Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-25 Conservation Commission MinutesVAN Of R�0 Meeting Minutes Town of Reading 'Aoa�I,yoA� Board - committee - Commission - Council: Conservation Commission Date: 2022-05-25 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 READ!NG, PAA. -Rk 2622 JUN -9 PH 1:30 Annika Scanlon, chair, Martha Moore vice chair, John Sullivan, Joe Carnahan, Brian Bowe, Andrew Dribin, Members - Not Present: Carl Saccone Others Present: Chuck Tirane, Jack Sullivan, Phil Peterson, Dan Wells from LEC, Michael Phillips, Helen (landowner). Maureen Herald, Kate DiPalma, JC Girouard, Jody Hayward (Office Mgr of Danis Properties), Jamie Shaw (Danis) and Chris Klotzbier (Danis) Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Martha Moore and Annika Scanlon Topics of Discussion: This meeting was held remotely via Zoom. Chair Annika Scanlon called the meeting to order at 7:09pm. Public Hearings Scheduled: 22 Collins Ave Assessor's Map 51 Lot 124, DEP File No. 270-0755 Site plan has changed since first submittal. Since the initial submittal some of the grading area was going to the 35 -foot buffer, now goes to the 50 foot buffer, one tree that was to be removed will be retained. The shed is now shown at the new location, and the replacement trees shown. Ms. Scanlon asked for the count of all trees greater that 6" DBH to be cut. There are now 5 trees listed on the second letter and marked in the field. Ms. Scanlon stated that since the first meeting we have been asking for existing and proposed topography, a planting plan, and a plan to manage invasives. Mr. Peterson does not recall that being requested. Ms. Scanlon asked for an estimate of how many trees have been removed since he moved in. Mr. Peterson estimates maybe 4 trees. Ms. Scanlon estimated the disturbed grading and filling area as over 1600 square feet, not 1500 as on plan. Ms. Scanlon asked about the percentage of impervious surface, which will be over the 15% maximum. Mr.Peterson stated that he will make a plan with engineering to mitigate the excess impervious surface outside the 100 foot zone. Mr. Sullivan asked whether the spot elevations on the plan represent current elevations. He calculated that the drop from the yard to the 50 foot buffer zone will be about 8 feet, thus need Page 1 1 24 feet horizontal to get the 3:1 slope. Mr. Peterson said that the surveyor surveyed it and the soil to fill that area will come from where the swimming pool is going in. Mr. Sullivan was concerned whether there is enough room for that. Ms. Scanlon asked whether the rise is 1 foot over 3 foot lateral. Mr. Tirone replied that if the slope is steeper than that some sort of fabric or something to hold back the slope will be required. He said that the slope of 1 foot horizontal can drop 3 feet. Mr. Carnahan pointed out that that slope would be a bluff or a cliff. Ms. Moore said she was surprised by the new location of the shed which pushes it out onto the newly filled area. Does it need to be that far back? Mr. Peterson said he could make the shed more tight up to the fence. Ms. Moore suggested that moving the shed closer to the fence could reduce the amount of fill needed. She also said that she is used to seeing topo lines on the plan showing existing and proposed topography. She is concerned how to get an as built plan from the polygons that can be matched later when we go back to see if the result matches what has been approved. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the slope at Wood End School is a 3:1 slope. Ms. Moore asked whether the slope really has to go all the way to the 50 foot line, ran we avoid smothering as much of the vegetation by not filling that far out. Mr. Peterson said that area is only a lot of poison ivy and small oak trees. He has seen a lot of projects in town, like Main St and Haverhill St where they have put in houses only 35 feet from the wetlands. He mentioned big pine trees falling on his property and houses built behind him on what he thought was conservation land. He is hoping to get an approval tonight without hiring a lawyer. Ms. Moore asked what kind of vegetation will hold that slope in place, not just grass, maybe some native shrubberies. Ms. Scanlon interjected that the regulations actually say 3 feet horizontal for every 1 foot vertical. Phil would be open to planting some native species. He is willing to pull a bunch of Garlic Mustard in that area. Mr. Carnahan doesn't think that the corner of the pool is far enough away from the 50 foot line to allow that slope. If the plan had the level of detail that we are used to seeing this answer to this question would be self-evident. Mr. Bowe stated that he is unhappy with the situation that over a number of years, trees have been removed, lawn has been added, and only now when a pool is wanted, are the regulations addressed. Mr. Dribin reiterated the question whether we have enough information. He asked when Mr. Peterson decided he had to come to Conservation Commission versus when he bought the pool. Mr. Peterson spoke to Mr. Tirone and they thought the wetland line was at the A3 mark, but when he hired a company to flag the wetland it turned out that A2 and Al came closer to the house. The fiberglass pool is coming at the end of June, he put the down payment down on it before meeting with Chuck. Mr. Dribin said that Mr. Peterson has not been super cooperative, not willing to change size of pool, no planting plan, no topo lines. Issues with impervious surface. Why was this all not figured out before coming before both of us? Ms. Scanlon confirmed that Mr. Peterson is asking for us to vote on this application tonight. Mr. Peterson said that if we want to add some conditions, he is willing to go that route. Mr. Tirone said that we are outside the 50 foot buffer, the slopes are manageable, during the week, one member suggested possibly moving back the lawn area, to maintain the 50 foot line. Ms. Scanlon pointed out the the regulations can be adjusted based on other reasons. Mr. Tirone pointed out that if there is something significant out there that needs to be saved the regs can protect that. This area is not a vernal pool, it is not pristine habitat. The 50 foot line is a pretty good one. He does understand the commissions concern with the historical work. Page 1 2 Ms. Scanlon's challenges with this plan are the unspecified proposed finished grades in the fill area. The colored shape areas do not give her the information she needs to see how this is going to work. The area is in the aquifer protection district, that thus warrants some level of protection of the ground water resource. Mr. Tirone said that she is misinterpreting the aquifer protection district's intent. Mr. Tirone pointed out that the infiltration system will be outside the 100 foot buffer. Ms. Scanlon asked for the public to use the reaction button to give input. Mr. Dribin moved that we approve with 3 years of invasive management, and submit a planting plan to Chuck. Mr. Tirone suggested that we add a condition for no grading beyond the 50 foot buffer line. Ms. Moore pointed out that the reason for the invasive management plan is because all that grading opens up territory for invasives. She thinks that the slope may require rounding off the corner of the fence in order to fit that grade. Mr. Tirone mentioned the 5 trees cut for this project and the 4 trees previously cut. Ms. Scanlon suggested that the order of conditions state that the downslope limits of the fill and slope areas be the starting point for the back grading. Mr. Carnahan said that hypothetically if we approve this, we may approve something that is not possible, he questions what happens. Mr. Tirone pointed out that W the slope must be steeper than 3:1 then Mr. Peterson would need to get an engineer to design it and it would come back to the commission as a modification. Mr. Carnahan suggested that a plan that showed a slope from the pool to the 50 foot line, would not get Mr. Peterson any extra yard, but would be less problematic for us. Ms. Scanlon proposed that the southern, western, and northern limits of the fill areas shown on that plan not be exceeded, however that happens. Mr. Dribin wants to clarify that 96 to 91 is only a 5 foot drop, not a 9 foot drop, so only needs 15 feet horizontal. Ms. Moore checked that the limit of work area is where the erosion control will be. She added a friendly amendment that Mr. Peterson will provide a planting plan for 8 native shrubs on the slope and 5 native trees, not naturalized, 3 inch caliper, to Mr. Tirone, so he doesn't have to come back to the commission. Mr. Tirone suggested the Missouri Plant finder, and the list on the town website. Ms. Scanlon questioned how much of the filled area will be seeded with grass. Mr. Carnahan suggested that the plan is for grass on the slope. Plus the shrubs. Motion to close the hearing by Mr. Dribin Second by Mr. Carnahan 6 - 0 - 0 Motion by Mr. Dribin to approve 22 Collins, not to exceed area marked on plan, 8 shrubs, 5 trees, all native, at least on a hardwood, Second by Mr. Carnahan. Mr. Throne will use the conditions mentioned previously in the meeting. Roll call vote 6-0-0 21 days to issue order of conditions, 15 day appeal period in addition to the 21. When the order is issued, he can put of the DEP sign, record the order of conditions, line up contractors, etc.. Cannot start actual work until after the appeal period is over. 1310 Main St Assessor's Map 41 Lot 75 & 84 DEP File No. 270-0746 Site visit recap. 4 of us visited the isolated wetland identified in the additional review, observed the vegetation differences and slight grade variation compared to surrounding upland, then walked around the rest of the property that we had not seen before. Dan Wells said that Tom Peregolo did a wetland delineation last year and identified areas that could be vernal pool habitat. GIS overview shows where potential and certified vernal pools have been previously mapped. CVP 594 is shown just south of the property line, and CVP 318 is mapped to be right next to a house. He did his first survey on April 11. He found two areas that are separate vernal pools, Pool A is contiguous with the off site swamp. Found 20 spotted salamander egg masses in this area. Pool B is part of a larger wetland. He did find evidence of 1 wood frog egg mass in another area and 4 wood frog egg masses in the C series area. Dan Page 1 3 went back a week later to check that no new egg masses had been laid. There were other isolated wetlands. The D series was very shallow, no egg masses or fairy shrimp. On May 11, Maureen delineated the boundaries of the vernal pool areas. Dan investigated the other potential vernal pools, only found the 2 that are marked on the plan. Ms. Scanlon asked whether is is reasonable to say that the wetlands with the wood frog egg masses could be called potential vernal pools. The one with 4 egg masses was completely dry by May 11. The regulations require that a vernal pool hold water for at least 2 months continuously during spring and summer. It did not hold water for 2 months from March 21. The eggs that were laid there did not survive this year. They need to hold water well into June for embryos and larvae to survive. The spotted salamanders laid their eggs in the deepest parts of this wetland system. The most likely endangered species to find would be blue spotted salamanders, he did not find those. Mr. Sullivan was not at the site visit, has no questions. Ms. Moore clarified that Mr. Wells checked all the other wetland areas for egg masses, some did not even have standing water. Mr. Dribin asked for an opinion on the health of the forested uplands in the property. Mr. Wells pointed out that this is a white pine forest. Not a lot of invasives, not a highly degraded upland area adjacent to the vernal pool. Mr. Dribin asked if the two pools are part of a system. Mr. Wells pointed out that vernal pool B drains eastward into Vernal Pool A, then drains under main at, Ms. Scanlon asked for estimates of what distance salamanders and wood frogs would travel to get to the vernal pools. Mr. Wells said that with drift fences and pitfall traps in studies it is well documented that they can travel up to 1000 feet, the literature suggests that the greatest density is within the innermost 100 to 300 feet. Ms. Scanlon asked for guesses as to which areas in the uplands might be more likely for these habitats. Mr. Wells said that the house and driveway would not be used by these animals. Ms. Scanlon asked for questions from the public and opened it up to Mr. Tirone. Mr. Tirone thanked Mr. Wells for his hard work, going back a second time to look for more egg masses. He pointed out that this is a unique area with vernal pools. Mr. Tirone asked whether in his experience has Mr. Wells found that after development the habitat gets degraded. Reading at one time had the most certified vernal pools in the state. We got stuck at about 100. Do these pools get degraded, are there conditions that we can set up to prevent that? Mr. Wells said that if the pool dries up that will not be successful. You need forest cover adjacent to the vernal pool with leaf litter. Every site is unique, unfortunately there is not funding to go back and revisit these areas. Mr. Tirone asked if the pools with 1 or 4 egg masses were close to the driveway. Mr. Wells said that there was quite a bit of forest near them, but they don't hold water long enough. Mr. Tirone speculated that the development changed the water flow. Mr. Wells did not want to speculate. Someone certified those pools two decades ago, and back then the others weren't certified, probably weren't functioning as vernal pools then. Mr. Jack Sullivan, asked for the commission to approve the BVW delineation and the Vernal Pool delineation. Ms. Herald had no comments. Ms. Scanlon stated that this ORAD would also cover Lot 84, the triangular area to the south, but has no wetlands mapped on it. Mr. Jack Sullivan said that we can exclude Lot 84. Ms. Scanlon asked about why the prior order of conditions from 2007 also describes Isolated Land Subject to Flooding. Regs were modified in 2012. For this ORAD do you want... Mr. Jack Sullivan said that we can state that no determination has been made on any ILSF areas. Ms. Moore stated that she did not walk the line of Vernal Pool flags, within the wetland area. She cannot make a judgement that they are accurate based on her own view, but checked that Page 1 4 we do not have to have seen them ourselves to approve them. Dan said that he and Maureen were there together and defined the line based on where standing water merges into swamp with ferns, etc. Mr. Dribin asked whether the map should show buffer zones for vernal pools. Mr. Sullivan is only looking for approval for the flag locations. Ms. Scanlon suggested that we could incorporate the findings from LEC of potential vernal pools. Mr. Tirone asked about whether we are excluding the isolated wetlands. No we are not. Moved to close by Mr. Carnahan, seconded by Ms. Moore Roll call vote 6-0-0 Mr. Dribin asked about the Chapter 61 history of the site. Ms. Scanlon said that she checked and these lots have paid their back taxes and have gotten out of Ch. 61. Lot 75 did have a forest management plan in 2008, for selective logging. Mr. Tirone suggested that Ch. 61 questions would be more important for a Notice of Intent. Move to approve the vernal pool flags, the potential vernal pool locations as described in LEC's report, and all the isolated wetland locations as shown on the plan by Ms. Moore. Second by Mr. Dribin Roll call vote 6-0-0 15 Carriage Lane Assessor's Map 48 Lot 53, RCC File No. 2022-3 Mr. Jack Sullivan described that the Flag 6A has been moved based on the site visit. That moved the 25, 35, and 100 foot lines, the steps and platform has been moved to 36 feet from the wetland line. The shed that is in the 25 foot zone will be removed from the site. Because of concern with vegetation removed as seen on aerial photos. A total of 15 shrubs will be planted along the fence and a white spruce planted where the shed will be removed. Pool operation and maintenance plan has been submitted to Chuck. Ms. Scanlon says she likes the new plan and the additional plantings. She asked about any soil excavation or dewatering. Mr. Jack Sullivan said that because it is an above ground pool, there will be only hand work and no dewatering. Ms. Scanlon asked about the foundation for the steps. It may be only a couple of sonotubes and a slab for the bottom step. Ms. Scanlon checked that there will be no new foundation for the porch windows and doors. Ms. Scanlon noted that there is a conservation restriction and a potential vernal pool on the adjacent property. Ms. Moore mentioned the plan to remove the play structure when the children outgrow it. Mr. Carnahan noted that the new 6A flag has not been hung, so we are approving the new location as shown on the plan and not the physical location of the flag. Mr. Bowe asked about the crushed stone bed under the pool, will it not extend beyond the pool? Mr. Jack Sullivan said that the crushed stone around the pool is not part of the structure, more aesthetic. Mr. Tirone said that the pool includes the pool, stabilization bars, and crushed stone. He does not want stabilization bars crossing the 35 foot line. Mr. Jack Sullivan agreed to have the stone not extend past the stabilization bars, and not past the 35 foot line. Mr. Dribin checked the width of the shrub row, will it be about 5 feet out from the wetland line? Yes. Mr. Tirone asked how Mr. Sullivan chose his plant list. Kate requested the white spruce. Mr. Sullivan just went off the native plant list, lowbush blueberry, spicebush, summersweet. Unless not available. Mr. Tirone questioned whether those plants will survive well with the high water table, especially the lowbush blueberry and the spruce. The plants are kind of spread out, not habitat. Do you expect the plants to fill in? Yes, the mature width of the plants are 3 - 5 feet. Mr. Tirone suggested switching the plants for some that are more water tolerant. Ms. DiPalma talked to a landscaper with wetland plant knowledge, she will check back in a few weeks for advice. If she changes any plants, Ms. DiPalma should let Mr. Tirone know. Move to issue a negative determination of applicability by Mr. Carnahan, second by Mr. Bowe. Roll call vote 6-0-0 Page 1 5 0 Small Lane Assessor's Map 40 & 41 Lot 163,155 & 29 Dep File No. 270-0748 Move to continue to June 8 by Mr. Bowe, second by Mr. Dribin Roll call vote 6-0-0 572 Summer Ave. Assessor's Map 8 Lot 137, DEP File No. 270-0757 Site visit report by Mr. Dribin We reviewed the wetland flag locations, used an auger to check the soil. Wetland flags seemed to be appropriately placed, looked at driveway and discussed plan to fill. Mr. Carnahan mentioned that there are some invasive plants outside the fence, and the plants are placed where they are planning to put them. Ms. Moore mentioned the yard waste outside the fence near the gate, and that the dead apple tree to be removed is not actually dead, it does have a lot of leaves on it. Ms. Scanlon asked whether flag 9A which we could not find in February was located on this trip. Mr. Dribin remembers being able to find 9A in February and felt it was appropriately located. Ms. Scanlon mentioned that the new site plan shows synthetic turf, an infiltration trench around the gazebo, the retaining wall on the east side was remove and the crushed stone drive was reduced. There were also plantings of 12 dogwoods and 10 blueberries shown. Ms. Herald said that the big hurdle was establishing the wetland boundary. Mr. John Sullivan asked whether the crushed stone driveway will allow cars to pull around to the back. Yes. Mr. John Sullivan asked about the green circles. Mr. Girouard said that the ones near the drive will be California privet or Arbor Vitae. Plants near the shed have already been planted. Ms. Moore was concerned that the shrubs will be planted inside the chain link fence and the ZNV is outside the fence. She would also like to see invasive control in the ZNV. She mentioned the trees that have died, would like vegetation outside the fence to compete with the invasives. She would also like to see a couple of red maples planted in the ZNV. Mr. Girouard asked who would pay for those, he said that would be $700 per tree. He complained that we are moving the plants from outside to inside and now to outside of the fence again. Mr. Girouard said that the elm trees were killed by the elm bark beetle. Ms. Scanlon pointed out that our edict is to enforce the wetlands protection act, when we see degraded habitat, when we see things that have been done without a permit, within our jurisdictional area, we have the authority by state law to request mitigation and to protect the resource areas we need to protect. Ms. Moore also asked for the yard waste to be cleaned up so it does not smother the native species. When we were there in May we were able to see that invasives are coming in where the trees died. Planting native shrubs and red maples to provide shade will discourage invasives. Mr. Carnahan asked whether the fence will be connected to the house near the street. Mr. Bowe mentioned the work that has been done on the property in the past without approval, such as the fence put in 6 - 8 years ago with out a permit. Now that the homeowner wants a pool, they are asking for a permit. He would like to see trees planted outside the fence to replace trees in the two corners that can be seen in the aerial photos from the past. Mr. Dribin would like to see the two plans overlaid with plantings inside and outside the fence. The fence is on the 25 foot line, had he asked, we would have asked for the fence to be on the 35 foot line. He thinks the plantings are just to mitigate the fence that was put in without permission. He asked about how much paved ground will there be once it is built. He is proposing 2800 square feet impervious, but that is only 6% of the lot, because the lot is so big. Mr. Tirone pointed out that this is not in the aquifer protection district. Ms. Herald pointed out that there is an infiltration trench around the pool, plus the stone closer to the fence. Mr. Dribin said that outside the fence will not be touched anymore except for invasive removal, inside the fence, he can do what he wants. Page 16 Ms. Scanlon asked about the contour lines next to the crushed stone driveway, what is the lateral extent of the filling? Where does it end at the gravel strip end? Ms. Herald said the filling will not overtop the stone strip. Ms. Scanlon asked about proposed plantings between 50 and 100 between deck and pool, maybe some hydrangeas, perhaps a birch tree. Low shrub strip between the drive and the pool. By the shed they are already in, just landscape plants. Ms. Scanlon asked if there are retaining walls near the ramp. Yes. Mr. Tirone mentioned the historic aerial photos provided by Ms. Herald. April 2008 shows the lawn area and above ground pool. Since 1995 purchase, the vegetation did not change. 2017 was consistent with 2008. In 2018 you can see that the backyard area was rounded out, and Mr. Girouard points out that he put wood chips to cover the poison ivy. May 2019 shows the fence around the perimeter of the property. 2020 no new work, October 2021 the crushed stone is starting to be installed. April 2022 shows the completed crushed stone strip. Mr. Tirone supports Mr. Dribin's thought of protecting the 25 foot ZNV. It has a lot of value. The closer you get to the wetland, the more important the plantings are. He suggests letting volunteer growth come in, with control of invasives. Mr. Dribin referred to the Massachusetts bylaws that has a performance standard, which allows a loss of up to 5000 square feet of Bordering Vegetated wetland. How much of this land is being altered? Ms. Herald says that the regulation that he is referring to is for wetland filling. This project is not filling any wetland, only work in the buffer zone. There is nothing in the bylaw that limits the impervious surface. Mr. Dribin was confused about the difference between Bordering Vegetated Wetland and the Buffer Zone. Ms. Scanlon says that there has been work close to the edge of wetlands, such as debris and yard waste. She looks at these projects to see preexisting conditions, what is the resource area, what are the next measures to be most protective. The performance standards for the 100 foot buffer zone are not as carefully spelled out as for inside the wetland itself. Our town regulations are protecting the 25 foot and 35 foot lines. Case by case situation you can choose another limit to protect. Ms. Scanlon says that she understands that the commission is asking for plantings to mitigate past work within the 35 foot zone. The proposed work itself is preexisting lawn, so we have not really discussed the work itself. The homeowner is staying out of the 50 foot zone. She hopes to see those additional plantings She hopes we can resolve this so the wetlands are protected and the applicant can proceed with his project. Mr. Bowe said that the issue is not the work going forward, he has a problem with the fact that it got to this condition without approvals. Now he wants to do something bigger, we don't want to reward him for doing previous work without a permit. He would like to see significant plantings beyond the fence. The only other alternative would be an enforcement order. Mr. Girouard said that the 25 foot line at one time was a rusted fallen apart fence. When he did his addition, the haybales were placed along the fence line. There is a clear cut line in some of the photos, there are photos further back showing the hay bales and he knows that is as far as he can go. Mr. Tirone said that he bought the property in 1994 and the first photos we see are from 2008. Mr. Girouard said that line was determined years ago when he did other additions. He at first only wanted a shed, he was told that to put in a shed he had to put in all the other things that he might want in the future, such as the pool and the driveway to make it possible to bring a truck back there. As he watches what his neighbors are doing it puts you in a tough spot, he is trying to do it the right way. He's always stayed inside that line since he bought the house. Mr. Carnahan proposed a reframing of talking about whether things were approved in the past, we are here to protect the natural resources, he doesn't care whether it was approved, he cares whether it has an adverse impact. He is wondering where the idea of having to propose everything at once came from. Mr. Girouard said it didn't come from the commission. Ms. Page 17 Herald said that any kind of permitting is an expensive proposition, if you think you want to do more with your property it is more cost effective to do everything at one time. You don't want to have to come back to the commission to do a new notice of intent filing. Ms. Herald suggested that they could work out the additional plantings with Chuck and condition the project. Ms. Scanlon doesn't know whether we have enough information for us to agree with across the board. Ms. Moore said that the April plan shows 10 blueberries and 12 dogwood shrubs. The blueberries have already been planted. She suggested moving half of the dogwoods to the outside of the fence and add two trees. Mr. Bowe said that he is fine with Ms. Moore's suggestion. Ms. Moore asked whether there is a deadline of 3 years to complete the work. Ms. Scanlon said that at the end of 3 years, the homeowner can ask for an extension. Ms. Herald said that this proposal works for them and suggested that the committee close and vote. Mr. Tirone asked how Ms. Moore came up with that number. Ms. Moore pointed out that the blueberries are already planted, she wants some shrubs inside the 25 foot zone and two trees, plus some shrubs inside the fence to extend the natural vegetation into the 35 foot zone. The two trees should be outside the fence in the gap from the dead trees, between 6A and the 25 foot line. Mr. Carnahan moved to close the hearing Second by Ms. Moore Roll call vote 6-" Mr. Carnahan moved to approve with the conditions discussed. Second by Mr. Bowe Roll call vote 6-0-0 Mr. Girouard asked if he can use wattle or hay bales, and inside the fence or outside the fence? Mr. Tirone said that the type of erosion control depends on the size of the project. Ms. Scanlon said that the erosion control must go in before any digging happens to prevent soil filling the wetlands. When to install it depends on what he's going to do. Inside the fence will be easier to manage. Mr. Girouard asked about planting beyond the erosion control Ms. Scanlon said that planting does not create a lot of erosion. The other question is when he can plant. Ms. Scanlon said to optimize viability and long term survivability. Correct spacing and placement so they have room to grow and can fill in an area. 550 West St Assessor's Map 25 Lot 2 DEP File Number 270-0759 Continued to June 8 at applicant's request Moved by Mr. Carnahan Second by Mr. Sullivan Roll call vote 6-0-0 420 West St Assessor's Map 20 Lot 200, RCC File No. 20225 Opened public hearing. Applicant Julie Celeta & Jack Sullivan (engineer) at meeting to present and answer questions. Old garage structure is in bad condition, not in optimal spot on the property. She came before conservation years back. Martha & Brian did a site visit the afternoon of 5/25/22. A tree next to steps from West Street is lifting the steps, making cement block steps unsafe/unfunctional. Observed a large spruce tree (not "pine" labeled on plan) in the corner the applicant wants to remove. The existing garage is level with ground, and also has a partial foundation. Asked if the garage ground footprint was going to be graded/leveled after structure removal before putting in the shed. Grading the slope after removing the garage may have to be a "wait and see" based on what's underlaying it. Applicant doesn't know if the new proposed driveway is going to need grading. Ideally the applicant wants the shed set back somewhat to provide lawn. No questions. Mr.Carnahan - motion to close, Mr.Bowe - second. Roll call vote 6-0-0. Ms.Moore - motion for negative determination, Mr.Carnahan - second. Roll call vote 6-0-0 Page 1 8 Applicant got clarity on schedule moving forward from Mr.Tirone. Mr.Bowe mentioned a large crop ofjapanese knotweed present, Ms. Scanlon encouraged native plantings. Old/New Business: 1 General Way Cutting Violation — Jamie Shaw, Jody Hayward (Office Mgr Dennis Properties), & Chris Klotzbier (work with Jody & Jamie in Operationslrenant mgmt) attending. Recent work was done where it shouldn't have done. The OOC has expired, they're going to ensure it doesn't expire again. Ms.Scanlon asked if perpetual conditions in an expired OOC would continue past the expiration date (in perpetuity). Mr.Bowe added the issue was 2 -fold: (1) an expired OOC, and (2) the additional cutting of trees that was recently performed wouldn't've been approved or allowed under the former OOC, the applicant would have needed to re -file to cut trees anyway. Jody has the previous documents in the old OOC. The new people performing work (landscaping company) at 1 General Way were only to trim branches falling into the parking lot for safety reasons, and were told not to go beyond the boundary (work order came from Jamie). Chris said the landscaping company has been with them for 2-3 years, they were asked to keep cutting parallel to the parking lot edge. Mr. Bowe asked what preventative steps would be needed to stop a repeat cutting violation, and what should the remedy be. Chris said they should have had more oversight on -premises, and they're open to remedys the Commission wants, more plantings, etc. Mr. Bowe encouraged pursuing a clear, consistent channel of communication between 1 General Way and the landscaping company. Relating to the expired OOC, Mr.Bowe needs to better understand what terms were in the original OOC, asked Jody for a communication plan approach/protocol they plan to put in place to prevent a repeat cutting violation. Mr. Bowe suggested Jody work out a planting plan with Chuck. Jody is going to be the point person, plans to move fast to get something back to Conservation sometime in June. Martha asked about the herbaceous rain garden between the drive and Stop&Shop; Ms.Scanlon said this area also needs to be looked at as part of the remedy plan. ARPA update — Mr.Tirone is in the process of preparing an ARPA funding request for Conservation work with assistance from Mr.Bowe, Mr.Carnahan & Mr.Dribin to share with Conservation at an upcoming meeting, listing projects to hopefully fund. Once Conservation settles on a list of specific budget. asks, we will vote those items at an upcoming Conservation meeting prior to presenting at an ARPA meeting. Vote for ChairNice Chair for July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 — Ms.Scanlon nominated Ms.Moore as Chair. Ms.Moore accepted the nomination, Mr.Carnahan seconded. Roll call vote 6-0-01vls.Moore nominated Mr.Bowe for Vice Chair. Mr.Camahan seconded. Roll call vote 6-0-0 Recap of Conservation's May 16, 2022 Executive Planning Meeting at Matters Cabin — We talked about (1) ways to promote conversations about conservation, (2) upcoming town events, (3) ways to secure funding for Conservation interests. Mr.Carnahan prepared draft meeting minutes with Mr.Tirone, Ms.Moore, Ms.Scanlon. Ms.Moore mentioned they thanked Ms.Scanlon for many years of service, and anyone else interested should apply. April 13, 2022 Minutes - Ms.Moore motion to approve minutes. Mr.Bowe seconded. Roll call vote 6-0-0 May 11, 2022 Minutes - Ms.Moore motion to approve minutes. Mr.Bowe seconded. Roll call vote 6-". Brief discussion about how to get support for drafting minutes in future meetings, the challenge of having commission members draft them during meetings which makes the Conservation Page 1 9 volunteers unable to fully participate in meeting discussions. We're stuck at this point, additional town staff isn't available. Mr. Bowe - motion to adjourn, Ms. Moore - seconded. Roll call vote 6-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 11:26 pm. Page 1 10