Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-08 Conservation Commission Minutes�N OfP�O e Town of Reading "R'ECE"IVED „� r ,., Meeting Minutes -TOWN CLERK za READING, MA. 6J6 IKKOPtO it i Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2922 APR 18 PM 1: 54 Conservation Commission Date: 2022-06-08 Time: 07:00 PM Building: Location: Address: Session: Open Session Purpose: Zoom Virtual Meeting - Version: Draft Conservation Commission Meeting Attendees: Members - Present: Annika Scanlon, chair, Martha Moore vice chair, John Sullivan, Joe Carnahan, Andrew Dribin, Members - Not Present: Brian Bowe, Carl Saccone Others Present: Chuck Tirone, Bob Schifiliti, Jack Sullivan, Fang Yu Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Martha Moore Topics of Discussion: This meeting was held remotely via Zoom. Chair Annika Scanlon called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Citizens Open Forum 11 Stone Well Road, Bob Schifiliti open forum discussion about the shed that was going to be removed as part of the RDA/DOA Mr. Schifiliti had a negative determination on a deck replacement project. He has a shed that was improperly located by 8 feet. He says that the destruction of the shed will not help anything. Ms. Scanlon asked what is stored in the shed. He has a power washer, a wood chipper, some oil and gas mixture for the power tools. He says that the shed is behind the "No Work" line. The shed was put there in about 2008. Mr. Sullivan asked whether there is anything that can be done to improve the habitat. Mr. Schifiliti says that he does need to take down a dead tree and plant other vegetation. Ms. Scanlon clarified that the entire shed is within the wetland, the front of the shed is on the wetland line. A shed in that location is a prohibited activity under the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Carnahan said that there is supposed to be a 25 foot ZNV and a 10 foot no structure zone. The shed is really more like 43 feet out of place. There is really no place on the property that would comply with the regulations. Which is why the commission could not find another location on the property where a shed would be allowed. Mr. Dribin says that he has not been to the house, but from looking at the drawing, the shed is in the wetland. Ms. Moore said that her concern is that the shed is inside the wetland, behind the wetland flags, she asked if there is any place under the deck to put the shed. Mr. Schifiliti said that if he has to move the shed it will destroy the shed. He said that the area around the shed is not wet. He says that if we adhere to the 25 foot and 35 foot lines he should not even be Page 1 1 mowing his lawn. He has neighbors who have done land expansions and he had kept his property pristine except for this one mistake. He apologizes for that but he would like to keep his shed. The designated wetland line is shown on the drawing, but if you go out and try to get your feet wet, you must go much further back. Ms. Moore asked if the line is incorrectly drawn. Mr. Schifilitti said that things change, it is currently dry there. Ms. Moore suggested that one solution to the problem is to have the wetland line re -flagged to show present conditions to resolve the issue of whether the shed is in wetland. Mr. Sch'rfiliti said that it does not make economic sense to do that. Ms. Moore suggested that shed moving companies will move sheds, and asked if it could be moved, or if the only option is moving the shed. The reply is the only option is destroying the shed. Ms. Moore said that she was concerned that the gas and oil stored in the shed would be better stored in the garage. Our job is to protect the wetlands. Mr. Schifiliti said that he could move the chipper, etc. to the garage and just leave the garden tools in the shed. Ms. Scanlon understands the hesitancy to move the shed and the reasons. She said that we are bound by the requirements of the state Wetlands Protection Act, which says that you cannot build in wetlands without going through a whole permitting process. Based on the as built plan from 1996 the comer of the garage near some wooden stairs is outside the 35 foot zone. Between the #1 in Green and the building to the left on the plan. Mr. Schifiliti said that moving the shed to that location would destroy the shed. He says that we found something that was not related to the deck project and we have not talked to the neighbors. Mr. Dribin asked whether we could untie this violation from the deck project so that the deck project could be closed and the contractor be paid, then deal with the shed as a violation separately. Mr. Tirone said that would be possible. He reminded the commission that in the past shed issues in other locations were resolved with creative solutions. He stated that he thinks that the area with the shed is slightly higher than the area around it. First option to make is to tell the homeowner that we will not change the determination. Second option is for the homeowner to submit a Minor Plan Change to be discussed at the next meeting. Mr. Carnahan asked if we are expected to close the RDA and then issue a violation. Ms. Scanlon pointed out that the shed is on land designated as a rare wildlife habitat. Mr. Tirone pointed out that the shed may provide more habitat for salamanders than if it were removed. Mr. Dribin suggested that if he wants a decision other than removing the shed, then the homeowner should submit a minor plan change. Mr. Carnahan suggested that we do a site visit with an auger and see whether we can determine whether the wetland line is different from what is shown on the plan. He said that a shed in the buffer zone might be considered an existing disturbance that we can live with. Mr. Sullivan asked whether if we go out and do a site visit, will it appear that the wetland was filled in order to build the shed. Ms. Scanlon suggested that we stick with the original plan and decisions unless the applicant is ready to face a drawn out situation where we reconsider the wetland line. Vote on whether we would consider minor plan change 4 - 1. Site visit Scheduled for June 21 6:30 AM Public Hearinas Scheduled: 0 Small Lane, Assessor's Map 40 & 41 Lot 153, 155 & 29 Dep File No. 270-0748 Continued to June 22nd, 2022, at the applicant's request. Page 1 2 Moved by Mr. Carnahan, Second by Mr. Sullivan 5 - 0 - 0 550 West Street, Assessor's Map 25 Lot 2 Dep File No. 270-0759 Continued to June 22nd, 2022, at the applicant's request. Moved by Ms. Scanlon, Second by Mr. Sullivan, 5 - 0 - 0 31 Harold Ave, Assessor's Map 39 Lot 83, RCC File No. 2022-6 Open the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Yongcheng Yu & Rong Ruan Under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, § 40 and/or the Reading Wetland protection By-law, Section 7. 1, for the construction of a deck with 8 -12 -inch diameter concrete footings two sections of the deck will cantilever over the 35 -foot buffer zone by 3 feet, no trees will be removed or site grading during this project. All of the work is within the Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Mr. Jack Sullivan described the project. The house was built around 1998, there is BVW and a vernal pool. There is a conservation restriction. There are concrete bounds located on the 25 foot line. Eight sonotubes will be located outside the 35 foot line. No trees to be cut. A 28 inch tree will remain at the corner of the deck. Closest location of the vernal pool is 145 feet away. Mr. John Sullivan went to the site with Mr. Dribin. He noticed that flag 1A is in the middle of a grass peninsula extending into the wetlands. Asked if it is an old flag. Mr. Jack Sullivan duplicated the flags from the 1998 plan. Through the woods there is a shed and some cars, is that part of this property? No, that belonged to Fred Boni. Mr. Carnahan felt that the flags other than 1A seemed reasonable. We verified that the concrete bounds are in fact 25 feet away from flag 3A. Martha noticed severe ant damage at the base of the 28 inch tree, it is leaning away from the house and bark is buckling. The lawn does run up to the wetland flags in many places. Should the 28 inch tree come down? Mr. Dribin asked where the door will be to get to the deck from the house? If the door could be on the side of the house, it could avoid as much in the 35 foot zone. Ms. Moore said that we asked the homeowners and they said that they planned to put a door on the back of the house where there is currently a window. She also said that during the site visit she saw one lawnmower's worth of grass clippings that had been dumped right on top of some skunk cabbage at the back part of the property close to flag 6A. She pointed it out to the homeowners who said that they would speak to the landscaper about not dumping in the wetland. She asked to know more about the Conservation Restriction and whether we are allowed to give permission to build a deck this close to the restriction boundary. She also said that if the red maple does have to come down she would like to see a replacement red maple planted. It is a little unclear where the conservation restriction boundary is after it meets the concrete bound near the tree. Mr. Jack Sullivan said that there is no buffer zone to the conservation restriction, and then it follows the wetland line towards Harold Ave. He says that he thinks that the owner probably would be willing to replant the tree. Fang Yu is the next door neighbor from 27 Harold Ave. She asked if that large tree is really not healthy. It is a really large tree. Page 1 3 Mr. Carnahan said that there is a large pile of sawdust coming out of a hole at the base of the tree with carpenter ants crawling over it. He said that the tree does look lovely but it will likely die in a few years and could damage the brand new deck. Ms. Scanlon asked Fang Yu about the patio that was put behind 27 Harold Ave. by 2015 extending into the conservation restriction area. Fang Yu said that was put in by the previous owner. Ms. Scanlon would like to see the proposed deck redesigned to stay out of the 35 foot zone, it is supposed to be an area that allows for protecting the growth of the area within the 25 foot zone. There will be added shade due to the deck, it looks like it could be redesigned to keep it out of the 35 foot zone. If the 28 inch Vee does not remain, she would like to see it replaced with another similar tree. Mr. Jack Sullivan said that the bylaw does allow for a cantilever and the deck is an open deck. It would be hard to get around the corner to the large section of the deck if the back part is outside the 35 foot zone. Mr. Jack Sullivan will talk to the client about redesigning the deck. Mr. Tirone said that the bylaw does allow for cantilevering, but that is up to the commission. It would need to be a separate vote, it is not by right. It needs to be accepted by the commission or It can't be done. The wetland line came from a very old plan. The conservation restriction should be marked off. He wants to know what the conservation restriction is protecting. One conservation member noted that there is lawn right up to the wetland line. Mr. Tirone suggested that the 28 inch tree be evaluated by an arborist before deciding to take it down. Mr. Tirone asked about the Edge of Exclusive Use line. It is one lot of 61,816 sq ft, which has been broken into two exclusive use areas for #31 and #27. Ms. Scanlon said that the town GIS shows the conservation restriction as the same boundary as the exclusive use line. Mr. Sullivan said that is not the rase. Mr. Tirone asked Ms. Scanlon whether she has past knowledge about the patio encroachment. She does not remember what the story is about that patio. Mr. Tirone said that there would not be a building permit for that patio, the conservation commission can see that there is encroachment of the patio over the conservation restriction line. It is up to the state to enforce that. Fang Yu asked when the state got involved. Mr. Tirone thinks that the patio was put in on the back of the house and no one saw it. Just because the patio was built by the previous owner, it is not grandfathered in. Mr. Tirone suggested that the homeowner come into Town Hall to discuss it. If the plan shows a patio, then it would be fine. Mr. Dribin commented on the two cantilevers being proposed. He suggested maybe only one cantilever. Ms. Moore asked about the wording of the conservation restriction and whether we can request planting more native vegetation in the ZNV. Move to continue to June 22 by Ms. Moore, Second by Mr. Carnahan 5 - 0 - 0 Old/New Business: 10 Cory Lane Conservation Restriction discussion The owner and attorney are not here tonight. The Conservation Restriction is written by the owner, the conservation Commission reviews it, the state reviews it, then sends it back to us. The paperwork has gone to the state, we are waiting for it to come back from the state so that Page 1 4 we can review it. The owner thought it was recorded but cannot find the book and page and now the house is being sold. The house would not be there if not for the conservation restriction. Discussion of the sign for Matters Cabin, Mr. Carnahan pointed out a typo of "Bear" instead of "Bare" on a rendering of the sign in the proposal. Mr. Dribin thought that the sign does not match the decor of the log cabin. Mr. Tirone pointed out that the sign needs to be visible and look similar to the one at the DPW. It is designed so that the community garden sign can be added if they purchase one next year. Since no one knows where Matters Cabin is, it was important to have a very visible sign. Mr. Carnahan said that the sign looks just like the one at Town Hall. Mr. Dribin said that we need a road sign that says Matters Cabin % mile ahead. Mr. Tirone said there will be other signs in the future, Pinevale, Maillett, etc. Ms. Scanlon said that she does not have a problem with this sign design within the price point. Her first reaction was that Matters Cabin at Bare Meadow sounds like a housing development. Ms. Moore suggested adding the words Conservation Area below the words Bare Meadow. Conservation ARPA request next ARPA meeting is June 15 at 7:00 at the Library Presentation has been put together to ask for $31,500 for Bare Meadow Stewardship plan, survey costs for land to be donated to the town, and a bike rack for Matters Cabin and invasive control. Mr. Carnahan will present this at the meeting on the 15th. Mr. Dribin and Mr. Tirone will go also. Trails committee will also be there to ask for 200 feet of supplies for a boardwalk. Friends and Family Day discussion Nika and Joe are the only ones who have signed up to be there at our booth. Ms. Scanlon has the track stamps for the children and plans to buy a native shrub to give away and maybe a MA Audubon membership. Mr. Tirone will not be there because he is working at Matters Cabin on Friday. Mr. Tirone suggested bringing samples of invasive plants to the booth. Trails Committee General permit 270-0568 extension, 5 years The order expired on May 11, 2021 but with the tolling period from Covid, the new expiration date is August 16, 2022. Mr. Tirone suggests that we extend the permit for 5 years, which is the maximum. If there is anything that needs to be changed, we have to have them ask for another permit. The current permit has worked out fine, Mr. Tirone suggests that we extend this permit. Ms. Scanlon would like to add the word de minimis on page 15 to make it read "de minimis backfilling to provide an even surface." Mr. Tirone said that at the beginning of the permit there are things that they don't need permission for, but they don't do those things anyway. The second list of things that they can do which require a discussion with the conservation commission covers the backfilling. Ms. Moore suggested that the word de minimis is unfamiliar and may not bring the result desired. She proposed that renewing the permit as is will be sufficient. Mr. Dribin said that he has not read this permit. It is dated 2009, he says it would not hurt to have them come before us so that we can read it before we approve it. Mr. Tirone said it was reviewed when it was extended in 2016. He suggested that we ask the Trails Committee to come to our next meeting. Mr. Dribin said he is open to extending it, he would just like to have a more formal conversation about it. 1505 Main Street Update, by Mr. Carnahan The project was approved under the name of 1503 but all the problem areas are on what is now 1505. In the winter of 2021, there were trees cut down and the developer agreed to a planting plan. Mr. Carnahan has been communicating with the homeowners and they say that the developer has not told them what we have told him needs to be done. The current owners are not excited about the idea of reforesting the entire area, but they were not the ones who committed the violation. Mr. Carnahan does not know how we want to proceed. There was concern about erosion at the top of the driveway, the homeowners have added some gravel which seems to be effective. Behind the house, there is some sod, but the grass is not going to grow there. It is too shady. Mr. Carnahan suggested that the homeowners contact a landscaper about what kind of ground cover can be planted there to prevent erosion. Page 1 5 Mr. Tirone said that they can't get a certificate of compliance until some vegetation is established to prevent erosion. The no -mow area under the trees needs to be preserved even though the current homeowners did not commit the violation. Ms. Scanlon asked if the mulch soxx has been pulled up yet, and Mr. Carnahan replied that it is still there. The burden is carried by the owner of the deed. Mr. Carnahan said that the area along the retention pond has 8 surviving shrubs and 1 that died, but the plan required 8 shrubs. The area not being mowed seems to be about right, and there are two surviving shrubs at the base of each of the 4 trees. One of the 4 trees may be outside the blue area on the plot plan, but that is ok because we were looking for minimum spacing between the trees. Ms. Scanlon said that we are closer and closer to getting what we want. Mr. Carnahan said that as long as we are clear with the homeowner what we want, we will get it. The homeowners reached out to Mr. Tirone as well. Ms. Scanlon suggested that we transition to Mr. Tirone being the point person on this. Mr. Carnahan said that it is important that they know that they are responsible for the Order of Conditions and that they know the location of the corner of the blue area on the map. Mr. Tirone said that we need to accept the no -mow area and come up with a solution for the back and address any dead shrubs when they are out there, and try to get to the end of this long hard battle. Mr. Carnahan hopes that we don't need a long-term point person. With a couple of measuring tapes and the granite bounds, we ought to be able to solve this, along with advice on what kind of ground cover to plant in the back. Mr. Carnahan will send the next email to relay to the homeowners what their responsibility is and they can go to Mr. Tirone for that. The grass needs to be established before they submit for Certificate of Conditions. Mr Tirone will let them know when he is available. Minor Plan Change 59 Forest Street Continued to June 22nd, 2022, at the applicant's request. Violation Notices, yard waste and encroachment on Conservation Land, New 26 Henzie, 30, Henzie, 34, Henzie, 126 Hanscom Ave, 79 Longfellow Rd, Follow-ups 30 Chequessett,14 Dean Road, 25 Baker, 22, 8, 14, Oakridge Street,30, 38, 34 Bond, No work done on these. Mr. Tirone has not heard from Jodie at General Way other than what wording will be put in future contracts. No information about tree replacements planned. The area between stop and shop and General Way has a permit to cut down woody vegetation once a year. They did that cutting but the order of conditions had expired. Ms. Scanlon said that the timing of the cutting was supposed to be in the fall. And that she asked her for a copy of the Operation and Maintenance Plan. Mr. Tirone said that they will come in with a new application and all that information will come in at that time. The tree replacement plan was going to be worked on with Mr. Tirone and Mr. Bowe, not the full commission. New beaver activity off of Track Rd. near the new bridge, head from Track Rd towards Jordan's Furniture to see this activity. They have permission to breach the dam, beaver trapping permit coming in only signed by the health department. Mr. Tirone said he did not want them trapping in the wetland, trap them at the dam. It will happen in the next week or two. The DPW will pull a 10 -day permit, which can be renewed once. After the beavers are removed, the permit will come before the commission. It is a Flooding hazard and is a new dam and has not created habitat. We don't want to remove dams in the winter so that the other animals that have overwintered under water are not killed. Mr. Dribin asked about how this works. Mr. Tirone has been signing these, if the commission wants to sign these permits it would slow down the process. The permit to breach the dam in its entirety will come before the commission. Ms. Scanlon suggested that Mr. Tirone keep signing these and update us on them so we don't slow it down. At 55 Walkers Brook Drive, Mr. Tirone has been suggesting that they put in a beaver deceiver, that is a good location for it because it is right next to the parking lot for ease of access. Next meeting with DPW is July 12 Page 1 6 Administrators Report: Matters Community Garden ribbon -cutting June 15 3 pm VIP event, will include cupcakes. Brad Jones and Seth Moulton's office will come for the ribbon cutting. There will be parking at the Matters Cabin, second entrance for the garages, and also on Pearl St. Discussion Items Ms. Scanlon asked about the enforcement for 445 Pearl St. Mr. Tirone was working with Thor and Jack Rivers but Mr. Rivers went into the hospital and the project was delayed due to that. Thor and his wife are expecting a baby, so will not be available for a while. Minutes for approval: 5/25/2021, Moved to accept the minutes by Mr. Carnahan Seconded by Mr. Sullivan Roll Call Vote 4-0-1 9/5/2021, Moved to accept the minutes by Mr. Carnahan Seconded by Mr. Sullivan Roll Call Vote 4-0-1 10/27/2021, Moved to accept the minutes by Ms. Moore Seconded by Mr. Carnahan Roll Call Vote 4-0-1 5/25/2022 Moved to accept the minutes by Mr. Carnahan Seconded by Mr. Sullivan Roll Call Vote 5-0-0 ADJOURNMENT Moved by Mr. Carnahan Seconded by Ms. Moore Adjourned at 10:04 Vote 5 - 0 - 0 Page 1 7