Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-12 Conservation Commission MinutesConservation Commission, October 12, 2011 Approved November 9, 2011 MINUTES Reading Conservation Commission Meeting Selectmen's Meeting Room, 7:00 PM Wednesday, October 12, 2011 Present: Bill Hecht, Chairman; Jamie Maugham; Annika Scanlon; Barbara Stewart; Thomas Loughlin; Brian Sullivan; Interim Conservation Administrator, Charles Tirone; Maureen Knight, Recording Secretary. Absent: Brian Tucker Call to Order The meeting opened at 7:00 PM Old/New Business 529 Franklin Street The 200' applies only to perennial streams and this is intermittent. Motion was made by Ms. Stewart to not require a hearing and to return the fees submitted. Mr. Maugham seconded. Vote was 6 -0 -0. 33 Willow Street This does require a minor project permit. 34 Willow Street This has an intermittent stream and so the regulations do not apply. 68 Longwood Road It does require a fee. This is a minor project. A site visit will be done again. Motion was made by Mr. Loughlin to issue a variance as a minor project. Ms. Stewart seconded. Vote was 6 -0 -0. NOI 270-, 1198 Main Street, Map, 195 Lot, 6 & 7, Wilson Present: Jeffrey Brem represented the owners. Mr. Brem reviewed the site plan for the Commission members. The wetland portion is wooded. The area of the house is open land. A consultant reviewed the property and he did not find any vernal pools in the area. They are proposing three house lots with three driveways. They are infiltrating the roof runoff even though the property is not in the Aquifer Protection Zone. The 35' Zone of Natural Vegetation will be avoided except for 2' on the house on the left side of the property. The limits of work and the hay bales are shown at 27.' Conservation Commission, October 12, 2011 Approved November 9, 2011 The Commission members had questions regarding the wetland flags and the contours. Mr. Loughlin had a number of questions regarding the grading, elevations, infiltration calculations, material storage areas and drywells. Mr. Tirone asked Mr. Brem what the qualifiers were in order to be granted a variance and did he seek alternative plans so as not to need a variance. This should be submitted in writing to the Commission so that they know he did go through this exercise. Mr. Maugham thought what Mr. Brem has presented did qualify the project for a variance. Mr. Hecht thought Mr. Brem should just add jogs to fit the house within the lot area so that a variance would not have to be requested. He also explained that a variance entailed substantial mitigation. A site visit will be done before the next meeting. Motion was made by Ms. Stewart to continue the hearing to October 26, 2011 Mr. Sullivan seconded. Vote was 6 -0 -0. Bylaw Discussion COC 270 -561: 107 Main Street, Map 6 Lot 1 &26 Palmer They have filed all the necessary requests. Motion was made by Ms. Stewart to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Vote was 6 -0 -0. Reading Woods - Recharge System letter The stamped letter has been received with all the necessary information. Motion was made by Ms. Stewart to approve minor plan change. Mr. Loughlin seconded. Vote was 6 -0 -0. Jacob Way Mr. Tirone did a site visit and the drain has not been maintained and the pipes do not seem able to handle the velocity. They are going to review one of the pipes again. 277 Haverhill Street It was an accessory building that was a 10' x 16' shed. Motion was made by Ms. Stewart to accept the minor project permit. Ms. Scanlon seconded. Vote was 6 -0 -0. Bylaw Discussion Three areas of wetland regulation change that were originally identified in the final report of the wetland regulation review ad hoc committee were discussed at the meeting. The discussion of thse three areas are summarized below under each separate subheading. Reading Wetland Regulation Submittal Requirements Conservation Commission, October 12, 2011 Approved November 9, 2011 Mr. Loughlin had prepared a spreadsheet and the Commission reviewed it. He thinks the Commission should focus on what they want and not the State definitions. One big gap he found was that for a request for a determination there are almost no regulations. Mr. Hecht thought there were a lot of things that seem to be confusing or duplicated. Expanding the rules has not made them any clearer. He thinks the Commission should go through them a step at a time or adopt the State approach. Mr. Maughan said the subcommittee thought that what the State requires was adequate other than the need to require that the 25' and 35' setback lines be shown. He reminded the Commission that they are trying to reduce the regulations. They should say the State regulations are sufficient except for the following exceptions: 1, 2, 3, etc. Mr. Hecht said the question for the Commission is do they want to spend more time reviewing or do they agree that the State regulations are sufficient with listed exceptions. And checklists can be flexible but they should not be loose. Mr. Hecht thought a list of frequently asked questions on the website would be helpful. Mr. Hecht thought the issue was to try to eliminate those regulations that are extraneous or that should be listed in the checklist. He complimented Mr. Loughlin's checklist as a valuable tool for the Commission to work with. He distributed some information that he and Ms. Stewart had assembled regarding other town's regulations in the area as well as Reading. The commission reached concensus that for the next meeting each member would identify on Mr. Loughlin's spread sheet which items in the submission requirements that should be kept and which should be deleted because they were duplicative with state requirements or confusing. Reading Wetland Regulation Minor Projects Mr. Hecht brought up additional examples of minor projects that could be added to the regulations. There was discussion on what constituted a minor project and whether examples should be in the regulations or a separate check list. No concensus was reached but all agreed to study the issue and bring ideas, including examples to the next meeting. Reading Wetland Regulation Slope Requirements Requirements The Commission discussed the slope requirement to necessitate riprap. One idea was only to require rip rap for slopes more steep than 1.5:1, There was agreement that this was reasonable and Mr. Loughlin pointed out this was consistent with state transportation guidelines. However for steep slopes the guidelines specified the size and placement of stone. The commission reached concensus that the requirement for slopes should be changed to specify and slope more steep than 3:1 should be engineered. The members will review their proposed changes and make notes to share at the next meeting. Imagination Station Conservation Commission, October 12, 2011 Approved November 9, 2011 The Commission will do a site visit with Bob Keating, Tree Warden, to see if the vegetation restoration was done properly to the riverfront. Minutes for approval Motion was made by Ms. Stewart to approve the minutes for September 28, 2011. Ms. Scanlon seconded. Vote was 6 -0 -0. Open session for topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair - This Agenda has been prepared in advance and lists topics that the Chair anticipates will be discussed at the meeting. However, the agenda does not necessarily include all matters that may be taken up at this meeting. Adjournment Motion was made by Ms. Stewart to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 PM. Ms. Scanlon seconded. Vote was 6 -0 -0.