HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-09 Conservation Commission MinutesTown of Reading
Meeting Minutes
i�
OMOOPP
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Conservation Commission
Date: 2022-02-09
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 3:24
Chair Annika Scanlon, Vice Chair Martha Moore, Brian Bowe, Joe Carnahan,
Andrew Dribin, John Sullivan; Chuck Tirone, Conservation Administrator
Members - Not Present:
Carl Saccone
Others Present:
Cathy Zeek, Simone Payment, Celeste Kracke, lack Sullivan, David Kelly,
Giovani Fodera, Michael Salamoni, Thomas A Peragallo, Scott Berger, Donald
Genzler, Kwong & Kapeng Ma, Lucas Perkins, Christopher Colantoni, Patrick
Silva, Eileen Literio, Joe DiGiovannl, Kendra Cooper
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Chuck Tirone
Topics of Discussion:
This meeting was held remotely via Zoom.
Chair Annika Scanlon called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
The Chair called a roll call on who was in attendance.
Mr. Tirone went through the Zoom meeting protocols.
Public Hearings Scheduled:
Mattera Conservation Area Community Garden review and discussion. Mao 56 Lot
86, 1481 Main Street
Cathy Zeek, Simone Payment, and Celeste Kracke were present to request approval from
the Conservation Commission to locate the Reading Community Garden in the Mattera
Cabin conservation area. Ms. Zeek reviewed answers to questions from the January 26.
The Community Garden group is seeking approval for
The following DPW activities: (1) remove five declining apple trees in the terrace
area, (2) grading, (3) install up to 17 raised beds in the terrace, (4) install water line, (5)
create a pollinator garden, and
The following Garden group activities: (1) publicity, (2) gardener's legal agreement
(to be reviewed annually), (3) appointment of a garden group liaison/point person.
Conservation also agrees that all future work is to be approved by Conservation, based also
on approvals (as appropriate) by Town Counsel, the Town Accountant, and the Town
Page I 1
Manager or his/her designee. The Conservation administrator will receive monthly updates
from the Garden group.
Motion in favor of these approvals and conditions by Ms. Scanlon, friendly
amendment by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Dribin. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
1310 Main Street. Mao 41 Lot 75 & 84 Deo File No. 270-0746
This hearing was already continued to March g'h at the January 26, 2022 meeting. No
discussion.
O Small Lane. Mao 40 & 41 Lot 153. 155 & 29 Deo File No. 270-0748
The applicant requested continuing the hearing to March gth. No discussion.
Motion to continue 0 Small Lane to March 9'h by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr.
Sullivan. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
56 Grey Coach Road, Mao 12 Lot 11, RCC File No. 2021-13
Jack Sullivan prepared a plot plan showing where the easement is located, and the applicant
was going to present the rest. The contractor Donald Genzler, Genzler Construction
presented the proposal.
Ms. Moore asked about the deck proposed between 25 -feet and 35 -feet setbacks. That
construction will include a corner support footing underlain by lawn.
Mr. Carnahan asked if the proposed deck was defined as a structure and requires a
variance. Ms. Scanlon replied it is a structure, and Mr. Genzler replied he had not provided a
variance but he will. Mr. Dribin, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Bowe requested that the deck be
reconfigured to stay outside of the 35 -foot buffer zone. Ms. Moore expressed concern about
stormwater management, Ms. Scanlon requested a response from Mr. Genzler. Mr. Genzler
said there would be gutters and two walk -out doors.
Mr. Tirone mentioned this property has already been subject to mitigation and monitoring
under a previous DOC, and it may be good to consider additional invasive monitoring in the
variance.
Motion to continue the public hearing for 56 Grey Coach Road to February 23th by
Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Bowe. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
Lot A Main Street, next to 1261 Main Street, Mao 51 Lot 95, Next to 1261 Main
Street DEP File No. 270-0749
Ms. Scanlon opened the continued public hearing for Lot A Main Street for a new SFD on a
vacant lot.
Giovanni Fodera the Project Engineer, said at the last meeting three variances were
requested, the updated proposal will now require two variances. He presented the changes
and how the variance criteria are met:
• The driveway is relocated outside of the 25' zone of natural vegetation;
• A raingarden is proposed that will treat the runoff and Flow towards the wetlands;
• Site Is tight and the location of the SFD is less disturbance to the wetlands and
protected area;
• Stormwater mitigation with recharge system;
• Runoff controlled towards the wetlands;
• Erosion control barriers around the entire site - periodically inspected and cleaned
out;
• The property is currently being used as a dumping site - will be cleared out and
block the abutters to the north from using the site;
• Donating land to Conservation;
• Implementing stormwater items - promote groundwater infiltration, clean runoff
being discharged to the wetlands, and replicating wetlands'
• Implementing three birdhouses - to promote bird species and allow growth;
Page 1 2
• All invasive species will be removed and disposed of in an approved location -
replaced with clean fill;
• 25' zone of natural vegetation will be turned back into a natural state; and
• Vernal pool and habitat will be maintained
Ms. Scanlon asked if the proposal is to remove all invasive from the entire lot? Mr. Fodera
explained it is not from the entire lot, it is only in the disturbed area.
The Commission responded to the proposal:
• Is the vernal pool area is flagged? Mr. Fodera explained the area is not flagged;
• How are the boundaries of the habitat of the vernal pool area interpreted? Thomas A.
Peragallo from LES Environmental Consultants, Inc., responded the identified vernal pool
needs to be delineated by the spring high water, which will locate the vernal pool and
the protected habitat is 100' around the vernal pool. Tom said he would need to
research how the boundaries were identified. Mr. Fodera presented the Division of
Fishery and Wildlife document on vernal pools. Ms. Scanlon asked how the upland
habitat will migrate to the vernal pool, and what Performance Standard in the
Wetland Protection Act should be imposed to protect the upload habitat. Mr.
Peragallo explained the species will migrate to undisturbed areas. He reiterated he
would need time to interpret. Ms. Scanlon said the DEP provides regulations and
guidance but the Town of Reading Regulations allow for additional protection on a
case-by-case basis. Mr. Peragallo asked how a vernal pool is Interpreted in the town
bylaw? Ms. Scanlon replied the definition is not explicitly spelled out. The
Commission and applicant continued with a discussion on the interpretation of a
vernal pool;
• Mr. Dribin opined he is not in favor of this project - the site should remain woodland
with a vernal pool and not with a single-family dwelling. The character of the
property is the trees and wooded area;
• Mr. Peragallo pointed out to the Commission they could ask for a Wildlife Habitat
Evaluation from an expert in Wildlife Biology;
• Ms. Moore said she is concerned the bottom of the infiltration system is not high
enough above the water table to be effective to filter the water. Mr. Fodera reviewed
the proposed elevation and opined the infiltration system is high enough above the
season high water table. Ms. Moore responded she is not a certified soil evaluator
but she is concerned the stormwater won't be properly managed;
• Ms. Moore said the large maple trees proposed to be planted could be an issue down
the road because the trees are threatening the house and the owner requests them
to be removed;
• Ms. Moore said she is concerned about the snow removal location. The location of the
proposed driveway Is barely out the zone of no structure and the snow will be at the
entrance of the driveway on Main Street. Mr. Fodera pointed out an area and said a
tree can be removed and designate that area as snow removal/storage;
• Mr. Carnahan said he is having difficulty with variance criteria C - is replacing yard
waste with a single-family dwelling accommodating the public interest.
• Ms. Scanlon opined the biggest obstacle is the development or raw upland right next
to a vernal pool and wetlands - she went through what was proposed and provided
her opinion;
• Ms. Scanlon recommended pausing the development until the vernal pool is verified
in the spring, and getting a wildlife habitat evaluation to understand the value of the
undisturbed forested area; and
• Mr. Tirone pointed out the driveway will still need a variance. The Commission
requires a variance if it is encroaching in the 35' zone or the 25' zone. Mr. Fodera
asked if a driveway is considered a structure? Mr. Tirane responded it is a structure
based on the dictionary definition and not the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Fodera replied the
driveway is pervious and it is graded to the raingarden, and any runoff will go
towards to the raingarden.
After Ms. Scanlon reviewed with the applicant the options on how the meeting could
proceed, the applicant said based on the feedback received tonight he will review the
proposal and update the plans.
Page 1 3
Ms. Scanlon reiterated her concern with protecting the habitat and requested a Wildlife
Habitat Evaluation. Mr. Peragallo pointed out the season to evaluate vernal pools is mid-March or
after. Ms. Scanlon agreed the season to certify vernal pools is coming up - and the Wildlife Habitat
Evaluation can be done on the upland. She opined there are a lot of challenging aspects to the project
and hard for the Commission to approve.
Ms. Scanlon opened the meeting to the public.
Mr. Scott Berger, 1301 Main Street, thanked the Commission on the diligence and effort on the project.
He supports and echo's the members comments on the concerns, and can attest to the abundance of
wildlife that lives in the area. Mr. Berger continued, the area is very wet right now and he spoke about
the drainage in the area. The trees soak up a lot of water, and the proposal shows a lot of vegetation
and habitat being lost.
Mr. Michael Salamoni, a developer on the project, commented in the past when replicating the
wetlands was being discussed the Commission brought up variances. He asked for clarification, if the
Commission wants replication or to keep the existing wetlands? Mr. Fodera said the project could be
updated so a variance is not requested. Ms. Scanlon responded the taking of the habitat area is still a
concern. Mr. Salomoni asked for guidance on what the next step is, to get an attorney to interpret the
rule? Ms. Scanlon said the Commission cannot guide you, the responsible of the Commission is to
enforce the provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act. She added there is not a lot of facts available to
allow the Commission to approve or to deny the project.
Ms. Scanlon requested a motion to continue the public hearing. Mr. Dribin said he would take in
consideration a replication -wetlands plan and recommended the applicant to work within the limits and
not ask for a variance -or at least minimize as most as possible.
Motion made to continue the public hearing for Lot A Main Street to February 23,
2022 by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Dribin. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
51 Sanborn Lane. Mao 48 Lot 8. RCC File No. 2021-14
Mr. Tirone informed the Commission the applicant has withdrawn the application and asked
the Conservation Commission to approve the request without prejudice.
Motion made to withdraw RDA 2021-14 for 51 Sanborn Street without prejudice by
Ms. Scanlon, seconded by Mr. Bowe. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
16 Varney Circle. Mao 29 Lot 109 Deo File No. 270-0754
Ms. Scanlon continued the public hearing for 16 Varney Circle. Mr. Jack Sullivan owner of
Sullivan Engineering Group provided an update. The applicant explored possibilities to
donate land to the town to provide a connection between two town owned abutting
properties. The applicant discussed with a local lawyer and his mortgage company and
approximately 28k square feet Is avallable as a conveyance or an easement to the town.
Mr. Sullivan showed the site plan with the proposed additions and the area being discussed.
He said the applicant looked into donating the land to the town but allowing the easement
was a less expensive method.
Mr. Sullivan reminded the Commission the reason the applicant was looking into donating
some of his property: a few of the Flags from the proposal might be moved a foot or two, a
shed and a portion of a gravel turnaround Is In the no structure zone. He said the proposal
could be revised so no relief is necessary but if the Commission is willing to accept the
donation the applicant would like to move forward with the proposal. Mr. Sullivan asked for
feedback from the Commission.
Mr. Carnahan asked for clarification on the easement line? Mr. Sullivan responded the
amount donated is over a half an acre, and that is the amount the applicant felt most
comfortable. He reiterated if the property is sold to the town, the applicant would incur a
Page 1 4
cost. Mr. Bowe said he would like the homeowner to respond to why he Is comfortable with
that line versus where the wetland ends. Mr. Dribin said he has the same question as the
other members on why that area, and asked if there is a tax benefit to the applicant to
donate the land. Ms. Moore asked if that part of the land is all wetland or if there are any
upland areas in the narrow rectangle - did anyone investigate the topography of that area?
Mr. Tirone responded there is an area that is upland, but it's not on Mr Carmone's property.
Ms. Scanlon said she looked at the town GIS map and it matches the DEP. Ms. Moore asked
for clarification, the real benefit of the area is to provide a wildlife corridor between the two -
abutting town -owned land? Mr. Tirone explained it is the desired situation because it will
eliminate future encroachment by homeowners, and it will be an area controlled by the
town. He pointed out on the map the property and said it is an important piece. Mr. Bowe
opined it is important to know the topography. Ms. Scanlon said it includes the end of
Crocus Lane which in the past has been neighborhood dumping. This could give the
Commission a little more control of the property. Mr. Sullivan replied the owner wanted to
limit the area, but he does not know the reason behind the decision. He concluded it
sounds like the Commission wants the property conveyed in a fee and asked for a
continuance to allow time to talk to the owner.
Ms. Scanlon asked if this is the only outstanding item on the application? Mr. Tirone said
there was a site visit and it was stated the flags should be moved up, but there is no major
concern.
Ms. Scanlon opened the meeting to public comment and closed with no comment.
Motion to continue the public hearing for 16 Varney Circle to February 23, 2022 by
Mr. Bowe, seconded by Mr. Dribin. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
35 Pitman Drive, Mao 39 Lot 103 RGB File No 2021-19
Ms. Scanlon opened the public hearing for 35 Pitman Drive and said the applicant is
proposing to remove the existing inground pool, dispose of pool walls, liner and fill in the
existing hole with clean fill. Loam, seed and replace the existing slab and walkway by the
house.
The contractor Dave Kelly expanded on the proposal:
• Fill in the inground pool;
• Install erosion control along the existing fence; and
• Remove the existing patio and re -pouring the patio by the house
Mr. Tirone said he did not know about the re -pouring of the patio and asked for more detail.
Mr. Kelly said the homeowner would like to maintain some of the patio by the house and
replace the remainder of the lawn with loam. Mr. Tirone asked if the patio extends into the
35' area, and showed on screen the plan submitted. Mr. Kelly said he is not sure of the
exact measurement; the impervious area will become pervious except for the proposed
patio by the house.
Ms. Scanlon asked for clarification on the bump -out in the patio area? Mr. Kelly said any
concrete poured will be within what is existing now; and added the existing impervious area
will become a pervious area. Mr. Tirone drew on the GIS map the proposed work area. Ms.
Scanlon asked if the fence is being removed? Mr. Kelly said he would have to refer to the
homeowner. Mr. Bowe said he was at the property and the owner said the fence is going to
remain except for one area where the vehicles will park. Mr. Carnahan said at the site visit
the conversation geared to the patio being removed and the re -pouring was not discussed.
Ms. Kapeng Ma, the owner of the property, clarified the concrete around the pool will be
removed and the existing concrete is broken and will be replaced with the same size patio.
Ms. Scanlon asked about plantings around the new patio? Mr. Kwong Ma said there is
plantings inside the fence but none proposed by the patio.
Mr. Bowe wanted confirmation from the contractor that he will not need a stock pile. Mr.
Kelly reviewed the construction plan and affirmed a stock pile will not be needed. Mr. Bowe
asked about debris failing into the wetlands, and about the loam. Mr. Kelly affirmed the
Page 1 5
debris will fall into the hole and nothing will fall Into the conservation area. He said a
machine will compact the fill to be solid and loam on the top.
Mr. Dribin asked about the drainage after the land is leveled. Mr. Kelly responded the area
is leveled and the area can be graded one way or the other. The applicant would prefer the
water to flow away from their home. Mr. Dribin said there are no "red" flags about the
proposal but requested a better drawing to clarify the real agreement. He agreed the water
should flow away from the house and recommended plantings.
Ms. Moore commented she has few problems with the project, but wanted to make sure the
erosion control is installed inside the fence. She asked about the type of erosion control.
Mr. Kelly said he usually uses 8-12' straw wattle but Mr. Tirone recommended the mulch
sock for the erosion contorl. Ms. Moore wanted to remind the owner the Commission does
not allow yard waste to be dumped into the wetlands.
Ms. Scanlon expressed concern when excavating that the pool sides could cave in, and
asked the contractor if he has a design for the pool removal and slope stability. Mr. Kelly
explained the process and said stone will be used to stabilize the work area. Ms. Scanlon
asked about the size of the stone. Mr. Kelly replied gravel size stone not boulders. Ms.
Scanlon said her main concern is the side slopes collapsing because of the water. Mr. Kelly
said he has the same concerns and he has had similar situations in the past.
Mr. Carnahan asked about the existing water and how it be removed? Mr. Kelly said it will
be pumped to the street. Mr. Tirone said the water should be pumped onto the lawn and let
the water flow naturally and infiltrate into the ground. Mr. Kelly agreed to test the water
before pumping the water into the lawn, but doubts there will be any chlorine left. He
affirmed the project won't commence until spring when the water can be absorbed through
the grass.
Ms. Scanlon opened the meeting for public comment and closed with no comment. Mr.
Tirone asked for an updated plan showing: plantings, erosion control and location of the
patio. Mr. Dribin asked for clarification on a plan, what part of the fence is to be removed
to get the equipment into the yard.
Motion to continue the public hearing for 35 Pitman Drive to February 23, 2022 by
Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Bowe. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
25 Riverside Drive, May 11 Lot 271 RGB File No. 2022-1
Ms. Scanlon opened the public hearing for 25 Riverside Drive to remove partial of an
existing deck and construct an addition.
Mr. Lucas Perkins from Baystate Engineering provided an overview of the project:
• Remove a portion of the deck & stairs, and concrete pavers below;
• Construct a new 16x24 elevated family room;
• Remodel the existing deck and add new stairs;
• The project exists in the buffer zone;
• A 15 -foot sewer and drain easement on the side and back of the property;
• Lot currently graded sloping towards resource area on abutting properties;
• River -front and bordering vegetation wetlands on the abutting properties in the rear;
• Wetland located by himself (Mr. Perkins);
• Well outside of the 25 -foot and 35 -foot buffer;
• Within the 100 -foot wetland buffer and within the 200 -foot riverfront buffer;
• Erosion controls around the limit of the work;
• Temporary impact in the buffer zone 683sf within the 100' wetland buffer and 1200sf
within the 200 -foot riverfront buffer;
• No net increase in the impervious area, the entire area under the existing deck that
will be supporting the family room;
• No proposed grade changes - the entire disturbed area will be loomed and seeded;
and
Page 1 6
• Proposed straw bales and silt fence to be installed
Mr. Perkins showed the proposed architectural plan and pictures of the existing yard.
Ms. Scanlon opened the discussion to the members:
• Mr. Bowe commented:
o In Reading, manmade canals like a drainage ditch count as a riverbank;
o The proposed stairs will jet out closer to the river;
o The fence by the shed is very close to the drainage ditch; and
o There is brush and a bed frame by the drainage ditch - and asked that it gets
cleaned up.
• Mr. Perkins responded:
o Clarified the deck and stairs location and how it will be further away from the
river;
o Noticed the "junk" and brush that came from the abutting parcel, but will
inform the homeowner that brush etc. is not allowed to be dumped; and
o Will ask the homeowner to clean up the area around his property
• Mr. Tirone asked the applicant if they did stream stats on the river area - he doesn't
know if this area should be considered a river. Ms. Scanlon agreed this is something
that should be looked into. Mr. Perkins said he did not check the stream stats and
was conservative in that aspect. Ms. Scanlon asked that this be double checked.
Mr. Tirone said he doesn't want this applicant to be held to riverfront standards since
the area wasn't considered riverfront because of its watershed size.
• Ms. Scanlon asked if any trees will be removed for the project? Mr. Perkins
responded no trees will be removed.
• Ms. Scanlon asked about potential grading in the backyard? Mr. Perkins responded
there is no anticipated grading - and everything will be replaced pre -construction as
much as possible.
• Ms. Scanlon is there an additional patio added outside the footprint? Mr. Perkins
replied there will be no increase in impervious area.
• Ms. Scanlon asked about the stair location on the new deck and will the bottom of
the stairs lead to grass? Mr. Perkins responded grass or perhaps a small patch of
gravel - not part of his investigation. He confirmed the proposed stairs won't jet out
further than the existing.
• Ms. Scanlon discussed the wetland line - and asked about significant dewatering
during construction. Mr. Perkins said he does not anticipate running into
groundwater.
• Ms. Scanlon asked about the construction access and stockpile of materials. Mr.
Perkins replied he will go over the construction access and stockpile with the
homeowner or contractor and get back to the Commission.
• Mr. Tirone said the owner is present. Mr. Christopher Colantoni explained the left of
the home is the construction access and the temporary stockpile of materials will be
in the front lawn to the left of the driveway or in the back on the existing patio
(under the deck). Mr. Perkins said with this information, he will extend the limits of
the proposed erosion control line; and rather than having to bring the materials from
the front to the rear of the property he proposes to cover the existing patio for the
stockpile of materials.
• Ms. Scanlon asked for the volume of soil that will be excavated? Mr. Perkins
responded he does not know but calculated what he thought - 34 cubic yards
Ms. Scanlon opened the meeting to the public and closed with no comment.
Mr. Colantoni confirmed there will be no other backfilling or grading during the project.
Ms. Scanlon asked for a revised plan showing construction access, erosion control line, and
stockpile areas. The Commission discussed if the meeting should be continued or a revised
plan could be a condition. Ms. Scanlon recommended planting native species as much as
possible.
Page 1 7
Motion to close the public hearing for 25 Riverside Drive by Mr. Carnahan
seconded by Mr. Bowe. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
Motion to issue a negative determination for RDA #2022-1 by Mr. Carnahan
seconded by Mr. Bowe. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
Ms. Scanlon reviewed the process and Mr. Tirone said he will issue the Decision next week.
Mr. Colantoni commented he will remove the bedpost. Mr. Perkins said he will submit a
revised plan.
34 Deborah Drive. Mao 38 Lot 97 DEP File No. 270-0756
Ms. Scanlon opened the public hearing for 34 Deborah Drive to construct an addition on an
existing SFD.
Mr. Jack Sullivan from Sullivan Engineering Group presented the proposal:
• The applicant would like to construct an in-law suite addition on the left-hand side of
the property;
• The applicant will need approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals;
• The proposed work is within the 100 -foot of a wetland;
• A second driveway will need to be approved by the Select Board;
• Property in the Aquifer Protection District - large lot, coverage only 12% and 15% is
allowed;
• Norse Environment flagged the wetlands;
• Play area within the 35' no structure zone that will be removed;
• No trees will be cut;
• Soil stockpile area out in the front of the lot;
• The new driveway will be located where the construction entrance is; and the
driveway entrance will be constructed as a temporary entrance with rip -rap stone;
• The driveway will pitch down towards the addition - a trench drain is proposed at the
end of the driveway that will discharge out to a bioretention cell (low Impact shallow
raingarden - wildflower mix) - roof drains from addition will drop in as well;
• Limited grade changes - meeting site grades;
• A large part of the driveway outside the 100' buffer zone; and
• Commission did a site visit and asked if there were any questions.
Mr. John Sullivan, member, disclosed he knows the applicant but believes this won't affect
his decision. Ms. Scanlon said the disclosure is fine, she asked the applicant if he is all right
with Mr. Sullivan voting. Mr. Silva said he has no concerns, he has not seen the
Commission member in quite a while. Mr. Tirone clarified by saying it is up to the member
if he wants to recuse himself or not.
Ms. Scanlon pointed out the trench drain and the proposed retaining wall stones in the front
of the house and asked if a lawn is proposed in that area? Mr. Sullivan explained why the
retaining wall is necessary and said that will all be lawn. Mr. Silva said it is lawn and will
remain lawn, mulch might be added with plantings.
Mr. Carnahan said he attended the site visit:
• The wetland flags were reviewed - especially flag 3A; and pointed out there is a
bunch of lawn on the wetland side of the flags, but looking at past aerials this was a
tree line in 1998;
• Happy to see the play area removed to give a buffer to the wetland area;
• Concern with the flags further away from the project - not a bearing on approving
the project but if project is approved it should be approved without the wetland
flags; and
• There was enough water and ice by Flag A9 - but opposite side of the house
Mr. John Sullivan pointed out his observation at the site visit, between night four and five
vegetation was springing up and extended into the wetlands - wondering how the wetlands
were delineated and what was used to determine the wetlands? Mr. Jack Sullivan
Page 18
responded Norse Environment was out in August 2021, they do a lot of work and do soil
probes. He will follow up with the company to see if there are any notes on the
determination. Mr. John Sullivan said the location of the flags won't determine the project,
but agreed with Mr. Carnahan the project if approved should be without approving the
wetlands.
Ms. Scanlon asked about the soil data sheets from the wetland flag delineation? Mr. Jack
Sullivan responded he does not have the data sheets, and explained Norse Environment
gave him a report.
Mr. Dribin said he was at the site visit, and the 3A flag was fine, but does not understand
why it doesn't follow the tree line? He opined a re-evaluation of the wetland delineation is
In order. It would impact the project so maybe that corner of the addition might have to be
moved in.
Mr. Bowe was at the site visit and commented:
• Echoed the other commission members concerns on the flags:
• The existing shed is entirely beyond the no structure zone line and said it should be
moved or removed;
• The Commission should require the "grassy" area that is beyond the line make that
area be returned to the natural state;
• The topography line - is the grass level at the same level as the noted 92 line on the
plan; and
• Question about the whole area - part agrees with Mr. Carnahan and part believes
something should be done to correct the delineation.
Mr. Tirone opined the area between Flag 3A and Flag 4A should be investigated to see if it is
a wetland. He understands that the area has been a grass area between the tree line for a
long time, but based on the bylaw and regulations that area is a wetland and should have
no activity.
Mr. Tirone said the Commission hasn't been consistent with how they dealt with a shed that
is located in a no structure zone, and the Commission could request a variance for the shed.
Mr. Silva said the shed was there when the house was purchased - and said the shed was
there when the former owner added the addition. Mr. Tirone said he will look into the
previous OOC that was issued.
Mr. Tirone recommended a condition be added to maintain the swale in perpetuity.
Mr. Carnahan commented looking at the aerials the shed appeared between 2008 and 2012.
Ms. Scanlon asked about additional grade change around the addition. Mr. Sullivan
explained the grade with be matched within 6 -inches. Ms. Scanlon wanted to make sure
the only grade change will be in the front - and Mr. Sullivan confirmed.
Mr. Sullivan explained why there was only two contours shown on the plan - because the
property is so flat.
Ms. Scanlon opined the resource area needs another review.
Ms. Moore said she had difficulty finding the wetland flags and asked approximate location
of Flag SA. Mr. Sullivan responded he would have had to gone on the neighbor's property
so when the wetland scientists went out they didn't know the lot lines. Ms. Moore said she
is concerned that Flag 1A comes closer to the rest of the building than Flag 2A? She would
like to find out if the last wetland line impacts the project or is it further away. Mr. Sullivan
said he will get permission and will locate the flag.
Mr. Tirone opined having Norse Environment go back out to the property won't be beneficial
on this property, but the Commission could schedule a site visit. Ms. Scanlon agreed a site
Page 19
visit is necessary and added the public hearing should be continued. The Commission
discussed and agreed upon a date and time - the applicant said he is available.
Motion to continue the public hearing to February 23, 2022 for 34 Deborah Drive
by Ms. Moore seconded by Mr. Dribin. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
Mr. Joe DiGiovanni (direct abutters son) brought forward his concerns:
• His father is direct abutter;
• The area is already wet and the addition will add to it;
• The water table is high;
• Drainage easement encircles the abutters property - any impact is a concern; and
• The scope the Commission looks at is limited - concern with 2nd driveway
Ms. Scanlon apologized for missing the public comment and thanked Mr. DiGlovanni for the
comments.
Ms. Karen (direct abutters daughter):
• Would like thoughts on the driveway and how it might impact the water in the area;
• The location of the cell is 10' by her parent's yard;
• Water already on both sides of her parents `house;
• What is the runoff and permeability to absorb the excess water; and
• Would like the Commission to consider these concerns/questions when reviewing the
plan
Ms. Scanlon thanked the abutter and said her concerns are noted. She recommended the
abutter to send an email to Mr. Tirone.
Ms. Kendra Cooper, lives behind the applicant, commented the following:
• The concern of the neighborhood is the drainage;
• The retention area would be less permeability;
• Concern with the size of the addition;
• The bioretention cell is not adequate;
• A slope - and very wet area;
• The easement from Franklin Terrace flows down to the drainage ditch;
• About 5 neighbors concerned; and
• Can the driveway material be stone or pavers;
Ms. Scanlon thanked Ms. Cooper and asked that she send an email to Mr. Tirone. Mr.
Tirone recommended the abutters come to the next meeting. Ms. Scanlon apologized for
not opening the meeting to the public and encouraged all to send emails to Mr. Tirone.
Ms. Eileen Litterio, 22 Deborah Drive commented:
• She shares an easement with the DiGiovanni's property;
• The retention pool is extremely close to the abutters - and how was the location
chosen;
• Concerned about the retention pool - health and safety for children in the
neighborhood;
• Will there be fencing and/or a buffer around retention pool; and
• Will there be toxic chemicals in the retention pool?
Ms. Scanlon replied that the project is on private property and children should not go onto
someone else's property. She explained the bioretention cell is a dropped garden, a gradual
slope that has lower land level. The only purpose is to take the rainwater off the roof and
driveway - the plants will filter and clean the runoff. This is a natural solution. Mr. Tirone
added there won't be standing water, it will infiltrate into the ground within 72 hours. Ms.
Scanlon thanked Ms. Litterio and said all comments will be looked at during the next
meeting.
Old/New Business:
Page 1 10
• Mr. Tirone informed the Commission the Trails Committee would like the Commission
to rewrite the Rules and Regulations on Conservation Land. A Commission member
will work with Will Finch to make the document user-friendly. Mr. Bowe asked where
he could find the document and volunteered to look at them
• Mr. Tirone asked for a vote to release the bond for 102 Haverhill Street and Randall
Road.
Motion to release the bond for 102 Haverhill Street by Ms. Moore seconded by Mr.
Carnahan. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
Ms. Scanlon asked for a vote to release the bond for Randall Road. Mr. Carnahan asked if
this was the property that trees were not planted. The Commission agreed to table the vote
on Randall Road.
Violation Notices, New
126 Hanscom Avenue -No Discussion
79 Longfellow Road - Mr. Bowe said the DPW brought forward concerns of branches, trees
and leaves being placed in the wetlands. Mr. Bowe went to the property and saw trees
were removed from 79 Longfellow Road. At the visit, the resident let Mr. Bowe know he
tried to get help from the town but did not receive any guidance. Mr. Bowe commented no
material should be placed into the wetlands.
Mr. Rick, son of the owner of 79 Longfellow Road, asked for clarification on the violations so
it won't happen in the future. He said the trees are fallen down around the house, and the
debris picked up. He said he cut up what fell and did not cut down new trees - he cleaned
up the property. Mr. Bowe clarified the potential violation is the brush/branches and grass
clippings were placed across the street in the wetlands. He said the next topic is how to
solve the violation. After the discussion, the resident said he will remove the debris. Mr.
Bowe asked that once the piles are removed to notify Mr. Tirone and an inspection can be
done to verify. He volunteered to go to the property to review what is needed to be cleaned
up. After the discussion, the resident agreed to clean up the wetlands. Ms. Moore
suggested the debris be removed in the spring. Mr. Bowe suggested before June 1•t.
Follow-ups 25 Baker Road, 22 Oakridge Street, 30-34-38 Bond Street Yard waste and
encroachment on Conservation Land: No Discussion
Conservation/ DPW Monthly Meeting Discussion: No discussion
30 Chequessett Site Visit Update - No discussion
14 Dean Road site visit update: No discussion -
Jim Castallano, Armor Development LLC - unauthorized clearcutting, grading and
altering an area subject to protection update on block retaining wall installed on the 25 -foot
line.
No discussion was held regarding Armor Development LLC
Chapter 61 1310 Main Street update - No discussion
RMLD's Integrated Vegetation Management Plan ("IVMP") for the town of Reading
update: No discussion
Regulation Fee Discussion Commission will discuss proposed amendments for Section
2.D.4 A -K: continued until February 8, 2022
The Commission did not discuss the Regulation Fee
Page 1 11
COC Request: No discussion on COC Request
270-0559 53 Arcadia Avenue, Map 19, Lot 6, Hagstrom
270-0532 RGB 2008-14 18 Small Lane, Map 166, Lot 5, Hughes
270-0532 RGB 2008-15 22 Small Lane map 166, Lot 14, Dymen
Bills Approved
The Water and Sewer Bill #6124 - Mr. Tirone asked if the Commission would want to know
the reason for the bill since the Commission has water or sewer at the pearl street parking
lot and no budget. Mr. Bowe said this should be discussed at the next DPW meeting.
Minutes for Approval:
No minutes were reviewed at the meeting.
• Ms. Moore said the Trails Committee is planning an event on April 30t°.
• Mr. Carnahan said he talked to the Bylaw Committee to get a budget, the Committee
questioned who gave him authority. He asked for a vote to give him permission to
work with the Bylaw Committee to get the Conservation Commission a Revolving
Fund.
• Mr. Tirone asked that the Commission members let him know in advance if they
want to vote on an item so it can be placed on the agenda. The Commission agreed
to discuss Mr. Carnahan's request at the next meeting.
• Mr. Bowe asked about the two new enforcement properties and if the owner
attended tonight's meeting. He requested the two properties be on the next agenda.
Mr. Tirone said he will send another letter to the owners.
• Mr. Tirone said on Temple Street there is a fair amount of flooding - maybe due to
the Parker Middle School Field being frozen and a lot of little restrictions in the
stream. The DPW has not contacted Mr. Tirone with a plan or for permission to do
additional work - normal maintenance is allowed in the general permit.
• Mr. Bowe said the tree -cutting in the Town Forest is starting on Monday.
Motion to adjourn by Mr. Carnahan, seconded by Ms. Moore. Roll call vote 6-0-0.
Meeting adjourned at 12:30 pm.
Page 1 12