Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-11 Conservation Commission Minutes1^FJVED CLERK Minutes of the Conservation Commission H Town of Reading 2001 JUNI 15 11: 25 Selectmen's Meeting Room Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 7:00 pm Present: Chair, Nancy Eaton; Will Finch, Doug Greene, Pat Lloyd, Vincent Falcione (till 10:20 p.m.) and Thad Berry, Commissioners; Leo Kenney and Harold Hulse, Consultants; Conservation Administrator Fran. Fink Absent: Mark Gillis, Commissioner 7:10 p.m. - meeting was called to order 7:12 p.m. - Draft Order of Conditions, DEP 270-349, RGB 2001-06 518 Summer Ave., Paul Foley. After discussion and revision of the draft, Patricia Lloyd moved and Doug Greene seconded a motion to approve and issue an Order of Conditions for DEP 270-349, RGB 2001-06,518 Summer Avenue, as amended. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 7:25 p.m. - Draft Order of Conditions, DEP 270-346, RGB 2001-03, 87 Walker's Brook Drive, Motiva Enterprises. After discussion and revision of the draft, Doug Greene moved and Vincent Falcione seconded a motion to approve and issue an Order of Conditions, DEP 270-346, RGB 2001-03, 87 Walkers Brook Drive, as amended. Vote: 6-0 in favor. Commission discussed how to deal with garbage in wetland. Applicant claims they cleaned it up. Discussed issuing an enforcement order if still a problem. 7:50 p.m. 15 Tennyson Road, DEP 270-347, RGB 2001-10 - Robert Given, Jr. After discussion and revision of the draft, Vincent Falcione moved and Doug Greene seconded a motion to approve and issue an Order of Conditions for DEP 270-347, RGB 2001-10, 15 Tennyson Road, as amended. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 8 p.m. Bobbi Botticelli - 268 Franklin Street, here on behalf of daughter and son-in- law. Under Order of Conditions there have to be two lots with a cul-de-sac there. She's going before ZBA and wants to change because don't need cul-de-sac for one house. Wants to put in additional driveway instead of clearing land for cul-de-sac and is applying for a variance on the frontage. She requested Conservation's support before ZBA. Will Finch moved and Thad Berry seconded a motion to send letter in support of granting a variance from 100-foot frontage requirement to remove cul-de-sac and replace it with driveways. Applicant will need to file for a plan change or request an Amended Order of Conditions. Vote: 6-0 in favor. Fairchild Drive/Van Norden Road - PRZ - Proposed construction of two access roads, and six single family homes. Will Finch moved and Vincent Falcione seconded a motion 2 to continue the Public Hearing until May 23 at 7:30 p.m., at the request of the applicant, > with no further written notice to abutters. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 8:20 p.m. Continued Public Hearing - DEP 270-345, RGB 2000-52, Notice of Intent, Ashley Place Extension - 10-lot subdivision. The Chair read the hearing procedure; an attendance sheet was circulated; members introduced themselves; and witnesses were sworn. Tony Capachietti, Hayes Engineering, said the latest set of plans were approved by CPDC, which required changes. Mr. Delaney, Town Engineer, was supposed contact Conservation. Mr. Delaney sent a memo. Site visit notes were reviewed. Three changes were made on plans: 1) detention basin moved, 2) Vernal pool flags removed, and 3) Break in stonewall was added. Reconfiguration house placements to create public access to conservation land and generally keep the 100-foot buffer. They eliminated stone water management swales at end of individual driveways; but otherwise, the remainder of the drainage system is similar. The Conservation Administrator reviewed her memo identifying issues. Capachietti said during the March 23 storm event, water came up to elevation 207.7. He doesn't think that reflects vernal pool upper limits. He felt the bylaws set that limit at the average annual limit of high water of such depressions. State regulations were silent. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species vernal pool fact sheet was entered. He believes the Wetland Protection Act refers back to section 10.57(2)(a)(6) and that boundary is that certified by Heritage. He quoted calculation procedure. He also presented decision from other DEP case where DEP ruled in favor of lower boundary. At elevation 205.3 there was staining on the stonewall. Other boundaries are close to control structure. A little higher, as expected, in the field. Submitted pages of report that are relevant and a copy of the DEP decision. Fran continued with her report concerning drainage issues. No new test holes were done but she doesn't anticipated problem. Commission discussed the spillway section, 12-inch depth of riprap using varying sizes to allow them to interlock. Plan specifies weight of rock. Thad Berry agrees with applicant's vernal pool, but not the buffer zone. Berry was also concerned that on lot 6 and 5, grading goes up to stonewall. He feels uncomfortable about doing work so close without hitting wall. Relationship between ledge and wall makes it too close. Chair expressed concern that break that exists in the stone wall doesn't match up with proposed access. Discussed moving the access to the abutting conservation land. There were concerns about trying to move and rebuild the stone wall and discussed rebuilding it by hand to make it look the same. Capachietti said moving the road would make buffer zone less than 100 feet from wetland line. Berry asked if it could be moved. Capacitate said if they remove the contiguous curve, they would lose the 80-foot frontage requirement. Applicant suggested granting an access easement over a portion of Lot 5 to the Town for public access. Berry said on lot 5, he never saw grading like that. He inquired about the ledge, drilling and blasting to get foundation in. Developer said he will drill at base and pop section moving toward house, not toward the stonewall. Discussed intent of riprap on lot 3 is proposed to maintain 100-foot setback. Lot 2 and 5 proposed structures are extremely close to limit of activity and erosion controls. Chair asked how they could do construction without violations. Developer said he could do most of construction from the front. The Chair commented that silt fence already seems to run along stonewall. Discussed saving large trees on lot 6. Survival in doubt. Can we save trees along stonewall by pulling footprint of house back? There are large oaks along the stonewall. Discussed changing garage to front rather than on the side, and moving the structure at least. 15 feet from stonewall. Chair said this Commission has never had separate NOIs on each lot, but applicant could come back with proposed plan changes for any lot. Vincent Falcione asked who will do maintenance on detention pond. Applicant said they were granting the Town a drainage easement and the town is accepting responsibility. Discussed areas were large trees could be saved. Discussed vernal pool high water definitions and protection of habitat within 100 feet. Applicant will revise plans and show large trees along limit of activity and modify access easement area. There were no comments from members of the public. Will Finch moved and Vincent Falcione seconded a motion to continue the Public Hearing until April 25, 2001 at 8 p.m., at the request of the applicant with no further written notice to abutters. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 9:30 p.m. - Continued public hearing - DEP 270-329, RGB 1999-42, Notice of Intent, Lot 198, Harvest Road, single-family house, driveway and utilities. Hearing procedure was read, an attendance sheet circulated, the commission introduced and witnesses sworn. Tony Capachietti, Hayes Engineering, presented the plan. Applicant Presentation: An 800 square foot home is proposed. The arrows for water flow in the stream are reversed on plan. Channel is man-made and carries drainage. House construction occurs within 25-foot buffer. Doesn't feel significant impact. Arborist report feels five trees can be saved and one tree would have to come down regardless of construction of house. Another house on a parallel street is just as close to embankment. The Chair reviewed the project history when the NOI came before us some time ago. There werea number of continuances to get additional information and appear before _the_ Zoning Board of Appeals. Due to changes in make-up of Commission, a complete 4 Notice of Intent document was refiled under the existing file numbers. All documents from the previous hearings were re-entered. The previous zoning appeal and ZBA decision said the owner had to create one buildable lot from the two lots. That joining of two lots never took place. Later, Riverfront Act regulations changed exempted existing lots, but lot had not been joined, and therefore, wasn't a preexisting lot pursuant to exemptions under the riverfront regulations. Commission also looked at proximity with bank and disagreed with proposed wetland line and set it at the top of bank. Also expressed concerned about survivability of trees between bank and proposed structure. Site notes were entered as part of the record. Eaton said from personal observation there has been additional erosion of bank and additional undercutting of bank due to stream flow. No soils information has been submitted. Aug. 17, 2000 decision by ZBA. Applicant failed to attend that meeting and failed to contact Conservation Commission. So, ZBA voted to deny without prejudice. Attorney Consaul said whether or not the lot fell under River Protection Act, his position is that lot was in legal existence prior to RPA. Two lots have been held in common ownership in a deed since 1958, and he thinks would be sufficient. Deed description combines the two lots. He said he had had an opportunity to go before DEP on same issue and DEP found because together in one deed since 1960, considered it to be one lot. Judgment's only purpose was to make sure there was only one house built, not two. Also, he was unaware the soil information had not been submitted. He thought it was done last summer. Doesn't know what was submitted regarding soil observation hole. The Administrator said there is nothing in the file. Attorney Consaul said he was not available at the hearing in July for more recent ZBA decision regarding setback. Board of Appeals consensus was that applicant was premature in asking for relief. If Conservation Commission required setback to be closer lot line, ZBA would consider it when deciding if there was a hardship. Commission expressed concern regarding loss of tree canopy along the stream. Tony Capachietti said they could stabilize the bank if the tree were taken out. If tree is unhealthy, it is better to remove it before construction. Eaton entered the most recent USGS quad sheet showing the stream in this location is shown as a perennial stream. Conservation Administrator reviewed her memo. Overhead wire used to be cabled to a tree, but still criss-crosses the lot. Administrator said her feeling was that applicant had a chance to resolve ZBA issues but didn't. She said even if applicant got a waiver on setback from ZBA, applicant still for restabilizing bank. Whole stretch needs remediation. Plan has room for improvement. Tree damage is an obvious concern. Height of structure is issue if requires removal of 5 canopy. Nothing in plan for what area is proposed as lawn. Driveway surface material not discussed. Vincent Falcione said tree they are claiming is a hazard is not a hazard now as there is nothing for it to fall on. He can't see how the development of the site could do anything but kill off trees. Will Finch said he was not in favor of a waiver allowing encroachment into buffer zone and it is a question of maintaining consistency of decisions throughout town. Vincent Falcione asked if we should be proceeding further considering the wetland line is wrong. Doug Greene said we can set the resource delineation at top of bank and agreed with Vinnie about the trees. Pat Lloyd said allowing a waiver on buffer zone distance would invite requests for more requests and set a bad precedent. Christine Levesque of 33 Line Road brought in photos showing storm activity. Michael Levesque said there would be a problem if they take down trees. There will be severe bank erosion. There is no room for a house. Other house, more room between creek and house. He could see half the house in the creek. Asked if the creek was federally owned. Some sections are owned privately with the Town holding a drainage easement or are owned directly by the Town. - Paul MacDonald of 39 Line Road said that after the 15 months he's been coming to meetings, the applicant has failed to come up with things requested. They are proposing a 30-foot house next to 15-foot "camps". He said he had water in his basement. This project would have more water. This is the floodplain. All know problem with trees. Another structure with its associated runoff will increase the drainage problem. Dorothy Jones, who owns property, said she doesn't live there. She's had lots of water in her cellar as everyone has had. She's, owned the land for 40 years, yet is being governed by what she can and can't do with the land. She's tired of coming to the meetings. Neighbor beside the property cut down trees on his property. She'd like an answer. The Chair said the Commission can only decide based on what's proposed. We can't tell her what to do, but we only react and compare whether the proposed project meets the regulations. Mrs. Jones said when she purchased the land in the fifties, she was told it was buildable land and now it's not? Eaton repeated that we have to apply current regulations. There was no additional public comment. Attorney Consaul said he wants to put into the record the soil samples and would like an opportunity to copy the deed and DEP decision and present it. If we held to 35-foot setback, the house would be in the neighbor's yard and become an unbuildable lot. Would like brief continuance until next hearing. The Chair asked the Administrator to check with town counsel for advice. 6 Attorney Consaul said the Special Permit has expired and it was senseless to go back to Zoning Board of Appeals until conservation issues are resolved. Will Finch moved and Vincent Falcione seconded motion to continue the Public Hearing until April 25 at 9 p.m., at the request of the applicant, with no further written notice to abutters. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 10:20 Commission took a 5-minute break. 10:25 Request to amend Determination of Applicability, 23 Plymouth, Matrullo. The determination imposed setback for yard shed that can't be met. He asked for clarification. Extension of pavement will bring the work two feet closer to wetland. Shed will be placed as far as it can away. Eaton said her concern is administrative. There isn't a method to amend an RDA. This particular lot in the area of concern is already in a developed condition. Discussed correcting administrative errors in our decisions. Doug Greene moved and Will Finch seconded a motion to issue a correction to the Determination of Applicability regarding DEP 270-323. Vote: 5-0-0. 10:35 DEP 270-350, RGB 2001-12 Notice of Intent, lot between 51 and 67 Sanborn Lane, Single-family house. Hearing procedures were read, an attendance circulated, the commission introduced, and witnesses were sworn. Mr. Erickson presented for Norse Environmental stating they had modified the plan and moved the infiltrator trench. The intermittent stream, BVW, and floodplain are shown. Single-family dwelling and driveway is proposed. Included maps that don't show indication of streams. Also, took watershed area, below what's expected for perennial stream. Treated this as intermittent stream. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program suggested placing some logs along retaining wall for salamander habitat. . Eaton pointed out fee discrepancies and requested applicant and administrator resolve them. On the issue of stream status there is nothing shown on the USGS quad sheet but there is a channel shown on Town of Reading Waterways and Culvert Maintenance Map. The Chair reviewed and entered the site visit notes. The Administrator reviewed the items in her memo. Town topo maps show this area as having a stream. During discussion with Heidi Davis from DEP, she said there is a new way of testing whether a watercourse is a perennial stream. Mean annual high water levels on Ipswich River. Doesn't know if water on site was from Ipswich River or more local source. Driveway runoff doesn't go directly into wetlands. Discussed a stilling basin. Applicant could eliminate trench. Retaining wall not needed. It is more for a boundary beyond which future owners would not_disturb, _resource areas. -Hatching on plan is a_trench but-is-not shown in the legend. The Commission discussed other access. Applicant said he attempted to purchase from that direction, but no one wanted to sell. 7 The Chair reviewed the history of Sanborn Lane subdivisions and asked if this was a remaining parcel not developable at time of subdivision. Harold Hulse said it was a leftover parcel that belonged to Delmer Wellington and sold James Butcher in the late 1940s. Property around it was carved up and that property was left. Not part subdivisions by Rivers Development. Some years ago, parcel came up for sale. One of the landowners made an offer to sell for access, but price declined. Applicant agreed with Harold. Larkin & Larkin was involved before, but access didn't work out and they dropped the project. Administrator said in the Notice of Intent, applicant said lot was created after 1984. She will track down information at Town Hall. 67 Sanborn and subject land were one parcel 35 years ago, according to Mrs. Boviard. Applicant said he sent in a letter correcting error in NOI. No letter received from Natural Heritage yet. Thad Berry discussed infiltration rate. Applicant said to assume 10 minutes/inch percolation rate, but on trench they are using 2. Applicant will clarify numbers and get back to us. Thad Berry noted on driveway entrance, at very beginning, elevation grading change down to 77, falls right to wetland line. Impossible to construct. Along edge, what if built wall. Then the problem would be sewer line. May have to sleeve water or double sleeve the sewer. Doesn't show sewer invert. Jeff Hannaford of Norse Environmental Services. Will Finch noted problems with driveway in buffer zone. Even if no species of concern, they would still have a problem. Natural Heritage's previous letter is the strongest one he's seen from them. Doug Greene is concern about Heritage issues and the stream. Size of culvert on plans of Robert Anderson, original engineers of subdivision, is 2.3x2- foot box stone culvert. -Another plan shows 18 inch going in and 2 foot 3 inches coming out. Eaton said the size of the culvert is indicative of the amount of water flowing through the area. Harold Hulse asked whether their determination of watershed included both sides, or just one? Calculations include area on southern side of road as well. Pat Lloyd expressed concern that the driveway so close to protected area. Leo Kenney expressed concern about habitat for rare vernal pool species. Lot to right had substantial concerns with rare species habitat. Lot behind to right had to protect area with a Conservation Restriction of area as habitat. Will Finch noted that during flood events, water pools in this area. We don't see stream flow because backed up all the way to Sanborn Lane. Mrs. Boviard of 67 Sanborn Lane requested a copy of the plan. She's lived there 33 to 35 years. It was middle of August that it was a little dry. It was a brook and was called a brook. Since nursing home construction, it has dissipated the brook. There was running _water, and could hear it all suni er long._ She's _concerned about it_having such_a huge_ impact just for one home. The land in the back was also filled. 8 Mr. Griset, 68 Sanborn Lane, said he can't add much more, but knows when moved into z J their house, it was a stream and is a stream with activity of blue spotted salamander on his property. Frequency of salamander has diminished. There are a variety of turtles across the driveway and it is a very sensitive area. He noted it looked like a lake a few weeks ago. It is a very wet area there and he can't imagine a buildable lot there. Stream observations: he can't tell for sure of it dries up but it diminishes greatly in August to the point he can't hear it but doubts it's bone dry any time of year. Harold Hulse stated Collins Ave. ran a sewer line in back of Cedar Glen and filled in with crushed stone and it now acts as French drain, lowering the entire swamp. Used to ice skate all through there. That area dried up. Normal flow accommodated by regular small box culvert. Normally fairly wet meadow. Steve Chuha of 51 Sanborn Lane has only lived in his house for 2 % years. Can't say for sure if brook totally dried up, but he recalls hearing it all year round. He did buy the lot 15 years ago and was one of nicest lots in the subdivision. At the time, it was all considered useable land. During the approval process for his lot, he was kicking and screaming about regulations, but he now sees why they are necessary due to elevations of storm water. He did abide by rules and regulations. When he got the abutter notification, he couldn't believe it would get built considering what he had to go through. John Coots said it was probably not a buildable lot because doesn't have legal frontage. We need additional research on items Will Finch moved and Thad Berry seconded a motion to continue the Public Hearing until May 9 at 7:30 p.m., at the request of the applicant, with no further written notice to the abutters. Vote: 5-0 in favor. Old/New Business: Request to Amend Order of Conditions, DEP 270-323, RGB 1999-27, 908 and 912 Main Street. Mark Bergeron said the prospective purchaser wants to pave the driveway. The Chair stated Conservation was supposed to receive a Conservation Restriction and rear property not sold before Conservation Restriction was recorded. State claims they have no submissions. Someone else claims to own property that he wants to give to town, Lot 3. We need a separate Conservation Restriction on Lot 1, as there is now a new owner. The administrator said that is probably another CR that went to former town counsel but never came back. Eaton asked about the status of the drainage easement on Lot 2 and 3. Applicant is his partner, attorney Keith Miller, who has tried to straighten out CR, but thought easement was taken care of. We need photo for CR submission to the state. Eaton asked if we have any numbers on increase in impervious area if we allow paving of _ driveway. A berm is proposed_on right side to keep flow from _going -directly to the wetland. They will submit additional information and be on a subsequent agenda. 9 Administrator's Report. Governor's Road - Town proposes to move donated house onto town property. May have wetlands issues. Fran will look for file. Previous administrator flagged wetlands. Fran also gave site visit reports on 16 Catherine, and 9 Percy. She did soils with applicant at 1375 Main and the whole backyard on the adjacent property is wetland. New flags were hung and they are preparing updated plans. Historic District Commission asked to delay existing house being demolished. 30 Meadowbrook - minor project over 20 feet from wetland. 445 and 450 Grove Street is moving existing house to get another lot in. 538 Pearl, a couple of trees damaged by storm were approved for removal. Sunset Rock Lane behind Mola house, where there's supposed to be swale, yard was soggy and someone had cut notch to encourage water to flow causing erosion and sediment in drainage Swale. Big detention basin is okay. 75 Dana Road wants to do a front porch. There are wetlands behind house but more than 100 feet away. 32 Cross Street, the roof over the deck collapsed. Eaton said there were violations at 38 Cross Street and we need to issue violations or an enforcement order for installing fence installed without permission. Administrator will do site visit. On motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nancy L. Eaton, Chair, from notes of Patricia Lloyd, Commissioner