HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-26 Conservation Commission Minutes`� OFNFgO
Town of Reading
' Meeting Minutes
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Conservation Commission
Date: 2023-04-26
Building:
Address:
Purpose: Zoom Virtual Meeting -
Conservatlon Commission Meeting
Attendees: Members - Present:
Time: 07:00 PM
I vl. CLERK
MA.
2924 MAR 12 AM 1017
Location:
Session: Open Session
Version: Final
Martha Moore chair, Brian Bowe vice chair, John Sullivan, Andrew Dribin, Bill
McCants, Tony Rodolakis (associate member), Walter Talbot (associate
member)
Members - Not Present:
Carl Saccone
Others Present:
Chuck Tirone -- Conservation Administrator, David and Julie Wali, Kim
Rishton, David Cowell, John Sideropoulos, Thorsen Akerley, Guy
Manganiello, Joe Fodera
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Bill McCants
Topics of Discussion:
This meeting was held remotely via Zoom.
Chair Martha Moore called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
Hearinas Scheduled:
1. 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
Applicant requested continuance until May 24, Additional Budget Request. Motion to continue
at applicant's request until May 24 by Mr. Bowe, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. Vote 5-0.
2. 37 Colburn Road
Open the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by David Wall for
the Town of Reading Under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, §
40 and/or the Reading Wetland Protection By-law, Section 7.1, The applicant proposes to
Page 1 1
remove part of the current house including the foundation and old deck, then build an addition
with a full foundation on the right side of the house with wrap around deck. Most of the work is
within 100-foot Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. The application and plans can
be viewed during regular business hours at the Town Hall Conservation Office, 16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867, and on the Conservation Division page under current project. Assessors
Map 39 Lot 54 RCC File No. 2023-10
Mr. Wall reviewed proposed project, accompanied by Ms. Wall. Mr. Wall confirmed for Ms.
Moore that a dry well was to take runoff from the roof. Mr. Bowe reviewed what a group of
Commissioners saw on a site visit. Noted debris beyond property wall —yard waste, leaves and
such, remnants of above-ground pool, plastic pots, bricks, etc. Would like to see removed. Did
seem overall as if construction far enough away from wetlands. Mr. McCants asked based on
his site visit if white drainage pipes in existing retaining wall would be altered by the project;
Mr. Wall said no. In response to question from Mr. Bowe, Walls indicated willing to remove
debris beyond property wall in wetlands area. Mr. Bowe indicated probably a good time to do
now because not fully vegetated yet; also noted specific locations of various types of debris.
Mr. Wall indicated could remove in coming weekend. Mr. McCants also encouraged removal of
kids' toys he saw in wetlands area. Walls agreed.
Mr. Sullivan asked about stockpile area for construction. Mr. Wall indicated while not noted on
plan, planning to put as close to front of property as possible, as agreed by Commission, with
driveway preferred.
Mr. Tirone reiterated would be good to gather debris right away, as Walls indicated, because
area will soon "leaf out," and removal would become more difficult. Mr. Tirone would like to
see silt sock switched out with mulch sock, and if contractor can bear it being closer to the
work, that would be ideal. Mulch sock preferred because at end of project, just slice the
webbing and use mulch in gardens. Mr. Wall agreed. In response to clarifying question from Ms.
Moore, Mr. Tirone drew suggested line for mulch sock on project map displayed for meeting.
Mr. Wall agreed.
Ms. Moore expressed concern about whether vote should be for an NOI rather than an RDA.
Explained that with NO1 would usually get a stamped plan from an engineer, and Walls did
submit that. With RDA, limited to number of conditions Commission can put on the plan. So Ms.
Moore asked members of Commission for their views: need to bump to NOI from RDA due to
number of conditions? Mr. Dribin first noted that based on project map appeared part of
wetlands extended into yard as "Existing Grass Yard." Mr. Wall confirmed. Discussion by
members who had visited site, concluding that skunk cabbage had been on other side of stone
wall, not in grass yard portion. Mr. Dribin said would like to see wetlands vegetation growing in
that portion of applicant's property rather than grass. Ms. Moore asked Walls who owns
property on other side of stone wall where debris is. Mr. Wall confirmed stone wall is property
boundary; he and Ms. Wall gave informed speculation as to who owns property on other side of
wall. Mr. Bowe, returning to "original question," said given the Walls willingness to do debris
cleanup right away, comfortable staying with as RDA, as those would be his main conditions.
Ms. Moore, returning to Mr. Dribin's point, indicated Commission would normally like to see
"native vegetation, and not just lawn" all the way up to the 25-foot line. Ms. Moore stated, "For
existing properties we don't ask people to fill that entire 25-foot line, but I think [Mr. Dribin]
really does have a good point[.]" Ms. Moore asked Walls if willing to put some native wetland
vegetation in that back part of yard. Noted that Mr. Tirone has information on the website
Page 1 2
about vegetation could choose from. Walls said had "no issue" with that. Mr. McCants
indicated it is "great" if homeowner willing to do so, but Commission should be careful not to
implicitly assume that homeowner had converted this from wetland vegetation to grass, as we
don't know how long the grass had been there. Ms. Moore indicated not making that
assumption; e.g., property wall may have indicated how big "someone' thought that lawn
should be, "which is why I'm not suggesting we fill in all the way up to the twenty-five foot
line," but "something to ease that transition back there[.]" Mr. Tirone indicated he appreciated
Mr. Dribin's point. Mr. Tirone noted one would typically not see lawn in a wetland resource
area but can imagine homeowners would not have known of boundary if bought property in its
current condition. "I also think it's a good idea to reclaim some of that, if not all of it. The
vegetated area." Mr. Tirone asked Commission to define what looking for re native vegetation.
Mr. Dribin said area delineated as wetlands, flags 5A through 3A, needed to get wetland
vegetation growing in there, with discretion to owners as to particulars. Ms. Moore gave as
example proposal, "Two trees and six shrubs, something like that?" Spread out in a way the
homeowners liked, then present a planting plan to Mr. Tirone? Walls indicated amenable to
such. Planting scenarios then discussed. Mr. McCants liked Ms. Moore's description of the
wetlands portion evolving naturally from grass over time, with planting of appropriate trees
and shrubs as a foundation; felt this was a good compromise versus having to fill in grassed
wetlands area immediately. Mr. Dribin also expressed support for Ms. Moore's proposal. Mr.
Talbot said if homeowners were going to leave grass in wetlands area, should not treat with
herbicides, etc. Mr. Rodolakis indicated given how close plantings would be to house, maybe
avoid some of taller tree species, could see that being a problem down the road. Ms. Wall
thanked Mr. Rodolakis for suggestion.
Motion for NDA by Mr. Bowe. Seconded by Mr. Dribin. Mr. Tirone described conditions before
vote: two trees and six shrubs, mulch sock, cleanup of debris, construction stockpile on
driveway. Mr. Tirone added should try ferns with shrubs and trees, "try to create a habitat." Try
to improve on the lawn. Would work well even with stone wall in between — herbaceous layer,
shrub layer, and tree layer. Reminded Walls this is a wet area, so will have to find plants that
are tolerant— look to list. Ms. Moore wondered if, as a condition, planting plan can be run by
Mr. Tirone accordingly? No objections heard to any of the proposed conditions. Vote 5-0. Ms.
Moore then noted Commission had not voted to close the hearing. Motion to close hearing by
Mr. Bowe. Seconded by Mr. Dribin. Vote 5-0. Ms. Moore noted Commission had now taken
both required votes on the matter, even if not in usual order.
3. 37 Covey Hill Road
Open the Public Hearing on a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Michael
Rishton Under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, § 40 and/or the
Reading Wetland protection By-law, Section 7.1, The applicant proposes to remove the existing
12'x20' deck and replace it was an 18'x22' deck on existing lawn. Seven footings will be placed
for support, spoils will be removed from the site, erosion control fencing will be installed and
the driveway will be used for access and stockpiling. All of the work is within the Buffer Zone to
a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. The application and plans can be viewed during regular
business hours at the Town Hall Conservation Office, 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867, and
on the Conservation Division page under current project. Assessor's Map 38 Lot 48 RCC File No.
2023.11
Ms. Rishton indicated appearing for her parents. Reviewed proposed project. Indicated a typo
on the plan, should be 16'x22' not 18'x22'. Was originally 20'x12'; increasing size of the deck to
be more safe. Mr. Bowe reviewed what a group of Commissioners saw on a site visit. Looked at
Page 13
land between stone wall and stream with Mr. Tirone, using auger. Measured from proposed
deck to stream. Did discover land just beyond stone wall is in fact wet. Noted a few areas with
significant leaf deposits. Ms. Moore measured from deck to stone wall as 39 feet; closest the
wetland line would be to the proposed deck. Noted a garlic mustard invasive on part of the
property (used shed on map as reference point to specify location). If homeowner had interest
in keeping out, this was the time of year to pull. Mr. McCants noted yard very flat, which can be
helpful in preventing some adverse effects from such projects. Mr. Dribin said proposed project
seemed straightforward, but for any future projects on other side of wall, careful delineation
important. Ms. Moore asked Mr. Tirone if he thought mulch sock or other erosion control
needed for project? Mr. Tirone asked how footings would be installed — dug and poured or
precast, and what machinery used? Ms. Rishton says believed just dug and poured. Mr. Tirone
noted such results in very local disturbance, so if want erosion control, recommend straw
wattle or none; if erosion occurred and he noticed could ask to install then. Mr. Tirone
indicated likely would only occur if lengthy project. Ms. Moore comfortable with having erosion
control at request of Mr. Tirone if felt needed. Ms. Rishton also fine with that. Ms. Moore
noted, then, that fencing referenced on plan will not be necessary.
Mr. Bowe wanted condition that pile of leaves to right of property/closest to house be
removed; need not remove entirely to bare ground but get down to point showing more
decomposition. Ms. Rishton noted leaves do get burned when it is the proper time per Reading
guidelines. Ms. Moore recalled for Ms. Rishton a tree where base buried by leaves, can lead to
rot, etc.; most important areas to focus on, then, are where have leaves piled up against tree
trunks. Mr. Tirone asked if Commission had a timeline for removal of leaf debris; helped to
understand if inspection needed, etc. Mr. Bowe suggested two weeks. Ms. Rishton was
agreeable. Mr. Tirone indicated would include that as part of final inspection. Motion to close
hearing by Mr. Bowe. Seconded by Mr. Dribin after he clarified with Ms. Moore garlic mustard
removal not an additional condition, but a recommendation/educational. Vote 5-0. Motion for
NDA by Mr. Bowe. Seconded by Mr. McCants. Vote 5-0.
4. 2 Maple Street
Open the Public Hearing on a Notice of Intent, filed by John Sideropoulos, Pursuant to
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40 -the Wetlands Protection Act and/or the
Reading Wetland protection By-law, Section 7.1, for the Construction of a stone patio and
placement of a utility shed, all of the work is within a Buffer Zones to a Border Vegetated
Wetland. The application and plans can be viewed on the Conservation Division page under the
current project, Assessor's Map 16 Lot 111 Dep File No. 270.0748
Mr. Cowell introduced self as "Senior Wetland Scientist" appearing with applicant Mr.
Sideropoulos, and described a "very small-scale project with a big request for waivers from the
35 -foot no disturb" due to lot size and configuration. "It's a fairly modest house on a fairly
constrained lot due to size." House and yard constructed in 1950s, so "existing nonconforming."
Noted small part of the house structure itself is within 35 -foot zone, as it was built prior to
passage of Wetlands Protection Act ("WPA," in 1972) or subsequent Town bylaw/regulations.
Backyard maintained as turf lawn since 1953. Noted zoning setbacks affected choice of
stonescape patio proposal rather than deck, as originally intended. Mr. Cowell indicated
proposed project "fairly minimalist" when considered interests of wetland protection and what
scale of work is. No grading needed due to flat topography, etc. Proposed using semi -pervious
stone. Applicant would consider pervious pavers if Commission so desired. In a "hard place" re
location of the shed. Logical for Commission to ask why so close to wetlands. Described how
other locations considered and rejected as impractical. Noted, e.g., various zoning setback
Page 14
requirement issues. No grading required in proposed location for shed, no removal of native
vegetation. Considered with applicant what may offer in terms of compensatory mitigation. Mr.
Cowell said Mr. Tirone visited site with applicant and him "about a year ago." Mr. Cowell said
not much to offer on lot itself; however, do abut Town conservation land. Pointed on map to
area of Japanese knotweed. Asked if Town would consider some mitigation commensurate with
size of the project. Noted square footage of proposed patio and shed. Also noted on map, trail
access near the property, off Maple Street. Recalled Mr. Tirone noted this was a site for some
illegal dumping, Mr. Sideropoulos had installed a camera on property, and Mr. Tirone
wondered if applicant could share video of people coming and going if are doing any dumping.
Mr. Cowell said applicant had noted, though, that Town had since cleared some vegetation in
entrance area, and since then he had not observed dumping. Mr. Cowell said could, in the
alternative, remove invasive species in trail entrance area and plant new vegetation.
Mr. McCants commented on what saw during his site visit as consistent with what described in
proposal. Looking at local regulations (i.e., Reading Wetlands Protection Regulations (RWPR),
Sec. 2.E), as Mr. Cowell described, applicant considered if other reasonable conditions or
alternatives (Sec. 2.E.S.a), proposed mitigating measures (Sec. 2.E.l.b), and Mr. McCants
quoted from Sec. 2.E.l.c: "In the case of owner occupied single or two family residences,
mitigation which improves the resource area quality may be considered to accommodate the
public interest." Not sure monitoring of a camera would necessarily improve resource area
quality as described in the local regs? Removal of invasives seemed perhaps more consistent.
Mr. Bowe commented on dumping; saw on site visit for this matter it is better than used to be,
but some dumping still occurring. As for shed, recognized constraints described for property,
but believed alternatives exist. Could adjust size of shed and could move even if required
getting variance from zoning board; from Commission perspective, better party got a variance
from them than from us. As for mitigation, intrigued by proposal to do something with
invasives, would need details. Noted Japanese knotweed is persistent. One-time treatment
wouldn't cut it; like to see something longer term. Mr. Cowell said would ask applicant if could
live without shed, before going to zoning process as that can be "somewhat draconian." Could
explore reduced footprint for shed. Didn't do ecological restoration plan yet. Wanted to open
public hearing first and get feedback from the Commission. If proposal not viable, could spare
applicant that expense; if at least entertaining the proposal, could move forward with such as
appropriate. For example, not sure what terms would apply if restoration on Town property.
Would prefer to do work at trailhead versus, e.g., Japanese knotweed area. Mr. Bowe said
proposed shed location is a "non-starter" for him. As for patio, could see way to approving if
sufficient mitigation. Hope to see applicant come back with a plan, and if plan is sufficient, then
could consider as mitigation for the patio, but not shed. Mr. Cowell said this is the type of
feedback he was hoping to get from the Commission during this hearing.
Ms. Moore noted that skunk cabbage is an indicator species for wetlands, located wetland Nag
line during site visit, significant skunk cabbage within that line. So when delineated? Mr. Cowell
said "done late summer." Then checked plan and saw delineation done 11/19/2021, so relied
on soils rather than vegetation. Ms. Moore noted that "at the moment" where shed is located
on the plan, there are "two skunk cabbage leaf clumps." So agreed with Mr. Bowe not an
appropriate place to put a shed. Mr. Cowell asked about prevalence of skunk cabbage, whether
a dominant species. "It's dominance of wetland vegetation" that matters, he said. (And see,
e.g., WPA regs Sec. 10.55(2) and RWPR Sec. 12.1). Said happy to revisit site to check re
dominance. Ms. Moore recommended checking in two corner areas by wetlands flags A100 and
Page 1 5
A104. Memory was pretty heavily skunk cabbage. Ms. Moore said two clumps in area where
applicant wanted to place the shed would probably not count as dominant, in the way Mr.
Cowell explained. Mr. Cowell said relied on soils before, but with vegetative emergence could
recheck delineation. Ms. Moore said agreed with Mr. Bowe that would want to see shed moved
outside of 35 -foot zone. Ms. Moore also noted portion of proposed patio within ZNV. Mr.
Cowell asked for explanation of difference between 25 -foot ZNV and 35 -foot zone. Ms. Moore
said, "35 -foot we generally consider to be no structures. Patios count as structures. So we'd
need to be talking mitigation for the patio even within the 35 -foot zone." Mr. Cowell said re the
25 -foot ZNV that he would ask Commission to consider, again, property is existing non-
conforming. "Even if we don't do the patio, you're not losing any native vegetation." Ms. Moore
said even with mitigation, reluctant to have a structure go into the 25 -foot zone. So asking if
applicant would consider a smaller patio accordingly. "Could be a 12' x 30' patio rather than an
18'x 30' patio," for example. Mr. Cowell drew on project map to "see what a possible 25 -foot
line would do." Thought applicant would still want patio squared off and not an awkward
configuration. Could talk about bringing edge back if allow some "encroachment" to allow to be
squared off.
Mr. Talbot asked what foundation of shed would be, and how runoff would be handled. Mr.
Sideropoulos, prompted by Mr. Cowell, said shed would either be on blocks or footings, one on
each corner. "It would be off the ground roughly 6 inches to a foot." Mr. Cowell noted because
raised, water would still be able to infiltrate underneath it. Some discussion of stormwater
implications — Mr. Tirane said dry well requirement had not previously been applied to a shed.
Mr. Cowell said would be "draconian" to do so. (Neither Mr. Tirane nor any Commissioner
made such a proposal.) Ms. Moore suggested shed could readily fit between house and fence.
Mr. Sideropoulos noted "we have windows right there" on side of house. If place outside of 35 -
foot zone, windows would be facing the side of the shed. Willing to look at reducing the size of
the shed. Trying to be as accommodating as possible. Don't know if putting shed right next to
house would be feasible for the applicants. And don't know if Town (other authorities) would
allow it. Mr. Cowell said "will go back to the drawing board," bring back in his surveyor re what
other local requirements may pertain—building and zoning codes.
Ms. Moore wanted to know what other Commissioners thought about her proposal to make
patio smaller and avoid 25 -foot area. Mr. Dribin said he understood applicant's interests and
challenges, "But given the regulations, from our point of view as the Conservation Commission,
and the way we treat most of these projects, what you're asking, unfortunately, is for a
variance, there's no way around it. It's not going to happen within the current regulations." Mr.
Dribin said he shared Ms. Moore's concern about size of the patio; try to keep it out of the 25 -
foot ZNV. If applicant wanted the shed, seemed to Mr. Dribin like window -side was best option.
Proposed size of patio seemed to be asking for a lot, given size of yard. Open to mitigation
proposals that improved adjacent Pinevale. Mr. McCants quoted from the RWPR, Sec. 3.D.1,
"Bordering any wetland, the Commission may require a Zone of Natural Vegetation (ZNV)[.]"
Emphasized, "Commission may, not must." True may do that in most cases but want to be clear
not mandated. Look at property holistically, and ask what's the effect on resource area,
"because that's what we're here to protect, that's what the buffer zone is all about." Mr.
McCants noted that property is small, flat, and has turf grass. So when it came to the patio, he
felt differently than others; patio may look big compared to house but this is a very small
property. If patio surface pervious rather than semi -pervious, didn't see how that would have
negative impact on adjacent wetlands compared to existing turf lawn. Mr. Cowell agreed with
focus on protecting wetlands interests and named most of them (see WPA regs Sec. 10.01(2));
Page 1 6
Reading General Bylaw 7.1.1); asserted in this case that current grading and absence of natural
vegetation did not raise such concerns. Mr. Sullivan agreed with other members who would like
to see proposed patio reduced to stay outside of 25 -foot line. Remembered a project from
"way back" when a house had a deck that extended slightly past 25 -foot line; recalled granting
permission with some additional mitigation, through variance process. Mr. Dribin noted in
response to Mr. McCants that turf grass is organic and does create a habitat, so it is different
from an ecological point of view than pervious stone. Emphasized concern is with adjacent
wetlands habitat. Mr. Cowell stated that as an ecological restoration specialist for over twenty
years, did not see any benefit from turf lawn vs. pervious patio re nearby wetlands habitat. Mr.
McCants said reads WPA regs, RWPR, etc., as balancing interests, including those of the
property owner (see generally, e.g., Massachusetts Declaration of Rights—Article 10). Mr.
Dribin said true of his approach as well.
Mr. Bowe noted extensive exchange of views and proposed continuance of hearing if applicant
willing. Mr. Cowell responded favorably. Asked for continuation to next meeting, though would
reserve right to ask to further extend as needed. Ms. Moore would like applicant to consider
possible mitigation plantings along edge of property adjacent to wetlands. Mr. Tirone said if Mr.
Cowell proposing a pervious patio, would like attendant groundwater analysis. Mr. Cowell said
could do himself. Mr. Tirone also noted that nearby entrance to Pinevale is "historically
abused." To stop that from happening would be a "big benefit" appreciated not only by
residents but anyone walking on those trails. Would ask for homeowner to make a
commitment to monitor that area after the project work (once approved) is done. Walk out
from time -to -time to check for debris. Mr. Cowell open to a monitoring period of, e.g., two
years; would be "draconian" if "in perpetuity." Mr. Tirone said not suggesting that, nor two
years, as that was up to Commission; Mr. Tirone agreed with Ms. Moore's interpretation that if
entrance made to look better, more likely to stay that way. Motion to continue hearing to next
meeting by Mr. Bowe. Seconded by Mr. McCants after confirming that no member of
Commission had supported shed in current proposed location. Vote 5-0.
S. Meadow Brook Access Easement vote
Tabled to May 10, per information from Mr. Tirone. No vote required.
6. Order of Conditions 270-0711 extension request for the Eaton/Lakeview project
Mr. Akerley described extension request, e.g., final landscaping on townhouses/Eaton portion
of project; Lakeview project has "not really begun yet." Mr. Tirone then reviewed pictures from
site provided by applicant; assessed as "kept up well." Ms. Moore asked Mr. Tirone for opinion
on whether site visit needed before a vote. Mr. Tirone noted his office has been managing with
Mr. Akerley and developers. Mr. Bowe confirmed had gone to site with Mr. Tirone at one point
at request of developers to assure on right track. Mr. Tirone noted disturbed area is protected
by a retaining wall, and nothing happens beyond that wall, so did not think additional site visit
necessary, but would defer to Commission. Mr. McCants noted did recently visit site — could
access townhomes area; Lakeview site was fenced off. Mr. McCants noted provisions of WPA
regs. Sec. 10.05(8) regarding extensions of OOCs. Information provided addressed most items,
leaving item described in Sec. 10.05(8)(b)(5), i.e., is resource area delineation still accurate,
given passage of time? (See also RWPR Sec. 7.E.2.) Mr. Tirone explained in detail there had
been no movement of resource area toward project area. Mr. Bowe had questions about
specific description/scope of the Lakeview project in the plans. Answered by Mr. Akerley, Mr.
Tirone, and Mr. Manganiello, the latter affirming project proceeding as originally approved by
Commission. Mr. Bowe confirmed with Mr. Akerley extensive drainage plan, etc., for Lakeview
Page 1 7
project yet to be constructed. Ms. Moore asked when is plan to remove erosion control for
townhouses project? Mr. Tirone responded retaining wall doing its job, so next time erosion
control deteriorated, applicant could put in request to remove (e.g., slice sock, spread out
mulch, remove silt fence). Ms. Moore explained interest behind question came from seeing a
property elsewhere in Town in which silt fence had not been removed for decades. Motion to
extend OOC for three years from current expiration date by Mr. Bowe. Seconded by Mr.
Sullivan. Vote 5-0.
7.Old/New Business
270-0345 Certificate of Compliance request (COC) 11 Pondview Lane, Carter
Mr. Tirone indicated Town confirmed did accept detention basin, so Town's responsibility to do
any maintenance. Installation process for last wetlands boundary marker in progress; when
that's done, all set. Mr. Tirone will go out to confirm as appropriate. Awaiting letter confirming
responsible party is Town. Once have that, will have all needed to say yes to Certificate of
Compliance. Ms. Moore asked about debris removal. Mr. Tirone understood that to be done
already.
Violation Notices, yard waste and encroachment on Conservation land, New 26 Henzie 30,
Henzie 34, Henzie, 126 Hanscom Ave, Follow-ups 30 Chequessett, 25 Baker, 22, 8, 14, Oakridge
Street, 38, 34 Bond,
Mr. Tirone indicated did check out 44 Eastway with Mr. Bowe and Ms. Moore, wanted to give
Commission opportunity to understand project, that homeowner Carlo Casciani appeared to be
in complete compliance with enforcement order sent by Commission about cleaning up debris,
etc.
8. Discussion Items
a. Correspondence -None
b. MACC Environmental Conference, Mr. Bowe ready to report, but tabled to a future meeting
given length of this one.
c. Enforcement-, 445 Pearl St., Brian Bowe (no update)
d. 60 Terrace Park Dog fence letter: Per Mr. Tirone, no answer to letter. On list to visit site to
see if any action taken. Ms. Moore explained factual context for newer Commission members
(electric dog fence encroaches on Town land/trail to Kurchian Woods). Mr. Tirone posted map
on screen for reference. Homeowner required to come before Commission but did not do so.
Mr. Talbot noted likely shocking hazard for dogs being walked on trail. Mr. Dribin asked what
else could be done to secure compliance? Mr. Tirone said his approach at this time to be more
persistent re contact. Mr. Bowe offered to assist. Mr. Tirone shared photo of property and
immediate area.
-- As a general discussion item, Mr. McCants referenced Sec. 1 of the RWPR, on when and how
the RWPR can be amended, such as to "formalize actions that the Commission has taken to
address recurrent issues [and] to clarify the language used in the regulations[.]" Proposed
adding this to a meeting agenda in future as time allowed (i.e., formal discussion followed by
action items). Mr. Tirone advised Chair could approve proposal without a vote. Ms. Moore said
okay to add, so long as to a future meeting without too many hearings. Mr. McCants affirmed in
discussion with Mr. Tirone not looking for full overhaul of regulations, but some
"housekeeping" for clarity. Mr. Rodolakis raised various preliminary questions regarding
process. Mr. Tirone said wanted to talk to appropriate people in Town government before
deciding how Commission would approach this. Mr. McCants re -referenced the language in Sec.
1 and noted it looked fairly simple in that context, as written anyway.
e. Conservation/DPW Monthly Meeting May 2
Page 18
9. Administrators Report: Friends and Family Day discussion: Ms. Moore noted still looking for
other Commission members interested in volunteering time (so far volunteers include Ms.
Moore, Mr. Bowe, Mr. Tirone, and Mr. McCants); would be glad to have you join us.
10. Bills approved, None
11. Minutes for approval: 1/25/2023, 2/22/2023, 3/22/23,4/12/23
Motion by Mr. Dribin to accept the 3/22/23 minutes submitted by Mr. Bowe, seconded by Mr.
McCants. Vote 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn at 9:46 p.m. by Mr. Bowe. Vote 5-0.
Page 1 9
