log dated July 6, 2020 Ms. Sarah French, VHB, representing the Applicant, Eversource Energy, presented before the Commission. Questions from the Commission: — Are the splice boxes exposed at the surface? — What will be done with the spoils from the Horizontal Directional Drilling and the splice boxes? Response from the Applicant: — The splice boxes are exposed and are about 2 inches above the ground when installed. — Any spoils will be trucked off site and used to pack around any holes dug. Mr. Somboon Songtachalert, abutter and property owner of 5 Village Circle, asked about underground electrical service he lost last winter and when the issue would be resolved as there are temporary power lines hanging on his property. Ms. Jennifer Bataro, a representative from Eversource, responded that this project is critical for the replacement of service to Mr. Songtachalert's property and it will be resolved with the completion of this project. On a motion by Mr. Langseth and seconded by Ms. Ladd, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to issue a negative determination with conditions. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye (1:15:25 for LexMedia Recording) ViewPoint Cloud Permit#CDOA-20-20 Request for Determination of Applicability, 3 Woodpark Circle Applicant: Sarah French Project: replacement of underground electrical conduit in the existing roadway easement of Woodpark Circle, as well as installation of nine (9) new fiberglass splice boxes Documentation Submitted: USGS Site Location Map dated July 1, 2020 Aerial Locus Map dated July 1, 2020 Environmental Site Resources and Construction Plan dated July 7, 2020 Request for Determination of Applicability dated July 2020 prepared by VHB Photography Log dated July 6, 2020 Ms. Sarah French, representative from VHB, on behalf of Eversource Energy, presented before the Commission. The applicant is proposing to replace 3,380 linear feet of conduit using Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)technology. The jurisdictional impact of this proposal is one splice box within the 50 to 100 foot buffer zone, and there is no impact to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW) or banks associated with the intermittent stream. Questions from the Commission: — Are the splice boxes exposed at the surface? — What will be done with the spoils from the Horizontal Directional Drilling and the splice boxes? Responses from the Applicant: — The splice boxes are exposed and are about 2 inches above the ground when installed. — Any spoils will be trucked off site and used to pack around any holes dug. On a motion by Ms. Samuels and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to issue a negative determination with conditions. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye (1:18:30 for LexMedia Recording) ViewPoint Cloud Permit#CDOA-20-21 Request for Determination of Applicability, 196 Woburn Street Applicant: Pamela Brown Project: Shed relocation Documentation Submitted.- Site ubmitted:Site Plan dated May 29, 2019, Revised April 15, 2020 Request for Determination of Applicability &Bylaw Compliance Statement prepared by Pamela Brown, dated July 7, 2020 Site Photographs Exhibit Plan- revised buffer zone, dated July 6, 2020 Exhibit Plan - Site relocation and parking lot change- dated April 15, 2020 The applicant was not present and the Commission will re-open this hearing at the end of the meeting if the applicant becomes available. The applicant was not present at the end of the meeting and this will be continued to the meeting on August 10, 2020 after Ms. Mullins contacts the applicant. (1:20:40 for LexMedia Recording) ViewPoint Cloud Permit#CNOI-20-18, DEP File# 201-1187 Notice of Intent, 29 Constitution Road Applicant: Markus Pinney Project: Addition to a single-family dwelling Documentation Submitted.- Site ubmitted:Site Plan, dated March 27, 2020 prepared by Frederick Russell, PE Site Photographs Stormwater Analysis, dated March 27, 2020,prepared by Frederick Russell, JR, PE Architectural Plans, dated November 13, 2019, revised March 27, 2020,prepared by William Hubner, Incite Architecture NOI Riverfront Analysis, dated June 29, 2020,prepared by Markus Pinney Conservation Site Plan, dated July 22, 2019,prepared by Rober Survey USGS Locus Map, dated June 17, 2020 Mr. Markus Pinney, a Land Use and Environmental Consultant, presented before the Commission on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Ricardo Fernandes. Questions from the Commission: — Is the proposed first floor shed/storage area going to replace the existing shed in the rear yard or is it additional storage? — What is the extent of tree removal? — What is the use of the shed on the 25 foot buffer zone? Responses from the Representative: — The applicant does not have any intention to remove the shed and it was incorporated in the riverfront calculation. — There is a very large beech tree off the front yard that we are proposing to limb. Saplings will be removed that are imposed on by the addition. No small trees in the work area; however, the root zone of those saplings will be impacted. No tree removal proposed in the submission. — Lawn equipment and maintenance equipment. Need an engineering review before closing the hearing. On a motion by Ms. Samuels and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing to the August 10, 2020 meeting at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye (1:30:55 for LexMedia Recording) ViewPoint Cloud Permit#CNOI-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 Documentation Submitted.- Site ubmitted:Site Plan, dated July 7, 2020,prepared by BSC Group Stormwater Report, dated July 2020,prepared by VHB Letter to Commission, dated July 7, 2020. Prepared by Eric Olson Mr. Christopher Novak, Professional Engineer with VHB, presented before the Commission. The applicant is proposing to: consolidate all the office/lab space into one building, remove surface parking from property within the buffer zone and consolidate into a parking structure outside of the buffer zone. Additionally, they are proposing to remove all pavement from the 25, 50, and 100 foot buffer zone and construct a wood deck amenity space and construct a new drainage system to meet Town of Lexington and DEP standards. Water quality improvements are to meet new construction standards, not redevelopment standards. They are proposing porous pavers within pedestrian plaza located between the parking garage and office lab building. Comments from the Commission: — Seems as though the existing paved areas were assigned open space/good condition but some were assigned open space/poor condition. 80 did not make sense for group `A' soils for curve number assignments and this should be checked on. — On page 6 of the planset it shows the new path from Brookhaven but there is a gap. Perhaps it is a walking path but it is not highlighted in blue. Why is that? Responses from the Representative: — Will look into the curve number assignments for the next meeting. — The walking path is porous and the stairs will be concrete so that's why the path is not highlighted on the planset. On a motion by Mr. Langseth and seconded by Ms. Ladd, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing to the next meeting on August 10, 2020 at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye (1:47:50 for LexMedia Recording) Continued Public Meetings/Hearings ViewPoint Cloud Permit#CDOA-20-16 Request for Determination of Applicability, 38 Adams Street Applicant: Jane Chen Fulop Project: Install stockade fence with gates, remove invasive species and debris vegetation and plant native species within the wetlands and the 100-foot Buffer Zone to wetlands Previous Hearing Dates: 7/13/2020 Additional Documentation Submitted: Updated Description of Work, dated July 20, 2020 Two (2) Updated As Built Site Plans-Fence Ms. Mary Trudeau, Wetland Scientist, presented before the Commission on behalf of the Applicant, Jane Chen Fulop. Ms. Trudeau explained the revised description of work, including a changed point of access and staging for work proposed. The landscaper and fence installer will access the property along the existing driveway and will use the driveway and lawn adjacent to the house to stage the materials. Ms. Trudeau provided the Commission with a new sketch depicting the location of the fence. Questions from the Commission: — Are the mats covering wetland areas? — Where will the bobcat travel? Responses from the Representative: — The mats are covering some wetland areas, but they are also being used to preserve the character of the lawn. Some areas get soft so the applicant is proposing to put down plywood and/or rubber mats to drive across. — The bobcat will travel off of the driveway, across the lawn area on the mats, to the limit of work line. It will be used to plant the white pines. The Commission would like to see an access path on the existing plan and Ms. Trudeau responded that she could flag the access path in the field for the pre-construction meeting with Ms. Mullins. Multiple abutting property owners and neighbors attended that meeting to voice their opinions on the Fulop property and the work that is proposed as well as work already completed. Ms. Lauren Weeks, property owner of 23 Coolidge Avenue stated that she was concerned with the amount of work being done and that it is setting a precedent that is not within the protection of the wetlands. She raised concern that she was not notified about the original fence proposal; however, Mr. Hamilton clarified that it was brought up through an Insignificant Plan Change and abutters are not notified in those scenarios. Ms. Elizabeth Jazz, abutting property owner, also raised concern that approval of the gate would condemn continued projects and a subdivision of the property. While there was a large presence of abutters discussing the placement of a fence gate, Mr. Hamilton tried to make it clear that the Commission's stance is to protect the wetland and they don't have jurisdiction over placement of a fence gate or potential subdivisions. Ms. Mullins stated that there are two different issues being discussed during the hearing; a Request for Determination of Applicability regarding the installation of a fence and management of invasive species, and also the neighbors bringing to the Commission's attention violations on the property that were not a part of the Notice of Intent approval. Ms. Trudeau stated that Ms. Jane Chen Fulop has spoken with legal counsel and confirmed that the owners of 38 Adams Street have a legal right to the roadway. If the Fulops don't install a gate they could be seen as waiving their rights to the Brigham Road cul-de-sac and their Attorney advised them to install the gates. Ms. Trudeau added that the Fulops have no intention to develop the area into a roadway and only want to maintain their rights regarding the paper street. On a motion by Mr. Langseth and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to issue a negative determination with conditions. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye (2:41:55 for LexMedia Recording) ViewPoint Cloud Permit#CNOI-20-16, DEP File# 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 Additional Documentation Submitted: Proposed Site Plan, dated July 15, 2020. Prepared by John R. Hamel Mr. Markus Pinney, Wetland Consultant, presented before the Commission along with Project Engineer, Al Gala. The applicant is proposing a turnaround driveway as the lot lies on a blind corner of Peacock Farm Road and will provide a better opportunity for a safe exit. The property has a transitional wetland with a large mix of upland and wetland plants all throughout the flagged area. The applicant is also proposing to replace the blue stone patio with pervious pavers at the front of the lot. The driveway is graded downward towards the garage and they are proposing a strip drain with the sump box. The water table was somewhat high but was found to be reasonable. Questions from the Commission: — Could you add a detail on the site plan measuring the exact distance of the closest structure to the wetland? Response from the Applicant: — Yes we can add that measurement to the site plan and it is about 54 feet from the wetland line. The applicant has not received a favorable engineering report for the updated plans from the town engineer. On a motion by Ms. Ladd and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing to the August 10, 2020 meeting at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye (2:59:50 for LexMedia Recording) ViewPoint Cloud#CNOI-19-27, DEP 201-1163, BL 1118 Notice of Intent, 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 Additional Documentation Submitted: Hydrology Log, dated July 20, 2020. Prepared by Haley and Aldrich, INC Inspection and Maintenance Log Mr. Richard Kirby, LEC Environmental, presented before the Commission. The applicant has prepared a revised Operation and Maintenance plan to include a more robust inspection and maintenance log, as well as detailed invasive species management. Questions and Comments from the Commission: — Recommend an editorial review of the Operation and Maintenance plan. It seems there are words missing and just needs another look over. — Suggest submitting the Inspection and Maintenance log on an annual basis for 10 years. — Would like to see that invasive plants will be removed in the wet basins and reference Section 2.0 so it is clear to anyone reading the log. — Why did you consider recharge only on the property rather than delineate a watershed that would capture water flowing through the property? — Some of the groundwater elevations are predicted to be 6 to 16 inches above what the test pit data shows, does that have an impact on the proposed planting and if so has it been adjusted? Responses of the Representatives: — We will review the O&M plan. — A condition will be added that the applicant submit the Inspection and Maintenance log by February 1 for the duration of 10 years. — We will add that to the log. — It is typical to quantify recharge on a regional basis and in an isolated land form of the sort. We felt it was reasonable to only look at the recharge and we expect the recharge to be modest given the amount of impervious area. — We haven't adjusted the planting format yet but will be looking into it. The condition to monitor specifically in the location of the wetland for a good year will be to understand what the regime would be in the range of and come back to the Commission with adjustments in the wetland replication area. On a motion by Ms. Ladd and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing to the August 10, 2020 meeting at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye Ruth Ladd—Aye David Langseth—Aye Holly Samuels —Aye Philip Hamilton—Aye Reports: Bike Advisory, Community Gardens, Community Preservation Committee, Greenway Corridor Committee, Land Acquisition, Land Management, Land Steward Directors, and Tree Committee On a motion by Ms. Samuels and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 5-0 by roll call vote to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Meghan McNamara Conservation Department Assistant Approved: 2/16/2021 Submitted: 2/19/2021