Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-22 Conservation Commission Minutes_r Town of Reading Meeting Minutes RECEIVED TOWN CLERK r° READING, MA. elk - Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2023 APR 18 PH 2: 04 Conservation Commission Date: 2022-06-22 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, Brian Bowe, Joe Carnahan, Andrew Dribin (joined at 8:05 p.m.) Members - Not Present: Carl Saccone Others Present: Chuck Tirone, Scott Gisetto, Lori Gisetto, Jarrod Cohen, Maureen Herald, Bill Johnson, Thorsen Akerley, Jack Sullivan, Chuong Tran, Ann Marton, Kathleen Kelly, Joseph Bankovich, Thomas Gardener, Will Finch, Yongcheng Yu, Rong Ruan Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Joe Carnahan and Martha Moore Topics of Discussion: This meeting was held remotely via Zoom. Chair Annika Scanlon called the meeting to order at 7:0?pm Hearings Scheduled: 0 Small Lane Continue the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent, filed by LLC, Meagan Johnson, Del Rey Realty, Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40 -the Wetlands Protection Act and/or the Reading Wetland protection By-law, Section 7. 1, the applicant proposes the construction of a limited project stream crossing, retaining walls, wetland alteration, wetland replication, drainage, grading, and associated utilities. All work is within 100 feet of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. The application and plans can be viewed on the Conservation Division page under the current project, Assessor's Map 40 & 41 Lot 153, 155 & 29 Dep File No. 270-0748 Mr. Tirone reported on a working meeting held between Maureen Herald (Norse Environmental), Jack Sullivan (Sullivan Engineering), and Ann Marton (LEC Environmental) to discuss the applicability of stormwater standards to this specific project. The agreement was to submit this project to third -party review on the applicability of stormwater standards. Ms. Marton reported that she had consulted both DEP and a professional engineer who both asserted that stormwater management standards should apply fully, while Ms. Herald and Mr. Sullivan maintained that the stormwater management standards should only apply to the extent practicable to a limited project such as this one, as they consider it redevelopment instead of Page I 1 new development. Ms. Marton explained that as a wetland scientist, she could do her best to search the existing regulations and offer advice, but she recommended consulting a professional engineer for third -party review of this question. Mr. Tirone reported that he had consulted the town engineer, Ryan Percival. Mr. Percival recommended that the Conservation Commission should hire third -party review, given that the entanglement of this question with the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Bowe asked what the concerns are with bringing in third -party review, and Mr. Sullivan explained that the main concern was the delay involved in third -party review. Mr. Bowe and Ms. Scanlon both agreed that we could not. Mr. Bowe moved to ask for third -party review, seconded by Ms. Moore. Mr. Carnahan offered a friendly amendment to clarify that we are asking for third -party stormwater review by a professional engineer and an assessment of the applicability of the stormwater standards to this project, which Mr. Bowe accepted. Voted 6-0-0. Ms. Scanlon moved to continue this hearing to the Commission meeting on July 27, seconded by Ms. Moore, voted 5-0-0. Ms. Herald asked if the meeting on July 27 would be virtual. Mr. Tirone said this was up to the Commission, but that we should likely continue including hybrid participation through at least July. 550 West Street Continue the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent, filed by Scott Hams, Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40 -the Wetlands Protection Act and/or the Reading Wetland protection B34aw, Section 7. 1, the applicant proposes, to raze a portion of the single-family dwelling and bulkhead to construct an addition, rooftop infiltration, cut trees, tree plantings, associated grading, and utilities within the 100 -foot Buffer Zone to a Boring Vegetated Wetland and the 200 -foot Riverfront Area of the Aberjona River. The application and plans can be viewed on the Conservation Division page under the current project, Assessor's Map 25 Lot 2 Dep File No. 270-0759 Motion to continue this hearing at the applicant's request to July 13 by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Bowe, voted 5-0-0. Trails Committee General permit 270-0568 extension discussion. 5 years Mr. Tirone raised the issue of extending the Trails Committee's general permit, which was previously designed by committee. Mr. Tirone recommended extending the permit for five years, the maximum extent possible, as there may be difficulties with securing DEP approval for a brand new order of conditions. He pointed out the value of letting Trails volunteers remove downed trees from trails immediately and otherwise concentrate on keeping Reading's trails open and in working order. Mr. Tirone suggested that if the permit does expire, we should time it for the winter so that the expiration and subsequent discussion of the new permit does not unduly interfere with the practice of Ms. Kelly, chair of the Trails Committee, clarified that the permit cannot be amended but can only either be extended or replaced with a new permit. She reported that the Trails Committee voted to ask for the extension. Page 1 2 Ms. Scanlon expressed concern about the age of the existing permit but stated that on balance, she agreed that the more important thing would be to maintain the extension. She also reported her own experience with the Trails Committee's care for the protection of the wetland areas that they work in and around. Ms. Moore pointed out that the Commission's schedule in November and December (one meeting in each of those two months) means we should aim for a renewal in February rather than midwinter. Within that constraint, she favored extending the permit as long as possible. Mr. Bowe reported that there had been a problem with the boardwalk repair project in the Town Forest but that Mr. Kirwan from the Trails Committee responded promptly to remedy it when it was reported. Mr. Bowe also reported a different problem with crushed stone being left behind after another trail project on the Cranberry Dam where the excess material was not removed promptly. Mr. Bowe asked if we should perhaps extend for 9 months or more in order to discuss new conditions to ensure prompt remediation of problems. Ms. Kelly and Mr. Tirone disagreed with Mr. Bowe's characterization of the Cranberry Dam trail characterization. In particular, Mr. Tirone said the removal was delayed by the need for a site visit, which was outside the control of the Trails Committee and other volunteers, and that everything within the Trails Committee's control was handled promptly. Mr. Bowe asked if the problem could have been prevented with a pre -activity meeting. Ms. Kelly said there was such a meeting with both the Conservation Administrator and DPW, and it was simply a mistake that DPW delivered more crushed stone than was needed. Mr. Gardener commented that this permit has worked well and should just be extended. Mr. Carnahan moved to extend Trails Committee General Permit 270-0568 to five years beyond its current expiration after the tolling period granted on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. Voted 5-0-0. DPW Town -Wide General Permit 270-0638 extension discussion. 3 vears Mr. Tirone explained that this permit permits the DPW to perform work on roadways without waiting for a Conservation meeting. An earlier permit allowed dredging of culverts next to roadways, but that has since been removed in the rewritten permit. This permit has recently been used for repairing emergency water main breaks on Walker's Brook Drive. Mr. Tirone reported that the good relationship between the Conservation Division and the DPW has made this general permit work well, as Conservation is notified promptly regarding emergencies as they happen and as this permit enables the town to continue running smoothly. Ms. Scanlon expressed support for extending the permit as proposed. Mr. Carnahan moved to extend DPW General Permit 270-0638 to three years beyond Its current expiration, seconded by Mr. Bowe, voted 6-0-0. 31 Harold Ave Continue 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. The application and plans can be viewed on the Conservation Division page under projects by year, Assessor's Map 39 Lot 83, RCC File No. 2022-6 Page 1 3 Mr. Sullivan presented two possible plan options. Option 1 includes two cantilevers of less than three feet into the no -structure zone in which the rotting 28" tree would be removed and which would include additional plantings to compensate. Option 2 also includes removing the tree but only includes one cantilever into the no -structure zone, still including the access from the rear of the house but pulling back the comer of the deck to remove one of the two cantilevers. Ms. Moore asked why the plan proposed a red oak instead of a red maple. Mr. Sullivan said he thought that the commission's preference was for an oak. She expressed a preference for option 1, where we would get more added vegetation in exchange for the second cantilever. Ms. Moore asked about the missing concrete bounds from the boundary of the previous conservation restriction. Mr. Bowe asked about the width of the walkway from the rear door of the house, which is proposed to be five feet wide. Mr. Dribin asked if there is a limit on the number of cantilevers permitted on a project. Mr. Tirone said that the cantilever option is included in the regulations but has not regularly been used. Mr. Dribin recalled one project where a cantilevered overhang on a doorway was proposed but withdrawn. Mr. Dribin asked for some plantings around flag 1A, which is currently all lawn even beyond the existing lawn area. He also expressed a preference for a door on the side of the house that would eliminate all cantilevering. Mr. Tirone and Ms. Scanlon said that their previous experience with cantilevers that were approved were bay windows, not parts of decks. Mr. Tirone pointed out the opportunity here to restore the conservation restriction area that is supposed to be the zone of natural vegetation and that is currently lawn and expressed concern that cantilevering out the deck would only push landscapers and other work into the zone of natural vegetation. Ms. Scanlon asked what should be permitted outside the Edge of Exclusive Use, and Mr. Sullivan explained that the Edge of Exclusive Use is only relevant to the rights of the different homeowners and is unrelated to any conservation regulations. Mr. Carnahan asked what should be permitted outside the Conservation Restriction line, and Mr. Sullivan said he was surprised that it was lawn. Mr. Tirone suggested that moving plantings up to the edge of the conservation restriction would allow the natural vegetation to grow in behind that line, restoring the zone of natural vegetation. The applicants asked if they could keep both cantilevers if they did the plantings up to the 25 foot line. Mr. Carnahan said that he would be fine with this, while Mr. Dribin did not agree with tying the handling of the violation of the conservation restriction to the approval of the deck. The applicants asked if they could plant flowers in the conservation restriction area being restored. Mr. Tirone said that Mr. Sullivan could draw up a planting plan that the Commission could review, and Ms. Moore said there are many native plants with with flowers that could be planted, including ground cover, shrubs, and flowering trees. Ms. Scanlon pointed out that wildflower seed mix would also be a possible option. Mr. Carnahan asked if the Commission would have the option of issuing a negative determination (permitting the project) and ask for the planting plan to restore the ZNV to be reviewed in a future meeting. He asked if the commission could then issue a violation if the Page 1 4 planting plan was never submitted. Mr. Tirone advised keeping the ZNV restoration and the project coupled together. The applicant asked if removing both cantilevers would be enough for the commission to be able to approve the project. Mr. Tirone and Ms. Scanlon both explained that the restoration of the ZNV would still be needed. The applicant explained that they bought the house with the existing lawn and that they want to maintain the lawn that they bought. Ms. Scanlon explained that the conservation restriction is legally tied to the land and that we are obliged to try to restore it. Ms. Moore, Mr. Carnahan, and Mr. Dribin all expressed different levels of discomfort with the idea of coupling the deck approval to the complete restoration of the conservation restriction area. Mr. Dribin and Mr. Carnahan both asserted that we always ought to be able to issue a violation in the future if we are not satisfied with the way the conservation restriction is being maintained. Mr. Tirone said there was a risk that issuing a negative determination on the RDA might be interpreted as an approval of the current use of the property and might impair the ability to restore the conservation restriction in the future. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that the proposed project is more than what the commission asked for two weeks ago and would be a substantial improvement of the area. Mr. Tirone noted that it is common for commissions to notice more things about the project between meetings, especially when we get new information like what happened here when we found the contents of the conservation restriction. Ms. Scanlon asked if the applicant would be comfortable with continuing to July 13, and Mr. Sullivan said they would. Ms. Moore said we would also like to see the concrete bounds from the original conservation restriction located and plotted on the plan. Ms. Moore moved to continue this hearing to July 13, seconded by Mr. Bowe, voted 6-0-0 Old/New Business: Minor Plan Chanae 59 Forest Street Mr. Gisetto explained that a very small rock wall (a "rock line") was added due to a misunderstanding in the course of their project and wanted to ask if they should leave them in place or remove them. Mr. Carnahan, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Dribin reported on their site visits, where they observed the wall following the edge of lawn. Mr. Carnahan noted the considerable amount of invasive vegetation that had been removed, while Ms. Moore pointed out that the wall actually crosses into the wetland substantially in two areas. Ms. Moore and Mr. Dribin noted how hard it is to locate the wetland line now. Mr. Carnahan clarified that there is an existing rock wall that is outside the wetland and that is functioning as a retaining wall next to fill from the original construction of the house. He said his concern was with the rock wall insofar as it encroaches into the wetland and encourages the mowing of wetland and wetland -adjacent buffer. Ms. Scanlon asked if the rock wall could be moved out to the 25 foot line from the wetland Page 1 5 Ms. Moore discussed the applicant's pictures of the wetland and expressed confusion at the amount of lawn currently behind the wetland line. Mr. Bowe suggested that we only move the line once and that we minimize the amount of movement. Moving them to the flagged wetland line might be a reasonable compromise. Mr. Dribin asked if we could move it five or ten feet in from the wetland line. Ms. Gisetto suggested that we could leave the rock wall in place and use concrete markers to establish the new no -mow line, which Ms. Scanlon approved. Mr. Carnahan and Mr. John Sullivan expressed support for this idea as well. Mr. and Ms. Gisetto said they could easily expand the zone of natural vegetation to the north, which is in their area of exclusive use. To the west, where the land is shared with neighbors as part of a planned residential development, there might need to be some coordination with other neighbors. Ms. Moore said that one key part of this plan is to make sure native vegetation fills in the area that is being allowed to regrow. Motion to continue the discussion of 59 Forest St to July 13 by Mr. Bowe, seconded by Mr. Carnahan, voted 6-0-0. Vote to Endorse and Sian Letter of Support for Updated Open Space & Recreation Plan Motion to endorse and sign the letter of support by Ms. Scanlon, seconded by Mr. Bowe, voted 6-M. 128 Fairchild Drive Certificate of ComDliance Mr. Akerley presented the as -built plan for 128 Fairchild Drive, including grading, filling, installation of retaining walls, repair of an existing retaining wall, tree removal, installation of a new patio in the front, removal of a patio in the rear, and plantings both in front of and rear of the house. The plan included variances for retaining wall crossing the 25 -foot no -disturb line and an expansion of the existing deck already inside the 25 -foot line. Mr. Akerley reviewed photographs of the plantings to show their health. Mr. Bowe asked about the orange plastic fence, which Mr. Doppler said would be Mr. Bowe asked about the steepness of the slope on the right side of the property and about the driveway drain that is raised a bit relative to the driveway around it. However, he didn't note any erosion. Mr. Dopler said this might be due to a bump that was previously at the back of the driveway to prevent water from running into the yard. Mr. Bowe asked about the location of the play structure and if it is within 35 feet of the wetland. Mr. Carnahan reported looking at the many new plantings and asked about two in particular, two red maples that were planted in the wetland. Mr. Dopler said that they were planted but were very small saplings and may have been eaten by deer. Ms. Moore reported that there was some erosion in the mulch on the back right but that the shrubs planted there seemed to be controlling it. Mr. Dribin expressed regret that he had not had a copy of the planting plan at the time of the site visit. Ms. Scanlon explained that Mr. Akerley's report and the reports we've had from the site visit would normally be enough, and so the only concern is the two red maples. Page 1 6 Mr. Carnahan asked if the applicant could still plant the two red maples on the planting plan if we issued the certificate of com Motion to issue Certificate of Compliance by Mr. Carnahan, seconded by Mr. Bowe, voted "-t (Mr. Dribin abstaining). 77 Arcadia Ave site visit discussion. Bankovich Mr. Bowe asked about what appeared to be weed -whacking in the back right part of the property. Mr. Bankovich explained that this area had been covered by brush and that he had asked landscapers to remove brush from that area. Mr. Bowe asked about debris behind the shed on the back left. Mr. Bankovich said that had been there since before he owned the property. Mr. Bowe asked about a log bridge across the river, and Mr. Bankovich said he did not know anything about it and that he did not see people crossing over it. Ms. Scanlon asked if it could impede the flow, and Mr. Bowe and Mr. Bankovich both said that the river is well below the bridge and that there was no evidence of impeded flow. Mr. Bowe asked about the retaining wall around the pool area. Mr. Bankovich said it was there because the fence had to be closer to the pool (further from the river) than originally planned. Mr. Bowe asked if the lawn always gone all the way back to the top of the bank as before, and Mr. Bankovich said that had been there at the time the Commission approved the original plan. Mr. Bowe asked if the memorial garden in the back had been there at the time the original plan was approved, and Mr. Bankovich said it was. Mr. Bowe asked where the dirt excavated from the pool was stored, and Mr. Bankovich said it was all used to fill the area around the pool. Mr. Bankovich explained that the pool was installed closer to the river than originally planned because the pool was planned too close to the deck for code. (Pools must be at least 10 feet from houses and decks.) Mr. Carnahan and Mr. Dribin both commented that the two trees that were trimmed were both trimmed substantially but seemed superficially healthy. Mr. Dribin suggested we could consult an arborist if we are concerned about the health of the trees. Mr. Dribin asked for an as -built plan so we could compare the as -built plan to the proposed plan in more detail. Mr. Bowe asked Mr. Tirone for clarification about what "cutting of trees" means in orders of conditions, and Mr. Tirone said that it generally means cutting down the trees. Mr. Tirone suggested we should get an arborist to review the trees for their health. Mr. Bankovich noted that he controls bittersweet that would otherwise harm all the trees on the riverbank. He said that he did not think that pruning the trees would harm the trees. Mr. Dribin, Mr. Carnahan, Ms. Scanlon, Mr. Tirane, and Mr. Bowe discussed the definitions of "cutting" as prohibited in the Order of Conditions, with some disagreement about if and what distinction exists between "pruning" and "cutting". Mr. Bowe noted that the tree topping was part of a list of things that were changed about the project after the project was approved. Mr. Tirone said that to get to an occupancy certificate Page 1 7 and a certificate of compliance, we would need to determine if these changes are minor plan changes, amended orders of conditions, and/or administratively -approvable changes. Mr. Bowe asked about the shed, and Mr. Tirone pointed out that it is located where it is in the approved plan and would not require any further approval to remain there. Mr. Tirone asked the applicant to come back with an as -built plan and an arborist's assessment of the trees so that the commission could decide if this is a minor plan change or something bigger. Conservation ARPA reauest next ARPA meetina is June 15 at 7:00 Mr. Carnahan reported that he, Mr. Tirone, and Mr. Dribin presented the Commission's requests to the Reading ARPA Advisory Committee on June 15, which seems to have been well received. The bike rack because it increases the price. Friends and Family Day discussion Ms. Scanlon drew names for winners of native plants raffle: Kayla Martignetti (Sun) Lauren Kimball (Shade) 1505 Main Street Update, by Mr. Carnahan Mr. Carnahan reported on a visit that Ms. Moore, Mr. Carnahan, and Mr. Tirone made to 1505 Main Street. Ms. Moore, Mr. Carnahan, and the homeowners agreed on a revised no -mow area that is similar in area to the one proposed by Mr. Flynn in 2021 but that covers more of the area closer to the wetland instead of closer to the driveway. The homeowners also agreed to fill in the previously -eroded areas below the driveway and plant either sod or shade -tolerant seed mix in the shaded area directly behind the house. The homeowners are asking about the status of Mr. Castellano's bond, which could potentially be used to fund work to repair the original violation. Mr. Tirone has reached out to other Town staff about this to see what might be possible. Mr. Tirone reported on a discussion with a builder who was applying to build a deck on 1503 Main Street and who is in touch with Mr. Castellano. Town Forest Committee meetina Mr. Tirone reported on plans to treat areas in the Town Forest for invasive species, no area spraying but some use of herbicide in cut -and -dab applications. Certificates of compliance for 18 and 22 Small Lane Question from Mr. Tirone about whether those properties are ready for certificates of compliance. 18 looks reasonably good, but 22 has problems with invasives and needs more time for new plantings to be established. Bittersweet had taken over a couple of plants and needs to be removed. Page 1 8 Mr. Tirone said that the new homeowner at 22 Small Lane is planning a big renovation. Submitting a new Notice of Intent is not possible until a certificate of compliance has been issued. Minutes for aooroval Motion to approve minutes for 10/13/2021 as amended, by Ms. Moore, second by Mr. Carnahan, voted 5-0-1 Motion to approve minutes for 6/6/2022 by Ms. Moore, second by Mr. Carnahan, voted 6- 0-0. Ms. Moore thanked Mr. Carnahan and Ms. Scanlon for their service on the Conservation Commission, as neither will be returning for next year. Motion to adjourn at 12:10 am by Ms. Moore, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, voted 6-0-0 Page 19