Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-14 Conservation Commission Minutesa Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Conservation Commission Date: 2022-09-14 Building: Address: Purpose: Zoom Virtual Meeting - Conservation Commission Meeting Attendees: Members - Present: Time: 07:00 PM RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READIRIG, MA. 2023 APR 18 PH j $y Location: Session: Open Session Version: Draft Martha Moore chair, Brian Bowe vice chair, John Sullivan, Carl Saccone, Andrew Dribin Members - Not Present: Others Present: Chuck Tirone, Conservation Administrator, Maureen Herald, Scott Harris, Louis Levine, Keith Zerfas Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Brian Bowe Topics of Discussion: Topics of Discussion: This meeting was held remotely via Zoom. Chair Martha Moore called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm Hearings Scheduled: 0 Small Lane Assessor's Map 40 & 41 Lot 153,155 & 29 Dep File No. 270-0748 Mr. Sullivan moved to continue this hearing at the applicant's request to the Commission meeting on October 12, 2022, seconded by Mr. Bowe, voted 5-0-0. 550 West Street (7:10 om to 8:24 pm) Assessor's Map 25 Lot 2 Dep File No. 270-0759 Ms. Herald reviewed additional trees requested to be taken down. The previous meeting, the commission discussed and agreed to 15 trees to be removed. Requesting 24 additional trees to be removed: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40. Mr. Tirone asked Ms. Herald if the application will be filed under 10.58(4) or 10.58(5) Redevelopment. Page 1 1 Louis Levine, attorney for Mr. Harris, reiterated Ms. Herald's comments and reviewed his letter sent to the Commission dated Sept. 7, 2022; arguing trees along the public way are exempt. Mr. Levine also agreed with Mr. Tirone that the project could be filed under 10.58(5) Redevelopment. Mr. Dribin addressed his concern that the proposal does not meet the expectations of the Riverfront Area regulations 310 CMR 10.58; emphasizing 10.58(5)(e) which states that the "proposed work may alter up to 10% of the Riverfront Area." Mr. Bowe commented that we've come up with a reasonable list of trees that we would accept to be removed, but agrees with Mr. Dribin that we need to look at the overall proposed work as put forward in this application. No new information has been provided and he would like to move forward. Ms. Herald disagreed with Mr. Dribin stating the current proposal meets the Riverfront Regulations; no mitigation is required (referenced a letter written to the Commission in July). Ms. Herald also asked the Commission if we could cut additional trees. Mr. Levine supported Ms. Herald's requests and asked if we can agree that the trees near the public way are exempt from the Riverfront Regulations. Mr. Bowe would like to focus on the larger project; not just on the trees. He would like the Commission to vote or ask the applicant to continue the hearing. Mr. Levine asked what the applicants need to provide the Commission to get this project done. What's missing? Mr. Tirone asked if the Commission had any questions or concerns addressing Mr. Levine's Sept. 7 letter. He clarified that the project is within the 200 ft resource area of the Riverfront; not just the buffer zone of a BVW. Ms. Moore stated that the big issue relates to the amount of impervious surface on the property without any proposed mitigation. Mr. Tirone noted that the proposed mitigation (the planting plan) is proposed quite far from the riverfront. Mr. Tirone also addressed Mr. Levine's question about the exemption of the Public Way trees. The Commission may need more information. Ms. Herald referred to her July 6th letter outlining how the proposal meets the Riverfront Area regulations with no mitigation required. Ms. Dribin responded directly to Ms. Herald's July 6th letter explaining where they disagree on the Riverfront Regs and why either mitigation or restoration is needed. Mr. Hams commented on how he's been talking about this request for the past year and a half. He first submitted a DoA to remove 100 trees in 2021. He came back in April 2022 with an NOI to remove 60 or so trees for the safety of his family. He reiterated he has been willing to work with the Commission since day one. Mr. Tirone walked through 10.58(5)(e) which states that the "proposed work may atter up to 10% of the Riverfront Area" and that we're just asking for more mitigation. Ms. Herald argued that the plan proposes the planting of 32 trees and offered some high -bush blueberries. Page 1 2 Ms. Moore noted 10.58(8) on mitigation possibilities and that we're looking for more significant mitigation. She also noted the removal of Cherry Trees at the previous week's site meeting. Mr. Harris commented that he thought the trees were Buckthorn and were under the impression the Commission would like him to clear invasive plants. Ms. Moore acknowledged his misunderstanding and requested that Mr. Harris no longer alter the habitat without further assistance. Ms. Moore reviewed the list of additional trees that may be removed. She clarified a misunderstanding on the map between trees marked 37 and 33. Number 33 (12" Pine) has been agreed that it could be removed; but not 37 (20" Pine). Ms. Moore also proposed number 38, due to rot, could be cut as a twenty -foot snag above the hole. Ms. Moore noted number 30 behind the garage would be reasonable to remove. 22, 23, and 24 are all dead and could be cut as snags if important to the applicant. Tree 17 has a large branch reaching out towards the driveway. The branch could be removed while keeping the tree. Ms. Moore also disagreed with Mr. Levine's statement that many of the trees that are considerably far away from the road are posing an imminent and immediate danger threat to the public way. Mr. Dribin commented that he hears Mr. Harris' concern for removing the trees. To get the project moving forward, he would encourage the applicant to take the addition off the current proposal to address the Riverfront Regulation concerns. Mr. Levine asked the Commission how the applicant could move the project forward. Mr. Tirone responded that the applicant should take a closer look at 10.58(5)(8) Mitigation or 10.58(5)(f) Restoration. Mr. Bowe moved to continue this hearing at the applicant's request to the Sept. 28 Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, voted 5-0-0. 31 Harold Ave Assessor's Map 39 Lot 83, RCC File No. 2022-6 Mr. Bowe moved to continue this hearing at the applicant's request to the Sept. 28 Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Saccone, voted 5-0-0. Old/New Business: Certificate of Compliance request for 62 Grey Coach, Mr. Triglione (270-0743). Mr. Dribin reviewed site visit with Ms. Moore. He noted everything looked good but asked if some invasive species along the BVW could be removed. Ms. Moore agreed but did not feel that removing the invasive should prevent the Certificate of Compliance. Further along the backyard, the natives look beautiful and encouraged the Triglione's to keep trying to control invasives. Mr. Bowe and Mr. Tirone commented that everything looked satisfactory. Mr. Bowe moved to issue the Certificate of Compliance for 62 Grey Coach, seconded by Mr. Dribin, voted 5-0-0. 27 Linea Lane, Minor Plan Change presented by Keith Zerfas, the homeowner. Mr. Zerfas requested reconsideration for an increased patio walkway, the location of the fence along the driveway, removing a proposed retaining wall, and adding a paver wall to protect the foundation. Mr. Dribin reviewed site visit with Ms. Moore. They identified drainage easements and the wetland located in the neighboring yard. Mr. Bowe met with Mr. Zerfas and did not note any major issues. Mr. Dribin also commented that the existing erosion control does not follow the Page 13 proposed line and asked if native plants seeds could be planted along the fence (adjacent to wetlands) when the mulch socks are removed. Mr. Bowe moved the accept the Minor Plan Change for 27 Linea Lane, seconded by Mr. Saccone, voted 5-0-0. Bond request 270-0688 97 Batchelder Road, John Gillis Mr. Bowe moved to give 100% of the bond back to Mr. Gillis at 97 Batchelder Road, seconded by Mr. Saccone, voted 5-0-0. Mr. Tirone and Mr. Bowe discussed the unauthorized cutting of trees (at Coolidge) and spraying of poison ivy (at Birch Meadow) by RMLD and Mayer Tree. The bigger issue is that there is not an approved Integrated Vegetation Management Plan in place between RMLD and the Conservation Commission. An enforcement letter has been sent to RMLD and Mayer Tree. Mr. Hanneford has tried unsuccessfully to coordinate a meeting. Mr. Bowe reached out to Ms. Karen Herrick from Select Board to serve as liaison. She is working to coordinate a meeting with RMLD (Mr. Gregory Phipps?) and Mayer Tree. Ms. Moore and Mr. Saccone agreed with the plan to try and coordinate a meeting within the next week. 16 Border Rd request for Certificate of Compliance 270-0687. Site visit is scheduled on Sept 21 at 8:30 am. No additional violations to discuss. Mr. Tirone reviewed Town Forest Site Visit. Mr. Tirone also noted that the Conservation Commission email addresses will be publicly available on the Town Website. Members may Opt -Out if desired. No word on 445 Pearl St. No correspondence, no emergency permits were issued. Minutes for approval: August 10 minutes Mr. Dribin moved to approve August 10th minutes, seconded by Mr. Bowe, voted 5-0-0. Mr. Bowe reported that the Select Board voted to approve additional $22,000 ARPA funds for the Conservation Commission. Mr. Tirone brought to the attention of the Commission a public meeting scheduled for Secretary Bethany Card, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to visit Maillet Sommes Morgan Land at 10:00 am. Motion to adjourn at 9:35 pm by Mr. Saccone, seconded by Mr. Bowe, voted 5-0-0 Page 14