Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-21 Conservation Commission Minutes1. SdON READING CONSERVATION COMMIS Meeting No. 26 Minutes of December 21, 1994 PRESENT: Josh Drexler (7:15); Nancy Eaton; Harold Hulse; Joan Nickerson; M. Clifton Proctor (until 12:20); and Leo Kenney (until 12:20); Conservation Administrator, Donald Nadeau; and Recording Secretary, Elizabeth McDonough ABSENT: James Biller, Chair, Stephen Chapman, Vice-Chair The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. with Mr. Hulse acting as Chair in the absence of the chair and vice-chair. APPROVE DRAFT MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2 AND NOVEMBER 16 1. The November 2, 1994 will be discussed at a future meeting. 2. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVED THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1994 AS CORRECTED. VOTED - 4-0 Ms. Nickerson informed the Commission that because she would be traveling, this would be her last meeting. The Commission expressed their regret, and thanked Ms. Nickerson for her long years of hard work and dedication to the Conservation Commission. 7:20 P.M. ADMINISTRATOR°S REPORT: Mr. Nadeau commented on the following items being distributed: 1.) Building Inspector's letter to Greenhouse Acres dated December 2, 1994, regarding requirements for structural soundness in building #S as well as other corrective work. 2.) A review by Town Engineer, Joseph Delaney on the as-built plans for Nugent Lane. 3.) A response to the violation notice at 25 Brook Street. They intend to comply. 4.) Reports on the recent site visits made by the Commission. 5.) Boiler plate draft Order of Conditions for 200 Grove Street. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: 1.) Ms. Eaton distributed a pamphlet on Dealing with Chapter 61A. She commented that a for sale sign was now up for the Longwood Poultry Farm which is a Chapter 61A property. 2.) Ms. Eaton said that she was looking for two individuals to represent the Open Space Committee and asked the Members to consider becoming a member. No commitments were made. 3.) Mr. Nadeau wants to check on the conflict between evaluating wetlands on the site while having the option of first refusal as there may be a perceived conflict. 4.) Mr. Nadeau stated that there are two properties that would be reviewed as part of the Open Space Plan. He suggested that a recommendation on these be made. READING CONSERVA77ON COMMISSION 12121194 2. The new Town Engineer, Joseph Delaney, was introduced to the Commission by Mr. Nadeau. 7:30 P.M.: PUBLIC HEARING - 311 HAVERHILL STREET Tabled until the arrival of the Town Manager who was at another meeting (see 7:46 P.M.) 7:31 P.M. NUGENT LANE Mr. Delaney stated that he had reviewed the as-built drawings for the driveway crossing into the two house lots. He stated that: 1.) The plans show a drain main hold with two pipes coming in and one going out. The plans include inverts of both pipes as they come in and out of the manhole. However, the as-built only shows one invert in the drain manhole; therefore, he could not figure out the slope of the individual pipes or whether they are adequate to handle the flows. 2.) The design drawings called for a 2 1/2" pipe and the as-built shows 2 1/4" pipe. 3.) The design drawings showed a pipe slope of 4.2% for the 12" reinforced concrete pipe under the driveway. The as-built plan information indicated that the pipe could not have a slope of more than .125% . Mr. Delaney requested hydraulic comparisons between the original plan and the as-built plan. Mr. Drexler asked Mr. Delaney to look at the grading of the drive on the original plan versus the grading as completed. 7:46 P.M.: PUBLIC HEARING - 311 HAVERHILL STREET RGB# 1994-33 DEP# XXX Representing the applicant, the Town of Reading, was Town Manager, Peter Hechenbleikner. Mr. Hulse opened the Public Hearing at 7:46 P.M.. Also present were William Jennings, Joseph Delaney, Town Engineer and Attorney Brad Latham. The Town of Reading is seeking to alter and replicate an intermittent waterway, bank and bordering vegetated wetland to culvert a drainage ditch that accesses 311 Haverhill Street. Presentation: Mr. Hechenbleikner stated that the Town was requesting an easement over the property in order to maintain the drainage pipe. Mr. Delaney explained that runoff currently drains through an open ditch, through a small culvert, and out into the wetland. The Town is requesting, he explained, to install a 15" reinforced concrete pipe within approximately 104' of the ditch. They would also replace 21' of the existing 6" corrugated metal pipe with a 15" reinforced concrete pipe. Rip rap and headwalls would be installed around the outlet of pipe. The Town is also proposing to replicate the wetlands. The existing wetland species would be removed and replaced along the back strip of the lawn in the location adjacent to the existing wetland. Discussion: 1.) The Commission inquired about piping rather than an open ditch. Mr. Delaney explained, and Mr. Hechenbleikner agreed, that it was being requested for maintenance purposes. Ms. Nickerson stated that thisprocedure was contrary to the Commission's culverting policy to the past. She also was concerned with the quality of water running off of the parking areas. READING CONSERVATION COMMISSION 92121194 3. 2.) Mr. Kenney expressed concern about siltration passing through the culvert into the wetland. Mr. Hulse commented on possible pollutants coming from the parking lot. Mr. Nadeau said he would prefer that the runoff from the parking lot go through the vegetation. He also suggested a catch basin cleaning maintenance schedule for Haverhill Street. 3.) The Commission expressed concern for the wildlife habitat. Mr. Nadeau reported that Gary Sanford, Sanford Ecological Services, studied the area for wildlife habitat. His report indicated that the small area did not indicate a significant number of species. The bank is just about devoid of vegetation except for annuals which are disturbed by DPW during maintenance. Mr. Nadeau commented that there are two strips of silky dogwood within the banks. The remainder are in the bordering vegetated wetland. Mr. Kenney agreed that the bank probably is not significant, but could be used for migratory animals. Mr. Nadeau advised the applicant that the physical stability of the banks is not to be impaired. He also said soil borings had been done for the bank which indicated that there was 3-6" of soil, and unconsolidated sand and gravel for the entire reach of the boring. The Town is seeking a waiver of the 2 to 1 requirement because of the small size of the wetland. The hearing was continued to January 4, 1995 in order to get a DEP The Commission requested that the wetland line be flagged. Mr. Nadeau stated that he would draft the Order of Conditions. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 4, 1994 AT 7:30 P.M. VOTED 5-0 8:50 P.M. VIOLATIONS - 21 KEITH ROAD 25 BROOK STREET 256 GROVE 21 Keith Road Administrator's Report A violation of the wetlands protection law was observed by the Administrator at 21 Keith Road and a Violation Notice had been issued to the property owners on December 5, 1994 for. removal of vegetation, trees within the buffer zone of a waterway bank and a bordering vegetated wetland. The upstream wetland appears to be a flow through channel. Presentation: Marilyn Dragone, property owner, was present to address the Commission. She stated that she was not aware that this area was a wetland. She stated that the location on the Assessors plot plan of an easement on the property did not match the location on her plan. Mr. Nadeau informed her that she would have to discuss that matter with the Town Engineer. Ms. Eaton summarized the December 17, 1994 site visit report at which she, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Drexler, Ms. Nickerson, Mr. Kenney and Mr. and Mrs. Dragone were present. The homeowners were advised of the procedure for filing an application. READING CONSERVATION COMMISSION -'2!2'!94 .4. 25 gook Street - Administrator's Report: A violation was observed by the Administrator at 25 Brook Street and a Violation Notice had been issued to the property owners for: removal of vegetation; machinery grading within the buffer zone and possibly within bordering vegetated wetland and bordering land subject to flooding. The violation was the result of attempts to clean up debris from the former land owner. A couple of trees had been knocked down by machinery. According to the homeowners, the grade had not been changed. Ms. Eaton summarized the December 17, 1994 site visit report at which she, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Drexler, Ms. Nickerson, and Mr. Kenney were present. Deliberation: The Commission requested the homeowners to file for a Request for a Determination in order to establish the wetland line as well as to establish the existing ZNV. 256 Grove Street Administrator's Report: A violation was observed by the Administrator on November 15, 1994. A Violation Notice had been issued to the property owners at 256 Grove Street for: disturbance and fill on embankment beyond work limit line set by Notice of Determination issued on September 10, 1993, RGB# 1993-14. Mr. Nadeau stated that: 1.) The contractors had pulled back the backfill which had been spilled onto the on the embankment. 2.) Hay bales had been replaced along the top of the slope (not yet staked). 3.) The debris had been removed from the slope, and the slope had been covered with straw. 4.) The area will be reseeded in the spring. Mr. Nadeau stated that he was satisfied with the completed work. Mr. Nadeau explained that the current plan, with the house rotated so that the addition would be in the front, situates the home further away from the wetland than the original submitted plan. The impervious area had increased with the higher roof line, but the footprint remained the same. Discussion: Ms. Eaton had noted that the applicants had not submitted an engineering plan which the Commission had requested they do at an earlier hearing. She also summarized the The December 17, 1994 site visit report. Mr. Drexler noted that the original filing on January 27, 1993 requested renovations. However, under 20% of the original structure still existed. He expressed his dissatisfaction and stated that they applicants should have come before the Commission with a request for new construction. Mr. and Mrs. John Powers, applicants, agreed that only a small part of the original structure was still standing. However, they strongly expressed the fact that the former Building Inspector did not advise placing the requested renovations on the existing foundation. The applicants said that they were not informed that this would require another hearing before the Conservation Commission or new construction. READING CONSERVA77ON COMMISSION 12/29194 Sally Hoyt, representing the applications, stated that the applicants had asked for her advice since she had once been a member of the Commission. Since the applicants had sold their home, she requested that the Commission consider granting an Occupancy Permit. The Commission agreed. The Commission requested the following of the applicants: 1.) 1 to 20 engineer-stamped existing plan of property with proposed work. 2.) 1 to 20 as-built plan. 3.) Place hay bales in line and backfill.. 4.) Stake hay bales. (NOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO ISSUE AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT CONTINGENT UPON THE AS-BUILT PLANS BEING RECEIVED BY FEBRUARY 15. VOTED 5-0 10:00 P.M. PARTIAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE-LOTS 1 2 NiJGENT LANE: Construction of Mitigation Measures (Ref: DEP# 270-243) RGB# 1992-24 Presentation: Chris Nugent was present to address the Commission. He stated he was seeking a Partial Certificate of Compliance, all zoning code issues had been signed off, and they wanted to close the issues on Lots 1 and 2. Administrator's Report: Mr. Nadeau reviewed the mitigation: 1.) Work in the detention area and the replication area has been completed, the crossing has been replanted. 2.) The pine trees that had been cleared have been replanted. 3.) The silt fence was not in the right place, but had been restored to its correct location. The Administrator stated that he was satisfied with the results and recommended that the Commission issue a Partial Certificate of Compliance for the mitigation construction. He also informed the Commission that the flow-through system needs to be addressed. Discussion: The Commission needs to ascertain whether or not there is an easement with the Town on pipes under the driveway crossing. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO ISSUE A PARTIAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR LOTS 1 AND 2 N`UGENT LANE,.DEP# 270-248, RGB# 1882-24. VOTED 5-0 READING CONSERVATION COMMISSION- 12121194 6. 10:30 P.M. PLAN CHANGE - LOT 20, CARRIAGE ES IATES 11 DEP## 270-238, RGB# 1991-10 Administrator's Report: Mr. Nadeau reviewed Lot 20 Carriage Estates 11. He stated that it is over 25' from the wetland, and is within the work limit area. The footprint, instead of being 50' from the wetland as shown on the footprint is actually 42' from the wetland. Mr. Nadeau recommended that the Commission approve this plan change. Discussion: James Douglas, applicant, reviewed the waterline crossing and the waterline easement for the Commission. Mr. Drexler stated that all issues raised at the previous meeting had been taken care of. Ms. Eaton suggested that the applicants inspect the erosion on the sidewalk at the end of Roma Lane. With respect to the grading plans, Mr. Kenney suggested keeping as much natural vegetation as possible in the work line. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO ISSUE AN INSIGNIFICANT PLAN CHANGE FOR LOT 20 CARRIAGE ESTATES 11, DEP# 270-236, RGS# 1991-10. VOTED 4-0- 10:4+0 P.M. ENFORCEMENT ORDER - GREENHOUSE ACRES 51"e,) DEP# 270482, RGB # 1987-3 Administrator's Report: The Building Inspector's letter December 2, 1995 stated that excavation to the rear of the Building #8 results in a problem with means of egress, and must be corrected immediately. Distributed in the Members' packet were copies of Certificates of Occupancy for 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 14A, 14B, 14D, 14C, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 24, 24B, 24C, and 24D Carnation Circle. A site visit was made on December 17, 1994 with Mssrs. Biller, Chapman, Drexler, Eaton, Nickerson, and Kenney in attendance. Also present, representing the site, were Mssrs. McNeil, building and Wood, attorney. The items mentioned in the site visit report were reviewed. Presentation: Robert McNeil, builder; Sterling Wall, Senior Project Manager, Glen Wood, Environmental Attorney, Peter Duncan and Russell Tanger, site workers were present. Mr. Wall reviewed the as-built plans and proposed schedule, He stated that it was the applicants' intent to deal with the issues noted at the site visit as well as the superimposed topographic. READING CONSERVATION COMMISSION 12121194 7. Mr. Wall outlined the following issues: Building #2: 1.) Upon completion of the work requested by the Building Inspector, the silt fence will be put back in place. 2.) Erosion control issues, silt fences, and hay bales that were in state of disrepair have been corrected. Buildings #4 & #8: Request made to construct the wall along the 20' setback line and then back into the alignment that was shown on the original S4 plan to reduce the amount of fill behind #4. Mr. Nadeau stated that the wall behind #8, as shown, may come into the ZNV, and the Commission would have to agree that it would be acceptable. Building #22: There was one additional wall that was shown on S4 that had not been constructed. The applicant's requested the Commission's approval not to build that wall as they believe there is no need for it. The area has been graded, and vegetation had re-established itself. Mr. Nadeau stated that that would be a deviation, and the Commission would need to decide on that issue. Impervious Areas: Buildings #16 & #18: Mr. Wall stated that the impervious areas are irregular in terms of edge treatment in the area between #16 and #18. There is a 35' setback from the 25' buffer zone. He stated that this issue would be best addressed with the submission of a formal as-built plan. Buildings #14 & #16: Mr. Wall reviewed the locations of the bituminous surfaces which had been constructed. He stated that there is an additional setback for the required buffer zone. He stated that, in his opinion, the surfaces not constructed should not be constructed. Between Buildings #12 & #14: Mr. Wall described the proposed location of the original edge of the pavement. He stated that if there is going to be additional removal of the bituminous area where it leads up to certain stairwells that he would recommend that the Commission allow a hard surface, in the form of a sidewalk, for ease of access. Administrator's Report: Mr. Nadeau stated that a stop-work order was in place. He recommended the the requirements for the applicants be done in the form of an Enforcement Order. He stated that the Order of Conditions approved the buildings; however, it did not show what was on the S4. Also, all structures were to be put over 20' or at the 20' line from the BVW. There was an exception for #12. He believes they made the intent. REARING CONSERVATION COMMISSION 12121194 8. Slope Between #12 & #14: Applicants proposed a 2 to 1 slope between #12 &#14 which would be vegetated or rip rapped. An alternative suggested by a Member of the Commission was to construct a stone retaining wall to avoid the 2 to 1 slope. Mr. Nadeau commented that in order to maintain a 20' vegetated strip, it could not be rip rapped. Pavement Between #2 & #4: Applicants proposed to build according to S-4. As the pavement is within 20'. Pavement - Building #2: Mr. Kenney stated that if there is a proposal for a replication, he would like to see the asphalt paved and a tree screening along the edge of the pavement in order to keep vehicles from entering the wetland. Wall - Building #12: Mr. Nadeau commented on a request made by Mr. Wood for permission to push the wail at #12 five feet further to the buffer zone. It was suggested that this may be considered in exchange for the right to work on #'s 2, 4, & 6. Mr. Wood stated that a detailed plan and a restoration plan would be submitted. He commented that there are opportunities for wetland replication. Mr. Drexler complimented the efforts made by the applicants. The Commission requested that the applicants return to a future meeting. The applicants stated that they could return on January 18 with a substantial progress report. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED THAT AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER BE PREPARED, WITH SPECIFIC DATES ATTACHED, FOR ENDORSEMENT AT THE NEXT MEETING. VOTED 5-0 MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED THAT THE COMMISSION VOTE TO ALLOW THE APPLICANTS TO PROCEED WITH WORK AS DISCUSSED AND TO REMOVE ANY THAT WAS VOTED TO AT A PREVIOUS MEETING SUBJECT TO THE TIME LINE. VOTED 4 -0-1 (Mr. Proctor and Mr. Kenney departed at 12:20 P.M.) READING CONSERVATION COMMISSION --'x'/94 OLD/NEW BUSINESS: 200 Grove Street The Draft Order of Conditions for 200 Grove Street was reviewed. The Order stated that the only activity proposed in or within 25' of the wetland will be the removal of introduced debris without removal of naturally occurrent materials. MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR 200 GROVE STREET AS PROPOSED. VOTED 4-0 Response to Appeal - 26/32 Summer Ave. DEP# 270-263 MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO HAVE THE CONSERVATION COMMISSIONER SIGN A RESPONSE TO APPEAL ON 26/32 SUMMER AVENUE, DEP# 270-263. VOTED 4-0 MOTION - A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO ADJOURN AT 12:30 P.M.. VOTED - 4-0 Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth C. McDonough Recording Secretary READING CONSERVATION COMMISSION --12129194