Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-13 Conservation Commission MinutesTown of Reading 0 Meeting Minutes Board Committee - Commission - Council: Conservation Commission Date: 2022-04-13 Building: Address: Purpose: Zoom Virtual Meeting - Conservation Commission Meeting Attendees: Members - Present: k1MT4i/1611l0l Location: Session: Open Session Version: Final RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING, Mq 2022 JUN -7 PM 3:23 Annika Scanlon, chair, Martha Moore vice chair, John Sullivan, Joe Carnahan, Brian Bowe, Andrew Dribin, Members - Not Present: Carl Saccone Others Present: Fidel Maltez, Charles Tirone, Simone Payment, Cathy Zeek, Patrick Egan, Thor Akerley, Jason Casey, Rachel Casey, Eric Butts, Robert Flower, Karen Herrick, Celeste Kracke, Phil Peterson Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Joe Carnahan and Martha Moore Topics of Discussion: This meeting was held remotely via Zoom. Chair Annika Scanlon called the meeting to order at 7:05pm. Introduction to Town Manager. Fidel Maltez Matters Community Garden Fencing Update from Ms. Zeek about progress of construction of the garden area: The first terrace is graded, crushed stone is put down on the cart path on the Main Street side of the garden, and a concrete stair has been constructed to access the Bare Meadow side of the garden More applicants than spaces, picked the selected gardeners randomly with a computer Presentation on fencing by Ms. Zeek, Ms. Payment, and Ms. Krake: Goals of any fencing: • Deter animals who would destroy crops and to ensure a successful harvest • Protect the safety of animals • Allow animals to move through the area • Preserve gardeners' access to the garden • Preserve the beauty of the space • Need a budget -friendly solution that can be extended as new plots are added on higher terraces Deer, woodchucks, and many other animals inhabit the area and present a challenge to gardeners who live in the area Options: Page 1 1 • 40" wire mesh to deter rabbits and smaller creatures, with a fishing line run between posts at deer chest height to deter deer and with ribbons tied to the line for visibility • 72" mesh fence. Blends in well, but there is concern about deer being caught in the fence • 48" high pop-up mesh boxes that fit inside individual garden beds, but there is concern that it would interfere with taller plants • 40" tall plant protection tents, also a problem for taller plants • 28" chicken -wire hoops, which would need to be removed by gardeners to do gardening • 24" plastic netting, which tends to sag over time (not aesthetically appealing) and would need to be supplemented to deter deer • Motion -activated lights, which would not help with rabbits and woodchucks during the day but which could supplement another solution by deterring deer at night • 36" of chicken wire laying on the ground, which deer do not like to walk on • Long -tens solutions: o Hedgerows: Would not deter smaller creatures and would require maintenance o More permanent non-organic fencing: Would work well but is very expensive Community garden committee is leaning towards the first option (wire mesh and fishing line) for cost-effectiveness and efficacy Questions from the commission: • Mr. Bowe asked how the fishing line or 6' fence solutions would work N deer are able to jump eight feet in the air. Ms. Kracke explained that deer do not like to jump in an area with narrow clearance, and the fishing line works partly on account of how difficult it is to see: Deer are surprised by it and are deterred. • Mr. Bowe relayed a suggestion that white ribbons on the fishing line might be more effective because they resemble the white -tail danger signal from deer. • Mr. Bowe asked about opaque wooden fencing, as deer are less likely to pursue food that they can't see. Ms. Kracke said that permanent fencing like that would need to wait until we have a better idea of how many terraces will eventually be built out. • Mr. Bowe asked about the durability and replacement cost of various solutions. Ms. Kracke said that the considered fences are UV -treated to be durable against sun damage and are physically strong in order to be able to resist deer. • Mr. Bowe asked that the garden group gather information on others' experiences with deterring animals from gardens. • Ms. Moore expressed a preference for the first two options (wire mesh plus fishing line or 72" mesh fence). • Ms. Moore suggested deer netting as another option to deter deer, possibly in combination with rabbit fencing at a lower level. Ms. Zeek said that there was concern about needing to stay under six feet of height, but Mr. Tirone clarified that the six-foot limit is only relevant to wooden fences, as taller wooden fences require a building permit. • Mr. Dribin asked about how much fence is needed (answer was 350 linear feet). • Mr. Dribin asked what people's preferences were for the long term fencing, especially if money were no object. Ms. Zeek expressed support for unobtrusive wire fencing, while Ms. Payment expressed appreciation for the "trellis" style seen in other community gardens. • Mr. Dribin asked what would make the garden to be considered a success. Ms. Zeek cited several factors, including gardeners wanting to renew for future years, a healthy harvest at the end of the season, and engagement with other community groups. Mr. Dribin emphasized the importance of that engagement, and Ms. Payment pointed out that seeing one's harvest destroyed in one night would be harmful to community engagement. • Mr. Dribin asked what gardeners can do in their own beds and if they could put up their own deterrents, and the answer is that they can as long as it is not permanent. Ms. Kracke observed that having different deterrents might be aesthetically unappealing and that requiring gardeners to buy their own deterrents might create equity and access issues. Page 1 2 • Mr. Dribin suggested letting gardeners experiment and discover what works. • Mr. Carnahan agreed with the earlier part that a consistent deterrent might look better and would not be too visually obtrusive from the parking lot. • Mr. Carnahan noted that the site next to Bare Meadow is going to be uniquely challenging in terms of deterring animals because Bare Meadow is such a great animal habitat, and he emphasized that we should take the necessary steps to make sure that gardens actually are allowed to grow until the end of the season. • Mr. Sullivan asked about the financial constraints and whether further funding would be needed. Ms. Zeek said that the garden group would pursue both Town funding and donations from private groups and individuals. • Mr. Sullivan asked if the covering deterrents (chicken wire hoops or mesh pop -ups) could be blown away in the wind or moved by deer. Ms. Kracke said that they could probably be staked down with landscape staples, though a tunneling pest like a woodchuck could still go under them. • Ms. Scanlon said she was fine with the wire mesh and fishing line approach. • Ms. Scanlon asked how a perimeter fence would work with the place where stairs cut through the terraces and whether separate fences might be needed. Ms. Payment said that the new steps on the Bare Meadow side of the plot should make it unnecessary to use the center steps. • Ms. Scanlon asked if animals would have access under the fence at the stairs, but several people pointed out that the stairs do not cut across the flat part of the terrace. Mr. Tirone said that the DPW actually removed the center stairs, so the only stairs are now at the ends of the terrace. • Ms. Moore said that fencing off the entire area would probably be necessary for a successful harvest. • Mr. Dribin asked who will be installing the fencing, and Ms. Zeek said that this is still TBD. • Ms. Scanlon objected to the possible impact of motion -activated lights on animals' natural day -night cycles. Comments from Mr. Tirone: • He noted that there is no current Town budget for supporting this. • He expressed concern about the waste of buying 350 feet of fencing material and fishing wire and then later not having a plan for disposing of it when it is replaced by a permanent solution. • He asked if gates are included in the budget for fencing. • He expressed concern about deer being caught inside of a taller fence like one of the 6' or taller proposals discussed above. Ms. Zeek said that the budget she was talking about was the earmark from the state that we currently have for this garden and future ones we might be able to get. She also acknowledged that donations will almost certainly be needed. With respect to the waste of a temporary fence, Ms. Zeek pointed out that a permanent fence would come only after all terraces were developed and built out as gardens. This would be at least 5 years out, possibly more. Ms. Scanlon suggested that we continue this discussion in a future meeting with more of the details worked out and ideally with a single best -shot option for the Commission to either accept or reject at that time. Ms. Scanlon asked for more information about the gates' location and appearance. Mr. Carnahan agreed that we get a single proposal from the garden group so that we can approve it. Motion to continue the discussion of fencing at the Matters Community Garden until April 27 by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Bowe, voted 6-0-0. Page 1 3 Hearinas Sch 62 Whittier Road Open 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 Mr. Akerley presented the plans, noting the relatively flat land that does not need significant grading other than the excavation of the pool itself. Mr. Bowe asked about the distinction between in -ground and above -ground pools in the Reading Wetland Bylaw, and Mr. Akerley said that his understanding was that the distinction was that above -ground pools could be covered with a minor project permit and be handled by the Conservation Administrator without needing a vote of the Commission. Mr. Bowe pointed out that the Commission definitely still has jurisdiction over an in -ground pool within the 100' buffer zone, and Mr. Akedey agreed that such projects are definitely in scope for an RDA. Ms. Moore noted the large rock in the area where the pool will be and asked if blasting will be required to dig out the area for the pool. Mr. Akerley said that there is a full basement in the house, meaning that the rock is likely a boulder and not bedrock or other rock that would require blasting. If there is blasting, this project would need to come back to the Commission as well as requiring input from neighbors and approval from the fire department. Ms. Moore asked about a drain in the area of the proposed pool, and Mr. Akerley said that it is a sump pump outlet from the basement and would need to be rerouted to the side of the house. Ms. Moore asked how the shed would stay outside of the 35' zone given the location of the shed doors and the swingset, and Mr. Akerley said that the swingset itself would move to accommodate the shed doors. Ms. Moore said that the homeowner had talked at the site visit about removing debris (concrete, cut logs, etc.) from the buffer zone along the BVW, and she asked to make sure that other natural ground cover is not disturbed. Mr. Akerley said it would not be. Ms. Moore asked about whether the fence could be installed without disturbing the trees, and Mr. Akerley agreed that if trees did need to be removed, this would need to be a NOI instead of an RDA. Ms. Moore expressed safety concerns about having no fence between the pool and the other play area in the yard. Mr. Dribin asked about the amount of impervious surface is being added and what the total will be. Mr. Akerley said the patio will be 1100 square feet but did not have the total. Mr. Carnahan noted that the new location of the shed is not entirely existing lawn but goes several feet into the wooded area. However, he confirmed that the proposed shed location would still be more than 35' from the flagged wetland line. Mr. Carnahan suggested that the fence would be less controversial if it followed the edge of the existing lawn rather than the edge of the property. The proposed fenced wooded area is small, but it would still be desirable to keep it connected with the other parts of the buffer zone and BVW. Page 1 4 Ms. Scanlon asked about the construction entrance, which will be around the driveway side of the house. Ms. Scanlon asked about how it will work for the stockpile to overlap the proposed patio area. Mr. Akerley explained the sequencing, where most of the soil would be removed before any of the gunite is poured for the pool, which in turn would be before the patio is constructed. Ms. Scanlon asked about the quantity of soil being removed from the pool. Pool depth would vary from T to 6' deep, and the pool installers said it should fit within two trucks. Both of these would indicate a total of 50-70 cubic yards of soil. Ms. Scanlon asked about the extent of the lawn, and Mr. Akedey explained how the southern edge of the property is lawn all the way to the back edge of the property, while the lawn only extends as far as the front of the shed on the middle and north edge of the property. Ms. Scanlon agreed that it would be better from a conservation perspective for the fence to follow the edge of the yard. Ms. Scanlon asked about foundation for the shed, and Ms. Chase explained that it is currently on 4x4 skids on cinderblocks, so no digging or filling should be required. Ms. Chase also explained that moving the shed is peripheral to the project and could stay where it is if needed. Comments from Mr. Tirone: • Enumerated many open questions about the ZNV, the possible need for blasting, the sump pump drain location, etc. • Noted that the plan lacks grade information, construction entrance, and has outdated materials listed for the patio (pavers versus concrete). • Noted that a fence so close to the wetland might require a variance, which would in tum require an NOI instead of an RDA. Ms. Scanlon asked for more information about the aggregate (concrete) pool deck. Mr. Akerley said that the deck would be 2" deep on top of peastone. Ms. Scanlon asked about plantings, and Ms. Casey said that none are currently proposed. Ms. Scanlon asked for more detail in the plans about the change in grade and the pool deck construction. Mr. Tirone said that we need to clarify the limit of grading and work, and Mr. Akedey said that for the pool part of the project, the mulch sock line is the limit of work. Mr. Casey said that the proposed fence could be moved to follow the fence line All Commission members stated that they would be comfortable handling this with an RDA instead of an NOI as long as the fence is moved in (though there were different opinions on how far) and as long as requested details are provided in the plan about the limit of pool work, limit of grading changes, etc. Motion to continue by Mr. Carnahan, seconded by Mr. Bowe, voted 6-0-0. 22 Collins Ave Open the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent, filed by LLC, Philip & Julie Peterson, Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40 -the Wetlands Protection Ad, the applicant proposes the construction of an inground swimming pool, pool deck, landscapes planting, grading, and utilities within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. The application and plans can be viewed during regular business hours at the Town Hall Page 1 5 Conservation Office, 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867, and on the Conservation Division page under the current project. Assessors Map 51 Lot 124, DEP File No. 270 - Mr. Peterson presented the plan to install a fiberglass in -ground backyard pool and to use the 100 cubic yards of fill from the pool excavation to raise the grade on the slope to the northwest of the proposed pool Ms. Moore, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Carnahan visited the site on Monday. Mr. Carnahan said that the commissioners looked at the wetland flags and found them to be reasonable. They also confirmed that piles of debris in the backyard were at least 35 feet from the wetland. Mr. Carnahan asked about the existing shed, which is going to be just off the edge of the proposed pool deck. Mr. Peterson said that the shed would be moved aside for construction. Mr. Carnahan asked if any trees would be removed as part of the grading the project, and Mr. Peterson said they were. Mr. Carnahan said that we would need to document the trees being removed and then to look at the tree policy to see about replacement planting plans. Ms. Moore added that trees removed should be marked on the plan with their diameter at breast height. Ms. Moore asked about where the fence would be installed around the pool. Mr. Peterson said it would be right around the edge of the pool deck. Ms. Moore asked about where the erosion controls would be installed. Mr. Peterson said that it would be along the edge of the marked grading area. Ms. Moore asked for a more detailed plan with elevations, trees, and erosion control marked. Mr. Bowe asked about trees that appear to be removed in past aerial photography and asked what happened with them. Mr. Peterson said that several trees have fallen over time and that tree services have come in to remove them. Mr. Bowe noted that the proposed pool is an area that used to be wooded. Mr. Bowe asked about alternative plantings in the grading area, in particular trees to replace the ones that are being removed or that fell in the past. Mr. Bowe asked for a detailed planting plan. Mr. Dribin asked about the area where there was a pool in the past. Mr. Peterson said it was a temporary pool that was taken down every year. Mr. Dribin asked if the area was graded to accommodate that temporary pool, and Mr. Peterson said it was not. Mr. Sullivan asked about the difficulty of erosion control given that the grading is intentionally pushing dirt towards the wetland. The filled area would be stabilized by seeding it and converting it to lawn. Mr. Sullivan asked if there would be a retaining wall, and Mr. Peterson said it should not be needed because there will be only a 3 -to -1 slope on the hill. Ms. Scanlon expressed concern about the apparent past filling of the level lawn area and asked if the pool could be moved further south so that less (or no) filling would be required. Mr. Peterson said that the desired pool position was done to provide lawn area where children could play outside. Ms. Scanlon said that the project would be easy to approve without the filling component, and if we do need to fill that area, then a lot more will be needed: Detailed information about proposed grades, the 35' line, the trees being removed, the replacement trees being replanted, the history of the removed dry well, etc. Comments from Mr. Tirone: Page 1 6 Noted that the Commission likes to see the 35' foot line on plans Would like to overlay that on the aerial photos get a better idea of what is happening here Seems like the pool could be moved to reduce impact on the resource area Would like to see the site again after seeing a more detailed plan Ms. Moore clarified that we would need the detailed plans a week in advance of our next meeting so that we could review them before the meeting. Mr. Peterson asked to continue until May in order to have time to get more detailed plans. Motion to continue the hearing on 22 Collins Ave to May 11 by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Carnahan, vote 6-0-0 1310 Main Street Assessor's Mao 41 Lot 75 & 84 Deo File No. 270-0745 Continued to April 27, 2022, at the applicant's request. Motion to continue by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Bowe, vote 6-0-0. 0 Small Lane Assessor's Mao 40 8 41 Lot 153. 155 & 29 Deo File No. 270.0748 Continued to April 27, 2022, at the applicant's request. Motion to continue by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Dribin, vote 6-0-0. 572 Summer Ave Assessor's Mao 8 Lot 137, DEP File No. 270-0757 Continued to May 11th, 2022, at the applicant's request. Old/ New Business, Violation notice for 30 Henzie Street Issue is a shed that overlaps the edge of the property and goes onto Town land next to a stream bed, where the lawn runs right up to the edge of the ditch Mr. Robert Flower explained that the shed was constructed in reference to an existing fence that turned out to not be aligned with the property line Mr. Bowe agreed with Mr. Flower explanation and also thanked Mr. Peterson for having cleared debris out of the drainage ditch Mr. Bowe noted that Mr. Flower also wanted to take down some trees along the drainage ditch, though that could be handled separately. Mr. Flower asked if he should also remove plantings from the edge of the stream bed, but Mr. Tirone and Mr. Bowe said this would not be necessary. Ms. Scanlon agreed as long as the plantings are not invasive, which lilacs are not. Mr. Flower expressed concern about how the shed could be moved. Ms. Scanlon said it could be done and suggested asking Mr. Tirone for suggestions of who to talk to. Mr. Tirone said that the Commission needs to decide when the shed must be moved. Ms. Scanlon said it would best be moved during the dry part of the year and that it would be good to do some kind of planting where the shed used to be. Mr. Bowe noted that the backyard has already been damaged by a DPW truck that removed a fallen tree and said maybe it would be OK to move the shed as soon as possible. Mr. Flower said that the shed sits on cinderblocks and so no digging or grading should be involved with moving the shed. However, he does not know when the shed could be moved. Mr. Flower also said that someone from DPW or Conservation suggested moving the shed when the ground is frozen. Ms. Moore suggested September 2023 to give both the dry summer and frozen winter as options and to allow sufficient time for determining how the shed will be moved and who will move it. Mr. Dribin asked if even more time might be appropriate, but Ms. Scanlon expressed concern that it might fall off our radar. Ms. Scanlon suggested spring 2023 instead. Page 1 7 Mr. Bowe suggested we set a deadline of one year, with the understanding that the resident could reach out to the Commission and the commission could extend that date if for some reason it is not possible to move the shed next winter as planned. Violation notice for 8 Oak Ridge Rd Mr. Bowe said that some trees were taken down in January and that the commission needed more information about it. Mr. Egan explained that the town tree warden or another representative of the town came in September to point out dead and diseased trees after a neighbor complained to the town about the risk of trees falling. Mr. Egan also explained that it was not clear that the town had any interest (such as Conservation) that would *not* want to see the trees taken down. Mr. Egan said he would have preferred to keep the trees, not remove them. Mr. Bowe and Mr. Tirone talked about the fact that we do need to follow policies around tree removal near resource areas like the stream in Mr. Egan's yard. Mr. Bowe asked how many trees were removed. Mr. Egan said that at least 5 were 6" at chest height. Mr. Bowe asked if we could have a site visit to look at the removed tree stumps and if Mr. Egan could provide the Commission with a planting plan that could be reviewed to verify that the replacement plan is adequate. Ms. Scanlon said that the commission is flexible with the format of planting plans, but the commission likes to see a variety of plantings and to see that trees (as opposed to only shrubs) are included. Ms. Moore suggested that the planting plan should include removal or management of ivy that would otherwise choke out new trees. Mr. Tirone noted that the variety of trees is critical for being robust against diseases like whatever wiped out the previous monoculture of trees. Mr. Egan asked if we could discuss this at our first meeting in May in order to give time to Violation notice for 26 Henzie St Mr. Butts explained that he had a letter about both their fence that goes onto Town land and also about debris in the Town land behind their yard. There is a survey stake marking the edge of the property, and the fence goes several feet past it. Mr. Butts said that the fence was installed in December with snow on the ground, which might explain why the fence did not align with the survey marker. Mr. Butts said that they would need to talk to the contractor to see about whether the contractor will cooperate with moving the fence and sharing the responsibility for doing so. Mr. Bowe asked when we could find out what Mr. Butts could report back to the Commission with a proposal with what to do with the fence. Mr. Butts agreed that a month would work. Mr. Butts explained that he bought the property in 2019 after someone else had bought it, renovated it, and resold it. Mr. Butts has removed debris from the stream bed, but he was not interested in removing the debris that predates his ownership of the house. Mr. Bowe agreed that removing the debris should not be Mr. Butts' responsibility, but Mr. Bowe suggested that we would try to align the Town's removal of debris from Town property with the relocation of Mr. Butts' fence. Mr. Tirone noted that some of the debris is actually behind 18 Henzie St, not 26 Henzie St. Ms. Moore asked if removing the dam of debris in the stream would actually undermine roots of other trees along the bank, such as the one that fell onto the yard at 30 Henzie St. Mr. Tirone noted that the stream is basically stagnant and hence that there will not be any real change in velocity if debris is removed. Mr. Tirone also noted that the fallen tree next door fell on account of having lost its roots and pointed out the shape of the hole that the tree left. Other Business Page 18 Mr. Bowe asked If the way we are handling violation letters is working. Mr. Carnahan suggested that we only bring violation letters to the Commission to approve a proposed remediation, and Mr. Tirone suggested going further and only bringing violation letters to the Commission if it's not otherwise possible to pick the proposed remediation: Minutes: Motion to approve minutes for March 9, 2022 with minor amendments that were emailed to Mr. Tirone, moved by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Bowe, vote 6-0-0 Discussion of plans for Town Forest Appreciation Day on May 1 from noon to 3. Martha will bring a table, Nike will help set it up. Martha provided a brochure on Invasive Species produced by a former Envirothon team, Andrew has been working on a postcard to hand out. Nika will check whether there are still any natural items, such as a bird's nest, in Matters Cabin that can be borrowed for the table. Nika will bring some animal track cards to hand out to children. Martha will bring some rubber animal tracks and a stamp pad for children to use for artwork. The goal is to entertain the children long enough to talk with the parents. Discussion of applying to participate in Friends and Family Day. Perhaps have a drawing. It must clearly be free, not a raffle. We could give a membership to Mass Audubon or Trustees. And then promise to shred the private information, unless people want to be contacted about learning more about Conservation on a sign up sheet. Ms. Moore reminded us that Thor offered that Williams and Sporages has plans of existing conditions at Lot 5 Grove Street that they could share with the town. Mr. Tirone will inform the town manager about this in case he wants to pass them on to Wesson and Sampson. Motion to adjourn by Mr. Carnahan, seconded by Mr. Bowe. Roll call vote 6-0-0. Meeting adjourned at midnight. Page 1 9