HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-10 Conservation Commission MinutesMinutes of the Reading Conservation Commission - January 10, 2001 1
Minutes of the Conservation Commission U fliN CLERK(
R ADIHG, MASS.
Town of Reading
Selectmen's Meeting Room 2001 FEB 2G A 11' 12
Wednesday, January 10, 2001- 7:00 pm
Present: Nancy Eaton, Chair, William Finch, Thad Berry, Doug Greene and Patricia
Lloyd, Commissioners; and Leo Kenney and Harold Hulse, Consultants
Absent: Mark Gillis and Vincent Falcione
7:00 PM - Certificate of Compliance, Minor Plan Change, Release of $500 bond,
DEP 270-297, RGB 1998-03, 659 Haverhill Street, John Edson.
The Chair explained that what is usually in an engineer's letter is on the plan. She had
him calculate the impervious total for addition of circular driveway. House has been done
for a while; just seeding, stabilization and driveway were remaining. Pat Lloyd moved
and Will Finch seconded a motion that the Commission issue a certificate of compliance
and determine an insignificant plan change for addition of the circular driveway. Vote:
5-0-0 in favor. Will Finch moved and Doug Greene seconded motion that the
Commission approve the release of the $500 bond. Vote: 5-0-0 in favor.
7:10 - Minutes - Doug Greene moved and Will Finch seconded a motion to approve the
Minutes of June 7 and July 12 as amended. Vote: 5-0-0 in favor. Doug Greene moved
and Pat Lloyd seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of June 21 and December 12
and 20 as drafted. Vote: 5-0-0 in favor.
7:20 PM - Old/New Business. Update on Beaver Dam - Chair referred to Fiore's e-
mail update on the Beaver Dam issue. Leo says that means can't drink but ok to wade in.
DEP #270-284, RGB #1996-06 - 8 Strawberry Lane - Nothing new to report.
Exchanged phone messages but haven't reached Dave Johnson directly.
DEP #270-303, RGB #1998-13 - Harold Avenue, Lot B. Will Finch moved and Doug
Greene seconded a motion to extend the Order of Conditions for DEP #270-303, RGB
#1998-13 Harold Avenue, Lot B, from June 26, 1999 to June 26, 2001. Vote: 5-0-0.
DEP #270-295, RGB #1997-26 - Sunset Rock Lane. Will Finch moved and Doug
Greene seconded a motion to extend the Order of Conditions for DEP #270-295, RGB
#1997-26 Sunset Rock Lane from January 12, 2001 to January 12, 2002. Vote: 5-0-0.
DEP #270-317, RGB #1999-13 -12 Timberneck Drive. Will Finch moved and Doug
Greene seconded a motion to extend the Order of Conditions for 12 Timberneck Drive
from May 25, 2000 to May 25, 2001. Vote: 5-0-0 in favor.
Minutes of the Reading Conservation Commission - January 10, 2001 2
7:30 Continued Public Hearing - DEP # 270-342, RGB #2000-39, PRD off Fairchild
Drive/Van Norden Road. Applicant requested the Commission to continue the hearing
until January 24 to allow it to complete material requested to be submitted. Will Finch
moved and Doug Greene seconded a motion to continue the Public Hearing until
Wednesday, January 24, 2001 at 8:00 PM at the request of the applicant here in this room
with no further notice to abutters. Vote: 5-0-0 in favor.
Minor Project signoff - 102 Sanborn Lane four dead trees. Chair was on site. Three
years ago former Administrator Don Nadeau approved topping two trees. Now applicant
wants to cut them down instead of topping because infested with carpenter ants.
Recommended Bruce MacKenzie be given permission to remove three trees to ground
level and topping the one closer to wetlands. May, for cost, only remove the two trees
with carpenter ants at this time. Will Finch moved and Doug Greene seconded a motion
to approve the Minor Project signoff. Vote: 5-0-0 in favor.
30 Harrison Avenue - This parcel is adjacent to Memorial Park. There is a stream
headwall exiting from this location that is blocked with boards to flood the area every
winter. Open deck will be removed. New addition will come out 1 Meet further from
where deck is now. If measured from rear corner of existing structure, distance to
wetlands is 102 feet. If measured from the end of the deck, it is 96 feet to the wetlands.
Technically if something has a roof, the administrator cannot sign off on it. Doug moved
and Will seconded a motion to approve the activity as a minor project. Vote: 5-0-0.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS: 27 Brewer Lane - There is an existing porch at rear of
structure. Proposed work calls for the existing deck to become an addition and there will
be a new deck off of that. Wetlands are to rear up to stonewall in back, 48 feet to newest
addition closest point. This proposed work is all within developed lawn area. Applicant
also mentioned he would want a barn later, building in undisturbed land. Commission
wants him to file and give notice to abutters.
DEP #270-336, RGB #2000-16 - 54 Zachary, a.k.a. Lot 19 Carriage Estates - The Chair
explained she had received a call from William Bergeron, Hayes Engineering, and the
location of the proposed infiltration chamber had too much ledge to install. She gave
permission to move into driveway as field change but requested him to document the
activity in a letter to the Commission.
7:45 PM. The Town Planner has requested us to hold a Joint Workshop meeting with
the Community Planning Development Commission (CPDC) re: Fraen, 80 New
Crossing Road. Their parking lot is flood plain. They own several acres on opposite
side of Walkers Brook which as a result of the last Order of Conditions (OOC) agreed to
enter into a Conservation Restriction, demolish a paint shed and restore the disturbed area
to a natural condition. The Commission issued a Certificate of Compliance for their first
activity. Work under the second OOC is outstanding, but has expired under local. They
have a plant down south somewhere and office space in Wakefield. They have always
been concerned whether conservation restriction would impact on future activity and have not signed the draft. Now they want to cease manufacturing operations, tear down
Minutes of the Reading Conservation Commission - January 10, 2001 3
the plan and build an office structure. Anne Krieg wants to hold series of workshops to
get proposals and abutters in to discuss proposal in advance. She proposed the dates of
February 21 or March 7 at 7:30. Majority of those members present could attend on
March 7. Eaton will inform Krieg.
7:50 PM - Board of Selectmen - CPA Roundtable. Will Finch updated
Commissioners on the Community preservation Act Roundtable. The meeting started
with a presentation of open space plan. That Task Force requested a letter of support from
Board of Selectmen to submit to state. The group then discussed the proposed legislation
and whether to proceed with Town Meeting and Referendum vote in Reading. Eaton said
the bottom line, some people opposed to going forward with Act. Others are in support
of going forward. Selectmen are going to put on subsequent agenda and decide on the
appointment of a study committee. Town meeting would have to approve by February 27
for referendum election in April. That is a short time frame to educate community on the
complex legislation. Town. Planner proposed a timetable to go on fall town meeting
warrant and election the following spring. There are 76 communities over last 8 years
who have been petitioning the legislature for this legislation and Eaton said she is sure
they will jump on board quickly.
Open Space & Recreation Plan - Drafts of the Plan were previously distributed. The
Task Force will meet to make revisions, based on input, next week, then distribute.
The Chair's only recommendation for change is that tax title parcels transferred to
conservation and other department jurisdiction be updated. The Commission also
discussed handicapped accessibility to the various Conservation Areas. The Board of
Selectmen oppose the strong language that the Town pass the Community Preservation
Act and would like it toned down to study whether to pass the CPA.
Pat Lloyd moved and Will Finch seconded a motion to write a letter of support for the
plan as drafted on November 17, 2000. Vote: 5-0-0 in favor.
8:00 ANRAD - DEP #270-344, RGB #2000-51 Walkers Brook Drive - delineation of
resource areas - former landfill. The Chair read rules of hearing and order of
testimony. Attendance sheet was circulated. Anne Krieg, Town Planner, joined the
Commission.
Attorney O. Bradley Latham and Dave Pickart presented for the applicant. Attorney
Latham requested that the Commission as part of ANRAD determine the limits of
previously developed riverfront area. He believes we can because the purpose of the
ANRAD is to identify items that would impact on development plan. Regulations
indicate purpose of code to assist in determining what area is to permit project to succeed
and is consistent with purpose to designate what portion is previously developed if the
Commission is provided with evidence.
Dave Pickart VHB, described changes to plan and letter he handed out in-response-to the - "
Chair's letter.
Minutes of the Reading Conservation Commission - January 10, 2001 4
Applicant has filed an abbreviated notice and asking the Commission to verify the limits
of wetland resource areas: limit of bank, limit of bordering vegetated wetland, limit of
land subject to flooding, limit of 200 foot river, 100 foot buffer, and limit of previously
disturbed riverfront area. Mr. Pickart explained boundaries of site. Flags that designate
bank are labeled wfb.
For the site, the wetland soils in upper point masks indicators to designate whether hydric
or not, so they relied on vegetation itself. Bordering land subject to flooding is limit of
100-year flood plain. BLSF areas shown in dark purple are thin strips along the resource
area. The elevation of 100-year flood drops as it goes along site and ranges from 190.8 to
190.4 down to 190.25.
At the site visit the Commission asked to overlay expired wetlands determination
boundary on the site. Ninety percent of it is identical. A few areas in north and east are
different. Previous consultant caught edge of species of phragmites instead of top of
slope. The new field delineation forms submitted contain the same species listings as
previously, but the correct transect numbers have been added.
The Chair asked for results of test pits. Paul Ozarowski described the work and results
and submitted one copy of their report with plan and logs of each individual test pit.
Test pits and probes were done around perimeter of property with focus on Walkers
Brook. Explorations confirmed earlier extent of waste. Waste on top and on side of
_ bank. Waste up to top of bank and hand probes on west side did not encounter waste. In
northwest section, at least as far as previous line - hand probes confirmed waste exists
down bank. Explorations corroborated earlier findings that waste exists at least as far as
green line.
The Chair said if we decide to rule on previously disturbed, we need time to look at test
pit results before ruling. Attorney Latham countered that Mr. Ozarowski is saying extent
of fill is correct, it goes to edge of the stream and it should be sufficient to rule that the
previously disturbed area is right to that point. Parcel existed before 1996, so it qualifies
under Riverfront exemptions. Attorney Latham said he believed there was enough
information in the possession of the Commission to satisfy the regulations.
Eaton said she was concerned that the W plans identify approximate limit, and he's
asking us to establish specific limit and didn't believe the Commission did have enough
information. We're being asked to take on faith that some records that we haven't seen
tell us the line shown on the plans is where it is.
Will Finch inquired whether the other side of Walkers Brook been surveyed to see if they
cut stream through garbage? Attorney Latham said that was not part of ANRAD filing.
Eaton also noted previous delineation did not delineate side of the stream closest to
Walkers Brook Drive and the proposed line is new. Mr. Finch noted the state would want
the whole area to be capped and expressed concern about whether waste is stranded on
- - - the other side. Attorney Latham said that issue was still ahead-of us.
Minutes of the Reading Conservation Commission - January 14, 2001 5
Assistant Town Manager stated there is a level of acceptance by DEP that that is the
likely limit of landfill.
Eaton said she doesn't think the regulations allow the Commission to make the
determination of previously disturbed riverfront area under ANRAD. If they did, she
feels we still don't have enough info to make such a decision. Attorney Latham urged
that the area shown in the filing and testimony tonight as to what they've looked at is
sufficient and stated that DEP accepted that limit as well. Eaton asked if there was a
document saying DEP has accepted this limit. That would be relevant information but
has not been submitted to the Conservation Commission. She stated there is a difference
between setting a real limit and an approximate limit. She noted there is community and
abutter concern didn't want to create an appeal situation where factual information could
be presented easily.
Thad Berry said CDM must have gone out and tried to delineate fill and although they
listed it as approximate limit, isn't it true that no one can say definitively what edge is?
When CDM said "approximate," did it really mean to the best of it's engineering
judgment?
Ozarowski testified - except for three hand probes, all of explorations encountered solid
waste. Information was previously provided to DEP prepared by Camp Dresser McKee
and Haley & Aldrich and DEP agreed with comprehensive site assessment in its approval
letter. That information is a part of a longstanding record.
Mr. Berry said he always saw term "approximate" for before capping and an as-built had
more determinative decision in case fill was found a foot or two further. Mr. Ozarowski
said any plan based on borings a few feet apart has to be approximate. Contractors will
only know once they get out there and do the cap.
Nancy asked for copy of the DEP letter saying that limit had been accepted? Ozarowski
said DEP conditionally approved the site assessment. Russ Dean, the Assistant Town
manager, said the Town got a letter and will give copy to us if we need it. Eaton said it
would be needed before the Public Hearing closed in order for the Commission to
consider it.
Eaton stated you are asking us to approve limit of waste, yet shows it going under Ford
128 building. What is going to happen in that area? Attorney Latham said they were
only looking for a limit of waste line within Riverfront Area.
Will Finch and Thad Berry they are satisfied that fill goes to line shown on the plan. Mr.
Berry said he appreciated the effort to go back and check. Mr. Finch said he also can
understand why some details left out in filing. Doug Greene suggested there would have
been wetland vegetation if it was undisturbed and those areas now show disturbed
vegetation.
Minutes of the Reading Conservation Commission - January 10, 2001 6
Eaton said this filing was for an abbreviated notice of resource area and felt determining
previously disturbed area wasn't part of ANRAD filing but should be done as part of the
- notice of intent when more information was available. Attorney Latham urged that they
needed the ANRAD to determine what we know to be resource areas, including limit of
fill. Our determining that issue is part of the purposes. If one looks at the riverfront area
regulations, that item is listed. There was no public comment.
Will Finch moved and Thad Berry seconded a motion to close the Public Hearing in this
matter. Voted: 5-0-0 in favor.
Will Finch moved and Thad Berry seconded a motion to approve the limits of resource
areas of bank, bordering vegetated wetlands, riverfront and flood plain as shown on plans
EV-1 and EV-2 dated December 8, 2000, revised January 10, 2001. Vote: 5-0-0 in
favor.
Will Finch moved and Thad Berry seconded a motion to delineate the limit of disturbed
riverfront area as shown on W-1 and W-2 plans dated December 8, 2000. Vote: 4-1-0,
Nancy Eaton opposed.
8:45 Public Hearing - DEP #270-XXX, RGB#2000-52 Ashley Place Extension -
Ranger Development Corp. Proposed construction of subdivision consisting of 450 feet
of roadway, eight single family houses and stormwater management area. Tony
Capachietti and Peter Ogren were present from Hayes Engineering and David Murray
from Ranger Development Corporation.
Attendance sheet was circulated. Copy of site notes given to applicant. Public hearing
rules were read by the Chair and witnesses were sworn.
Mr. Capachietti explained the site and where houses placed. The Stormwater
Management Area is within 100 feet. The site is located north of Fairchild Drive with
Reading Open Land Trust property to the east and Town conservation land to the north.
Lots 7, 6, 5, driveway lot 4, lot 3, 2, and 1 are located within buffer zone and driveways
on 2,4, 6, 1, the water is pitched down gutter line in road, collected in basins and routed
for treatment and drainage.
Doug Greene believed they should indicate where additional drainage swales will be in
response to site walk for individual lots. Mr. Capachietti provided additional info in
response to Nancy Eaton's letter. In addition to the memo from the Town Engineer, there
is a faxed memo addressing the issues raised by Delaney. They requested permission to
enter buffer zone and conduct test pits suggested by the Town Engineer.
Walkways were not shown because they are not in the buffer zone but 500 square feet per
lot was added to drainage calculations to account for any walkways and stairways.
Minutes of the Reading Conservation Commission - January 10, 2001 7
Runoff - small water quality swales would treat driveway water. Spread out to preserve
natural flow path of the water and mimic existing conditions.
Vernal pool should be mapped. Mr. Ogren said the upper edge of vernal pool is
approximately 15 feet off property line and he made sure in designing the project there
was no activity within 100 feet. Appropriate paperwork was forwarded to Natural
Heritage and Mr. Ogren presented a copy of certified mail slip. Eaton noted that included
in their filing is a copy of the Order of Resource Area Delineation showing the vernal
pool limits were not delineated. She stated enough evidence was to support the
designation of a vernal pool, but applicant decided not to delineate. No determination was
made by the commission. Eaton also entered copy of site notes, the January 4 town
engineer memo, memo by Mr. Capachietti and memo submitted tonight (including
attached documents. Eaton said the Commission would also be offering our standard list
of documents relating to buffer zone protection.
Mr. Capachietti said at the request of the Town Engineer he had changed the curve
number for the woods from poor to fair. Eaton asked whey he didn't use good condition.
He believes it is a small change, using 55 for woods good, 60 woods fair, 66 woods poor.
Capachietti said there is a small area of trees with little understory. For land conditions,
he said they divide woods up into different areas of fair and poor condition. As far as
watersheds, he picked directions that flow naturally. However, here there is a cone, so
water could flow either way, will come around, so he can't divide it in half. Commission
expressed concern about water flowing to the west for existing and post development
conditions and how to divide the site for calculation. He suggested along the ridge line,
but will balance it out.
Eaton noted on the stormwater management form, they checked off % inch of runoff for
treatment and is concerned if that is the right number because of the proximity of the
vernal pool and whether it should it be one inch instead.
Mr. Ogren said he understood it was agreed he would go out with administration and look
at location of vernal pool and used highest point, staying 85 feet off of property line, so
there was no need to delineate the limits of the pool. Still, he said, the stormwater
management area doesn't discharge into vernal pool. It discharges onto applicant's
property.
Leo Kenney said he was confused by their suggestion that left slope of property has less
water drainage post development and asked whether there shouldn't be the same before
and after development.
Mr. Ogren said the design closely mimics existing. The runoff calculations are close, 150
versus 160. They used a weighted curve number; area in acres times curve number. Two
parameters that determines runoff are curve number and area. Post development is 1/16th
less. He stated the watershed is large and this site is only dealing with small portion and
Leo Kenney noted each piece of additional development has an incremental effect.
Minutes of the Reading Conservation Commission - January 10, 2001
John Fairchild of 1166 Main Street said he is a direct abutter and he will sue if retention
pond is put in. He brought pictures to show what happens to his property when it rains. If
put one gallon more of water goes into the brook, he said he will sue. He did not know
the date of photos or the date of the storm results shown, but it was only a one- or two-
inch storm event. He had three sump pumps running. Water from ice pond comes through
underneath. Stream goes from Northeast to Southeast, underneath culvert and toward his
property and is culverted underneath Main Street. There is a flow problem. Three
retention ponds go to one brook and that goes onto his property. Mr. Fairchild
complained that DPW had done nothing in response to his complaints. Will Finch asked
if blockage of water was happening under Main Street. The culvert may be too small.
No further public comments were made.
Nancy Eaton gave applicant a copy of a letter she wrote on behalf of the Conservation
Commission to planning board regarding the subdivision filing. The Conservation
Commission now controls the property to north and is requesting access to the site be
provided. According to the Town Planner, it will be before CPDC on January 22 at
8 PM.
Eaton said she wanted further comments from the Town Engineer and asked applicant if
they wanted to hold the hearing open until after the CPDC meeting, and they did.
On form 3, question c3, applicant checked neither box. Mr. Ogren said they don't know
and are waiting to get information back from Natural Heritage. He requested an
extension to February 7 at 7:30 PM. Thad Berry asked when test pits will be done and
whether they would have the results before February 7th. Eaton asked what size
equipment would be used and what will be the impact or damage to the environment.
Mr. Ogren said the test pit locations were more than 50 feet from BVW. Two tests will be
done in the. pocket wetland with a maximum of four on site. Thad recommended
someone from staff be there. Eaton said Jack from engineering is licensed for soil and
can ask him to be present. She will send message to engineering requesting he be on site.
Will Finch moved and Thad Berry seconded a motion to continue the Public Hearing to
February 7, 2001 at 7:30 PM at the request of the applicant with no further notice to
abutters. Vote: 5-0-0 in favor.
9:45 PM -Miscellaneous - DEP will hold their on site visit on the appeal for the new
elementary school on Tuesday, January 30 at 11:00 AM.
A copy of the new town counsel's monthly newsletter was distributed. The first item
introduces a new attorney joining the firm. She has an MS in Forestry and
Environmental Studies and is a former counsel at DEP and is on her town's conservation
commission. Now, we can't contact directly, but requests go through town manager in an
effort to control costs.
Minutes of the Reading Conservation Commission - January 10, 2001 9
Proposed Grant Application. Eaton said she attended a meeting with the ATM and
Kim Honetschlager, Chair of the Open Space & Recreation Committee where they
discussed a two-town application for grant money. N. Reading wanted signage program.
Grant criteria is focusing especially on river connections. Proposed cost of signage
$5,000 and that's total grant allotment. Proposed location on land in our jurisdiction. We
have received no further information but ATM is handling. Commission took no action.
Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Commission, on
motion duly made and seconded the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy L. Eaton, Chair, from notes taken by Commissioner Patricia Lloyd