Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-08-CONCOM-minMINUTES —LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 8, 2007 Commissioners present: Phil Hamilton, David Langseth, Duke Bitsko, Angela Frick, Stew Kennedy, Dick Wolk (7:35). Absent: Joyce Miller Others present: Karen Mullins, Administrator, Adam Bossi, Administrative Assistant, and Louise Vinci, Department Clerk Phil Hamilton, Vice Chair, opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. in room G -15, Town Office Building. 7:30 p.m. Hearing: Amend OOC 1265 Mass. Ave., Shemin Nurseries, Present for applicant: Michael Howard of Epsilon Associates, Bill Brinn of Shemin Nurseries, Barry Fogel an Attorney from Keegan, Werlin, Pabian, Dennis Giustra of Pennoni Associates Michael Howard of Epsilon Associates began by describing the issue that was recently discovered involving the location of the existing sewer line interfering with the original proposed bridge location and then went on to present the amended plans for the new proposed bridge location due to this recent discovery. He identified that the new proposal increases the amount of restoration area to 6300 sf resulting in the installation of 16 additional plants. He also pointed out that the Commission requested during their site visit that Shemin Nurseries remove the existing footbridge that is presently located next to where the proposed bridge would be located and Shemin Nurseries has agreed to remove the footbridge although not an ideal condition for them. Comments from the Commission were as follows: David Langseth commented that he was happy to hear that the existing footbridge would be removed and as a Condition of Order he would like to see plans for its removal submitted to Commission or Administrator for approval. Phil Hamilton requested that an existing birch tree in this area be relocated to save it and that another tree not be removed. Mr. Hamilton along with Angela Frick also expressed concern about the storage of nursery stock right on the stream bank and the impact equipment used to move stock might have on the bank. In response Bill Brinn, Shemin Nurseries Manager, said that the nursery would be willing to reduce the width of gravel vehicle path to the width to allow a forklift to pass and to move the storage of plants approximately 12' away from bank. The Commission would like to have this included as a condition of the order. Motion made and seconded to close hearing, 6 -0 in flavor. 7:45 p.m. Cont. Hearing: NOI, 453 Concord Ave., The Cotting, School, MINUTES — LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 8, 2007 Present for applicant: Michael Howard of Epsilon Associates, Jeri Hamwey of Geller Associates, David Mango of Cotting School. Mike Howard of Epsilon Associates provided new information to the Commission and follow up in a letter dated 4/17 with attached photos and plans to the Commission's comments raised at their 4/10 hearing. He presented the current revised proposal, which included 4,700 s.£ of wetland filling and 5,000 s.f. of wetland replication (including planting of willow, elderberry, dogwood), and 7,200 s.f. riverfront enhancement area (including planting of sweet pepper and winterberry). Next Mr. Howard outlined the letter dated April 17 in which he responded to comments made by the commission during their April 10 meeting. Referencing comment response number 3, he responded that an alternative replication - grading scheme was provided, but Mr. Howard commented that he recommended the original replication area shaped like a basin be conditioned due to the better hydrology and wetland system it would provide. Comments from the Commission were as follows: David Langseth wanted assurance that replication area would survive. He said he would usually like to see the replication area completed and have plant survivability for two years before the field was constructed but, in this case, he also didn't want to have the students wait two years for the field. He suggested a bond with significant leverage to ensure survivability of the replication area. Phil Hamilton reiterated what Mr. Langseth stated about ensuring survivability and further stated that the commission usually doesn't permit wetland filling, and thus, doesn't have many areas of replication or a history of survivability. Mr. Langseth suggested to David Mango the idea of incorporating the wetlands replication monitoring into the student's curriculum. Mr. Howard replied to these comments by saying that the school and team are committed to ensuring survivability of the replication area and that the insurance of survivability lies in the fact that they can't get a Certificate of Compliance without survivability. Angela Frick asked about the dimensions of the brook's bank and enhancement area. Mr. Howard answered that enhancement area would range in width from 12'- 80' from top of bank. She would like a condition of the Order to require a minimum of a 12 -foot width of enhancement area along the river. Mr. Bitsko asked if project lay within the hundred -year flood plain and Mr. Howard responded that project did not fall within the 100 -year floodplain elevation. Mr. Bitsko also wanted to know what would be done with the fill that would be removed from site and replication area. The Commission would like a condition of the Order to be requiring documentation of disposal of materials from the site in a proper and legal manner. In response to a request from Administrator Mullins for an outline of the historical wetlands filling and replication that has occurred to date at the Page 2 of 5 MINUTES — LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 8, 2007 site, Jen Hamway of Geller De Vellis Inc. briefed the Commission on the historical background of site. In 1986, a Notice of Intent was filed with the Commission and an Order of Conditions was issued for expansion of the existing facility and associated wetlands filling (4,300sf) and required replication. In 1991, a Certificate of Compliance was issued as a result of the work being completed in compliance and the required Conservation Restriction becoming finalized. She further identified that the existing conservation restriction divides the restricted area into sub areas and each area has specified prohibitions and allowable uses. The proposed wetland filling area will occur in a restricted area that is wetlands but was mowed to maintain a field area for the students in accordance with the restriction. Next, she outlined the steps that one needs to take in order to amend an approved and recorded conservation restriction, which she also provided in a letter to the Commission at the meeting. The Commission discussed whether the restriction needed to be amended prior to commencement of work, and it was decided that in fact it did since the project area falls under the conservation restriction that prohibits the project. This will be a condition of the Order. In addition, Mr. Bitsko wanted it on the record that he prefers the alternate replication plan showing a more gradual grade versus a basin grade. To summarize, the Commission asked that the following conditions be incorporated into the NOI: • Minimum of 12' width of natural vegetation from brook's bank. • Record of what will be done with fill removed from site. • Prior to work, the amended conservation restriction must be finalized since proposed work area is within a conservation - restricted area. Motion made and seconded to close the hearing, 6 -0 in favor. 8:15 p.m. Meeting: RDA, 11 Middleby Road, William Sweeney, the property owner, described the proposed project to construct a deck. David Langseth instructed William Sweeney to allow for spaces between slats, to lay gravel under deck, that sonotube excavation be removed and properly disposed of and not to mow further than his property line. Motion made and seconded to issue negative determination with above stated conditions, 6 -0 in favor. 8:26 p.m. Hearing: NOI, 81& 83 Hartwell Ave. and 20 Maguire Rd. Present for applicant: Afshar Hooshmand, Surveyor for Holmberg and Howe, Douglas Gilbert- Fibertech. Mr. Hooshmand presented the plan to install subsurface communication conduit to connect 81 Hartwell Ave., 83 Hartwell Ave., and 20 Maguire Road. Plan includes 5 boring pits with size dimensions of 5'x5'x3' deep, Page 3 of 5 MINUTES — LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 8, 2007 which will become manhole cover areas upon completion of the project. The conduit will be jacked underground in the vicinity of the wetlands and no trenching or soil excavation will be performed in this area. David Langseth asked how the accuracy of the 3 -foot depth of conduit will be ensured. Douglas Gilbert of Fibertech Networks explained that the equipment would monitor the conduit depth so there would be a minimum depth of 3'. Mr. Landseth was also concerned about the catch basins within the parking lot becoming clogged with sediment due to excavation of trenches. Mr. Gilbert responded by saying that soils would be hauled away daily so that business could operate. Stew Kennedy asked if bore pits would be above water level. Mr. Gilbert said he didn't know at this point in time, but if groundwater was encountered, then dewatering would be needed. Stew asked for a condition for dewatering specifications to be submitted and approved. Mr. Langseth asked about chemicals introduced to the site from drilling activities. Mr. Gilbert stated that water would be the only fluid used during drilling. Mr. Kennedy asked if all work done would be outside of conservation restriction area. Mr. Hooshmand replied that it would be. Mr. Langseth requested that a finding be included regarding the Commission has not approved the wetlands boundary. Motion made and seconded to close the hearing, 6 -0 in favor. 8:40 p.m. Cont. Hearing: NOI, 24 Ingleside Rd. W. and K. Martin, Addition (201- 703, BL- 600) Motion made and seconded to continue to May 22, 2007 at applicant's representative's request, 6 -0 in favor. 8:45 p.m. Cont. Hearing: NOI, 9 Village Circle R. and R. Hines, Addition and driveway (201 -704, BL 661) Motion made and seconded to continue at the request of the applicant's representative. Since the representative could not assure a time certain of when the follow up information would be provided, the Commission continued to an unspecified date. Once a new date determined, a new legal ad would be run and abutters notified of the continued hearing. 286 Lincoln Street Negative Determination with conditions was signed since the Commission forgot to sign when they voted at the previous meeting. Cluster bylaw revision No one present can commit time to represent the commission on Planning Board's advisory committee. Duke suggested splitting up meeting among commissioners or sending bylaw revisions by e -mail. Phil Hamilton relayed that Joyce Miller may be interested since she has planning background and he will ask her. Reports- Page 4 of 5 MINUTES — LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 8, 2007 • Community Preservation Committee update was provided by Mr. Wolk. • Housing Partnership Committee - Commission discussed arranging a meeting to discuss land acquisition and affordable housing. • Bicycle Advisory Committee held their annual bike path cleanup day this past weekend. • Land Stewardship Annual Spring Meeting was held on April 26 and Paul Hellmund Director of the Conway School presented to the group on Greenways. • Tree Committee's tree nursery update Site Inspection for Certificate of Compliance- the New Harrington School Projec Mr. Welk is concerned about the work that was conducted on the stream that was not incompliance with the Order and that is causing problems and wondered if the town paid for these problems. The Commission still not satisfied with stream restoration work that was conducted to correct the violation that occurred when the contractor removed all the vegetation along the stream and replaced it with rip rap stone. Lincoln Park Athletic Field Project and Observation Tower Project Mr. Langseth raised the concern about the drainage problems that are occurring on the site. He forwarded his concerns to Karen Simmons, the Recreation Director and David Pinsonneault, for addressing. He identified that there are several areas where the silt fence needs to be removed from these two projects. He wants to know who in the town manages the contractors on behalf of the town for these projects, and is there a Cleric of the Works. He is also concerned like Mr. Wolk that the town ends up owning problems that the contractor should have been held accountable to correct. DEP Stormwater Management Regulations Administrator Mullins briefed the Commission on the proposed storm water management regulations that DEP is proposing to incorporate into the Wetlands Protection Act. The Stormwater management Policy will no longer be just a Policy and will be a Regulation with more clout. At the same time, DEP is revising the stormwater management standards and provisions and in some cases providing greater clarification. Mr. Langseth stated that he will review them and offer comments to DEP as he deemed appropriate. 9:30p.m. Meeting adjourned Respectfully submitted by, Louise Vinci Department Cleric Page 5 of 5