Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-27 Conservation Commission MinutesTown of Reading1 Meeting Minutes Board - committee - Commission - Council: Conservation Commission Date: 2022-04-27 Building: Address: Purpose: Zoom Virtual Meeting - Conservation Commission Meeting Attendees: Members - Present: Time: 7:00 PM Location: Session: Open Session Version: Final RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING, MA. 2022 JUN -7 PM 3: 25 Chair Vice Chair Martha Moore, Member Andrew Dribin, Member Brian Bowe; Chuck Tirone, Conservation Administrator Members - Not Present: Annika Scanlon, Carl Saccone Others Present: Thor Akerley, Cathy Zeek, Jason Casey, Kate DePalma, lack Sullivan, Chris Noonan, Ellen Rockafeller Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Chuck Tirone Topics of Discussion: This meeting was held remotely via Zoom. Chair Vice Chair Martha Moore called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. The Vice Chair called a roll call on who was in attendance. Mr. Tirone went through the Zoom meeting protocols. Public Hearings Scheduled: Routine resurfacing and road reoair, Reading Engineering Division RDA 2022-4 Ryan Percival, Town Engineer, presented the roads in Reading that are scheduled for resurfacing and repair in the coming year, highlighting sections of Clover Circle and Lowell Street that pass through the wetland buffer zones. He reported that Mr. Tirone (Conservation Administrator) visits each site before work starts. John Sullivan asked for clarification about the use of straw wattles for erosion control and the significance of "50 feet from the buffer zone". Mr. Percival explained that they usually extend the erosion controls to work areas within 50 feet of the buffer zone, not that the controls would be placed 50 feet from the buffer zone. Mr. Percival also noted that 50 feet is a minimum and that they could be extended further at Mr. Tirone's suggestion. Mr. Bowe asked about roads other than Lowell Street and Clover Circle that appear to be adjacent to the buffer zone, such as Riverside Drive and Buckingham Drive. Mr. Percival responded that such areas are not within Conservation's jurisdiction, but he would take a look at Page i 1 those areas with Mr. Tirone to see if additional erosion controls might be needed in those areas Mr. Bowe asked about the erosion controls that were left on Grove Street well beyond the end of the work there last year, and he asked what the criteria would be for cleaning up the erosion controls. Mr. Percival replied that DPW's preference would be for the erosion controls to be cleaned up as soon as Mr. Tirone determines that they are no longer needed, and the issue last year was that the contractor did not remove the erosion controls in a timely fashion when they were asked to do so by DPW. Mr. Bowe asked if the contract with the contractor required the erosion controls -to be removed when the DPW asks, and Mr. Percival said that such language was already in the contract. Ms. Moore asked if the road work might lead to hydrant flushing occurring into the wetlands, based on earlier work she observed on Mill Street. Mr. Tirone suggested that the right language would be for any water discharge's velocity to be dissipated via a bag or other mechanism. Mr. Tirone said that there may be places where curbs or other features make erosion controls unnecessary and the DPW can use discretion about cases where controls were unnecessary. If anyone observes erosion controls that appear to be both necessary and missing, they should notify Mr. Tirone. Mr. Bowe moved to approve the plan as discussed above, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, approved "-0. Matters Community Garden Fencina Cathy Zeek presented the Community Garden Group's request to approve perimeter fencing to deter four -legged pests from the garden area, including 40 -inch -high mesh fencing to deter smaller pests and 6 -foot stakes every 5 feet connected via a fishing line 5 feet above the ground with ribbons on it to deter deer. There will be two chain-link gates that are roughly the same height as the mesh fencing with latches but no locks. The exact placement of posts will depend on the location of individual rocks and other features of the ground. Ms. Moore asked if there would only be a single strand of fishing line. Ms. Zeek said that this was the plan, but an additional strand could be added if a single strand proves to be ineffective. Ms. Moore suggested that the Commission explicitly approve the plan to start with a single strand as well as the option to add up to two more strands as needed without requiring additional Commission approval. Mr. Tirone expressed support for this choice and reported on the progress of the garden construction. Ms. Zeek announced that there would be workdays on May 6, 7, and May 13, 14, and 15. Mr. Bowe moved to approve the plan as discussed above, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, approved 5-0-0. 62 Whittier Assessor's Mao 33 Lot 130, RCC File No. 2022-2 Continue the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Rachel & Jason Casey, under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, § 40 and/or the Reading Wetland Protection By-law, Section 7.1, to install a 32 -foot x 16 -foot inground swimming pool and associated patio. Moving the shed and installing a 6 -foot vinyl fence will be included in the work. Portions of the work are within the 100 -foot Buffer Zone. The application and plans can be viewed on the Conservation Division page under the current project, Assessor's Map 33 Lot 130, RCC File No. 2022-2 Thor Akerley presented an updated rendering of the project, including the following: • The proposed fence line follows the 35 -foot line from the BVW until the point where the existing lawn comes within 35 feet of the wetland, at which point the proposed fence follows the edge of the existing lawn. • The limit of work for the pool project is now specified to run along the proposed mulch sock erosion control line. Page 1 2 • The updated rendering Includes additional elevation markings • The patio material is indicated as concrete. • The construction entrance via the driveway • An additional area of river stone between the patio and the part of the neighbor's house that comes closest to the pool Mr. Dribin asked if the fence could follow the 35 -foot line along the entire property. Mr. Carnahan noted that the neighboring property is entirely lawn all the way to the back edge of the property, meaning that even if the fence followed the 35 -foot line all the way to the neighbor's yard, the neighbor's yard would still extend well into the 35 -foot area. Ms. Moore asked if there was a plan to put any gate in the fence, and Mr. Casey said there would not be a gate. Ms. Moore applauded this decision, as gates may be used to transport yard waste into the wetland, though she also noted that using a gate to go back into that area to control invasive plants. Ms. Moore noted that the 25 -foot zone might be a good compromise, either pulling the fence into the 25 -foot line or doing some native plantings in the area that Is currently lawn while keeping the fence in the proposed location. Mr. Tirone said that having the fence within the 35 -foot zone would mean being a structure in the 35 -foot zone. Mr. Akerley said that fences were normally approved as minor projects, and Mr. Tirone said that we would need to review the regulations and past projects in detail to be sure. Ms. Moore asked Mr. Casey if the fence needed to follow the lawn. Mr. Casey said that he was just trying to follow the guidance offered by the Commission in the previous meeting. Ms. Moore suggested that some plantings within the fence might be a suitable compromise. Mr. Carnahan repeated Mr. Casey's recollection that the Commission had asked for the fence to follow the edge of the lawn in the previous meeting. Mr. Dribin pointed out that not all Commissioners had expressed that opinion in the previous meeting. Ms. Moore asked about the type of fence, and Mr. Akerley said it would be white vinyl. Given that the fence will be solid, Ms. Moore said that plantings inside the fence would not be as beneficial as they would be if the fence were vertical bars or chain link. Mr. Dribin moved to issue a negative determination of applicability contingent on an updated plan that moved the fence to be at least 35 feet from the wetland, seconded by Mr. Carnahan. Mr. Carnahan offered a friendly amendment to change "35 foot" to "25 foot", which was accepted. Negative determination was approved as amended (that is, with the fence to be moved to at least 25 feet from the wetland) Mr. Bowe moved to approve. seconded by Mr. Sullivan. aooroved 5-0-0. 22 Collins Ave Assessor's Mao 51 Lot 124 DEP File No 270 - Continued to May 11, 2022, at the applicant's request. 1310 Main Street Assessor's Mao 41 Lot 75 & 84 Deo File No 270-0746 Continued to May 11, 2022, at the applicant's request. 15 Carriaae Lane Assessor's Mao 48 Lot 53 RCC File No 2022-3 Mr. Bowe reported on a site visit he made with Ms. Moore. They inspected the wetland flags and expressed concern about the location of flag 6A, which is the one closest to the proposed stairs. Ms. Moore noted that there was also a wooden play structure, trampoline, and composting bin in the 25 -foot zone, in addition to the shed that is already marked on the plan. Ms. Moore noted that the soil on the lawn near flag 6A was very wet and asked if the stairs could be moved four feet further away from the wetland in order to preserve the 35 -foot Page 1 3 no -structure zone. Mr. Jack Sullivan said that they might need to check with the architect who designed the stairs, but they probably could be moved. Mr. Bowe suggested that five feet might be necessary. Ms. DePalma explained that flag 6A is the low point where water drains, and Ms. Moore explained that both hydric soil there and vegetation (moss instead of grass) suggest that this low point may be part of the wetland. Ms. Moore said that we could get the wetland flags reviewed at the applicant's expense, but it might be cheaper, faster, and easier to just move the stairs in the plan than to get a review of the wetland flags. Ms. Moore said that in this case, we could issue a negative determination without approving the wetland flags. Ms. Moore asked about the boundary of the pool, and Mr. Jack Sullivan pointed out the text on the plan that indicates a boundary of crushed stone around the pool perimeter. Ms. Moore asked how other members of the commission felt about the shed, play structure, and existing lawn. Mr. Dribin said that he observed a larger buffer around the wetland in past aerial photographs, and suggested that it would be best to allow the 25 -foot buffer zone to be restored with natural vegetation. This would require removing the shed. Mr. Tirone said he would have liked to see the extent of the crushed stone around the pool shown on the plan, as well as to see the play structures. Mr. Tirone said that the applicant had been advised that the shed might be questioned as part of this project. Ms. Moore asked about the history of the shed. Ms. DePalma explained that the shed was approved with a permit in 2014, but there was a misunderstanding of the property line. At the time, the shed was installed more than 35 feet from the wetland, but it was installed on the neighbor's property. When the property line mistake was discovered, the shed was moved without any additional permits being Issued. Ms. Moore confirmed this narrative by looking at past aerial photography. Mr. Tirone confirmed that a minor project permit was approved at that time, showing the shed 90 feet from the wetland on the approved plan. Ms. Moore suggested that the applicant return with a revised plan that shows what will happen to the shed and shows some additional buffer. Mr. lack Sullivan asked about how much buffer might be appropriate, and Ms. Moore said that a five-foot planting buffer along the edge of the existing lawn would be a good idea. Mr. lack Sullivan asked if a variance would be needed if the crushed zone encroached over the 35 -foot line. Mr. Tirone said that the entire pool structure would probably need to be considered as one structure, including its crushed stone base. Ms. DePalma said the crushed stone was intended to improve drainage, but they would be fine with letting grass remain up to the edge of the pool. Mr. Jack Sullivan asked if the play structure would need to be removed. Ms. Moore suggested the play structure could perhaps be removed after it is no longer being used by the children. Mr. Carnahan said that he thought that removing the shed might be the only viable alternative, given that the shed was only previously approved at a location that is not on this property. Motion to continue the hearing until May 11 by Mr. Carnahan seconded by Mr. Bowe, approved 5-0-0. O Small Lane, Mao 40 & 41 Lot 153 155 & 29 Dep File No 270-0748 Mr. Tirone reported that the Town received the check for the bylaw fees for this project Motion to continue this hearing until May 11 by Mr. Bowe, second by Mr. Dribin, approved 5-0-0. 572 Summer Ave Assessor's Map 8 Lot 137 DEP File No 270- 0757 Continued to May 11'", 2022, at the applicant's request. 47 Indian Tree Lane Map 11 Lot 22 Mr. Noonan explained that several projects are proposed for their property, and they are asking for the commission's judgment on whether or not they can all be handled as minor project permits. Mr. Noonan explained the state of the property in 2019 when it was purchased, Page 1 4 including an above -ground pool and surrounding wooden deck. The pool failed structurally and had to be removed, and there is also a garden surrounded by railroad ties that needs to be replaced because of chemicals that come from the railroad ties. Mr. Noonan explained that the plan is to put a stone patio in the previously disturbed pool area. Ms. Moore reported that she visited the site with Mr. Bowe and Mr. Dribin on Monday. Mr. Bowe reported that looked for the edge of the wetland, which comes very close to the fence and which the commissioners visited via a gate in the fence. He reported that sand from the site was eroding towards the wetland area and that a contractor was in the process of removing the demolished asphalt walkway during their visit. Ms. Moore noted that the shed shown in the town GIS has already been removed. Ms. Moore added that they had discussed the possibility of a buffer of native plantings inside the fence, which Mr. Noonan agreed was a good idea. Mr. Noonan said that the base of the patio could be changed from stone dust to sand in order to make the patio base more pervious. Ms. Moore agreed that the wetland extends right up to the fence, which also follows the drain easement line. Ms. Moore noted that the driveway is a bit wider than shown on the town GIS. Ms. Moore confirmed that the railroad ties will be replaced with masonry, and Mr. Noonan added that the tiers will be moved about 10 feet further from the wetland. Ms. Moore asked about the fence installation, and Mr. Noonan said that they replaced an existing fence in the exact same location. Mr. Tirone clarified that the question before the Commission tonight was whether or not all of the projects discussed tonight can be approved as minor project permits. Mr. Dribin said that the improved walkway and replacement deck both seem clearly like minor projects, but the only question was about the patio. Mr. Dribin asked W there were more detailed plans we could look at, and Mr. Noonan said that there was not. Mr. Dribin suggested that the patio could be pulled back from the fence a bit, and Ms. Moore agreed. Ms. Moore asked Mr. Tirone for guidance, and Mr. Tirone agreed with Mr. Dribin's assessment that the walkway -garden and deck are minor projects. Mr. Tirone said that the pool was approved in the past as a minor project because it is above- ground and therefore considered temporary. As it did indeed prove to be temporary, this would be an opportunity to revisit plantings, distance from the wetland, etc. Mr. Tirone said that this patio project would normally be an RDA unless the Commission deemed otherwise. Mr. Tirone explained that the applicant did not have time to prepare an RDA before this meeting. Mr. Bowe said it would have been nice if the commission had been involved and the fence could have been done differently, being less of an obstacle to wildlife and more of an obstacle to yard waste with no gate for humans. Mr. Dribin asked if the patio pavers would be permeable, and Mr. Noonan said they would be. Mr. Dribin said that he was happy with the proposal overall and was unsure how we should proceed Mr. Tirone said that we would need a real plan that shows the permeable pavers, the exact extent of the patio, and the planting plan for the buffer strip along the fence. This would require more details than have been submitted so far. Ms. Moore explained that a planting plan usually contains a list of plant types and numbers. She also suggested that a good planting plan mixes types of vegetation to provide more variety of habitat. Page 1 5 Ms. Moore asked K we could do "retroactive RDA" here. Mr. Tirone said that we have only done so in the past when we learned about projects after they had completed. Mr. Carnahan agreed with Mr. Dribin that he's happy with the proposed project and that he is willing to accept it as a minor project because making it an RDA would not add any additional protection to the wetland. Ms. Moore asked about adding a mulch sock to the erosion control, and Mr. Noonan said that it had already been installed after Monday's visit. Mr. Tirone noted that there is yard waste beyond the fence that needs to be removed as part of the project, and he suggested that it would be best done with the help of the Bobcat machine that is being used for railroad tie removal. Mr. Noonan said that this would be possible. Motion to treat this proposal as a minor project by Mr. Carnahan, seconded by Mr. Dribin, voted 5-0-0. Old/New Business Budget Discussion Mr. Tirone said that we have the opportunity to request an expense of up to $3000 before the end of June. He already got an estimate for a fence for $4500, and he is still talking with Facilities about whose responsibility it is to replace the fence. Mr. Tirone said that he was getting a quote for a sign for Matters Cabin, though that would also likely be over $3000. Mr. Tirone reported that other committees with budgets in previous years asked to have their previous budgets guaranteed out of the $15000 that will be spread across all BCCs. Mr. Tirone said we could apply this year's money in combination with next year's money for items that cost more than $3000. Ms. Moore suggested painting Matters Cabin, and Mr. Tirone said he would get estimates for staining Matters Cabin and repainting the porch. Mr. Bowe said he was interested in replacing broken-down signs on conservation land, but Kathy Kelly from Trails Committee had already arranged with the Scouts to have some of the signs fixed up, so that might already be taken rare of by Ms. Kelly. After the Matters Cabin sign, Mr. Tirone said that the next priority should be the sign at the Pearl Street entrance to Bare Meadow. Mr. Bowe suggested a sign that describes the work of the Conservation Commission that could be installed near the Community Garden. Ms. Moore suggested that a kiosk with a plexiglass - covered corkboard could be used for that purpose and would be more flexible, allowing us to display other materials in the future as needed. Mr. Tirone said that such kiosks range from $300 to $1500 and that the town is using a fairly standardized design for these. Mr. Tirone also said we might need to get funding for materials for Scout sign -repair projects, but Mr. Bowe said that Ms. Kelly was planning to fund such materials from the Trails Committee budget. Mr. Tirone said that we could still request $500 for materials for miscellaneous maintenance. Mr. Bowe asked about how we would be able to accept donations. Mr. Tirone said that we would have to ask the Town Manager for permission to set up a gift account and that we were among very few entities in town that do not have such a gift account already. Mr. Tirone said he would reach out to the Town Manager about setting up such a gift account, but that all gifts and all expenditures from the gift fund would each need to be approved by the Select Board. Page 1 6 Ms. Moore asked about a sign for the Town Forest entrance, and Mr. Tirone and Mr. Carnahan both explained that this is both outside the Commission's scope and also would be funded other ways. Ms. Moore asked about getting a Reading safety jacket for Mr. Tirone to replace his Town of Boxford safety jacket. Mr. Tirone said he actually could already replace that out of the state wetland fee fund and that his jacket does not yet need to be replaced. 102 Haverhill Street tree discussion Mr. Tirone showed a picture of a tree at 102 Haverhill Street with both of its main branches extending out over Haverhill Street. Two arborists reported to Mr. Tirone that the tree is indeed in danger of falling because of the weight imbalance, and the residents had offered to plant another replacement tree. Mr. Tirone said this tree removal still needed to be approved by the Commission because other trees had already been removed under the town tree policy in the last three years. Mr. Bowe asked if we could specify the type of replacement tree to make sure that it is a substantial replacement such as an oak. Mr. Tirone also suggested a chestnut as a possibility, with the more general criteria of a tree that would eventually be tall and that would provide nuts. Ms. Moore suggested perhaps a swamp white oak to ensure it would do well in the wet area. Motion to allow the homeowners to remove the tree indicated by Mr. Tirone at 102 Haverhill Street and replace it with a high-value habitat tree by Mr. Carnahan, seconded by Mr. Bowe. Motion to approve the tree removal and replacement by Ms. Moore seconded by Mr. Carnahan, approved 5-0-0. Community Outreach discussion Ms. Moore reported that she has Conservation Commission postcards as prepared by Mr. Dribin as well as information about invasive species prepared by former students for sharing at the Town Forest Day on May 1 from noon-3pm at the Wood End entrance to the Town Forest. Ms. Moore reported that she and Ms. Scanlon would be there, and Mr. Bowe said he would be there as well. Mr. Tirone reported that the Trails Committee will be repairing boardwalks on the Pine Ridge trail on Saturday, April 30, starting at 9:30am. Mr. Bowe noted that the compost site will be open on Saturday, so it might be safer to walk past the water treatment plant. Literature from the Town Forest Day could be reused at Reading Friends and Family Day in June. 572 Summer Ave site visit Planning Planned for 8:30 am on Monday, May 23. 34 Deborah Dr additional door Mr. Tirone explained that the project we approved at 34 Deborah Drive needs an additional door at the back of the addition with a concrete pad. No new path would be added to connect the new rear door with the side door. Motion to have the Conservation Administrator approve the rear door administratively by Mr. Carnahan, seconded by Mr. Bowe voted 5-0-0. Page 17 Violation Notices Mr. Bowe suggested that the Commission circle back and follow up on past violation notices before issuing any new ones. Ms. Moore suggested we follow up on 14 Dean Rd. Site visit to 14 Dean Rd will be planned for the morning of May 23. Mr. Castellano of the 1503 Main Street project has asked for a Certificate of Compliance. Mr. Tirone needs to get an as -built plan, and we need to verify that mowing will not occur in the no - mow area. Mr. Carnahan will reach out to Mr. Cleary, the homeowner, to make sure that mowing does not commence in the no -mow area now that spring is here. Ms. Moore asked about the status of Lot A Main Street, and Mr. Tirone explained that the developer has been using straw bales instead of mulch sock due to the difficulty of installing mulch sock at the site before the access road has been constructed. Adjournment Motion to adiourn at 10:30om by Mr. Bowe, seconded by Mr. Carnahan voted 5-0-0