Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-02 Conservation Commission MinutesConservation Commission, March 2, 2011 MINUTES Reading Conservation Commission Meeting Selectmen's Meeting Room, 7:00 PM Wednesday, March 2, 2011 Present: Bill Hecht, Chairman; Annika Scanlon; Barbara Stewart; Tina Ohlson; Jamie Maughan; Brian Sullivan; Fran Fink, Administrator; Maureen Knight, Recording Secretary. Absent: Brian Tucker Call to Order, Old/New Business Parker Middle School, DEP 270-517, RGB 2007-31 Present: Ryan Percival, DPW Engineer Mr. Percival presented as-built plans and requested a Certificate of Compliance. Work has been completed. Although no changes were made to stabilize the land under the bleachers, berms were installed above the bleachers to direct flow into the paved channel. The catch basins have been cleaned out, and there will be on-going maintenance under the continuing conditions. Motion made by Ms. Stewart to issue the Certificate of Compliance with continuing conditions. Ms. Ohlson seconded. Vote was 6-0-0. Walkers Brook Drive DEP 270-363, RGB 2001-29 Present: Ryan Percival, DPW Engineer Mr. Percival presented as-built plans and requested a Certificate of Compliance. The plans do not show that flood storage was replicated, but Mr. Percival noted that the rim elevations for the drainage structures in the area are stated and are within construction tolerances. Motion made by Mr. Maughan to issue the Certificate of Compliance with continuing conditions. Ms. Ohlson seconded. Vote was 6-0-0. Memorial Park, DEP 270-546, RGB 2008 Present: Ryan Percival, DPW Engineer The Commission discussed how to control the release of water from the skating ponds this spring to prevent the unstabilized topsoil in the ponds from washing into the stream. Mr. Percival said DPW would open the control valves only part way to slow the discharge rate, and would monitor the flow and clean the sumps of the downstream control structures as needed. They would install filters at the inlet pipes if needed. West Street at I-93 Ms. Stewart reported that the swale next to the apartment complex is overflowing and flooding West Street. Ms. Fink will contact the Highway Department. 20 Chequessett Road, Enforcement Order They have not submitted anything yet. The Chairman will contact the owners. Conservation Commission, March 2, 2011 Mill Street beaver dam Health and Public Works from both Reading and North Reading have been invited to the March 16th meeting. To date, only the Conservation Administrator from North Reading has said she will attend. A reminder will be sent. 2 C Street The Commission reissued the Order of Conditions for recording purposes. 10 Pierce Street Plans for an 8-unit condominium were submitted to CPDC for site plan review. There are no wetlands involved. Ms. Fink sent comments on the drainage. 244R Ash Street Plans for an addition and parking lot expansion were submitted to CPDC for site plan review. This lot abuts the office park on Pond Meadow Drive, but there is no direct access. The lot is in the buffer zone and the project will require a Notice of Intent. Motion made by Ms. Ohlson to authorize Ms. Fink to submit comments to the CPDC. Ms. Stewart seconded. Vote was 6-0-0. 281 Main Street Plans for a dealership for electric and hybrid vehicles will be submitted to the CPDC, and a Notice of Intent will be filed soon. The existing building will be renovated, and the parking lot will be reconfigured. Public Hearing, Notice of Intent, David Lusk, 30 Gavin Circle, RGB 2011-3 The Commission reviewed the draft findings and conditions for the Order of Conditions. Mr. Lusk was in agreement from the previous meeting and did not attend this meeting. Motion made by Ms. Ohlson to issue the Order of Conditions with the findings and conditions as drafted. Ms. Stewart seconded. Vote was 6-0-0. Public Meeting, Request for Determination of Applicability, Route 28 (Main Street), MassDOT - Highway Division, RGB 2011-1 Present: Andrea Norton-Wenzel, MassDOT The Commission continued review of the Request for Determination filed by MassDOT. Ms. Fink reported that she had received a disk obtained by a resident of Main Street from MassDOT that contained site plans for work on Main Street in 1930 and 1931. Ms. Norton had referred to these plans during the previous meeting. The plans show both layout and profile drawings and state rims and inverts for many drainage systems and cross-culverts. Ms. Fink said there have been some changes since these plans were made, but that some of the drainage structures installed at that time are still present. A copy will be given to the Engineering Division. Ms. Norton s said there have been many alterations since then and she wanted to remind the Commission not to totally rely on them. Mr. Hecht acknowledged that the plans only provide baseline data. 2 Conservation Connnission, March 2, 2011 The Commission reviewed draft findings and conditions for the Determination. Ms. Fink noted that the proposed work clearly fits within the "redevelopment" definition in the DEP Stormwater Policy Handbook and recommended requiring drainage improvements to meet the redevelopment standard. Ms. Norton showed the Commission a different handbook entitled "The MassHighway Storm Water Handbook for Highways and Bridges" dated 2004, with a cover letter signed by the Commissioners of DEP and MassHighway. She referred the Commission to Table 2-2, which compares routine maintenance projects with redevelopment projects, and noted that both categories include "pavement resurfacing" and "reclamation". She said MassDOT considers this project to be routine maintenance, not subject to the stormwater standards. She also stated that hoods would be installed in existing catch basins. The Commission discussed the two categories on the chart. Ms. Scanlon asked for a continuation to allow time to get copies of the manual and review it. After further discussion, a straw pole was taken. Five Commissioners considered the project "routine maintenance" and one considered it "redevelopment". They asked Ms. Norton to provide a copy of the manual for future use. Ms. Norton and the Commission reviewed and revised the draft fmdings and conditions, and a set of maps to be attached, showing approximate locations of all wetlands along the roadway. Ms. Norton stated that the design engineers would check the conditions of all structures along the roadway, and document their findings in the contract book. A copy of the contract book will be provided to the Commission before work begins. Motion made by Mr. Maughan to issue a negative Determination of Applicability with the findings, conditions, and maps as revised this evening. Ms. Ohlson seconded. Vote was 5-1-0. FY 12 Budget The Commission reviewed and approved a proposal drafted by the Chair, to be presented to the Finance Committee on March 9 during their hearing on the proposed FY 12 budget for Community Services. Mr. Hecht has contacted the Chairs of the Council on Aging and the Board of Health to ask for their support for increasing funding for the three Division Heads positions that are proposed to change to half time, with the balance to be provided by a smaller cut in the Planning Division budget. Steve Oston, Chair of the Council on Aging, has stated that he supports the proposal, and he is trying to arrange a Council meeting prior to March 9 to get approval of the rest of the Council. Mr. Hecht hopes to hear from the Board of Health soon. Mr. Hecht will submit the proposal to Bob LeLacheur for distribution to the Finance Committee before their meeting, and to Peter Hechenbleikner for distribution to the Board of Selectmen. Wetlands Protection Bylaw and Regulations Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager, joined the meeting. The Commission reviewed a letter dated March 1, 2011, from James Bonazoli, Chair of the Board of Selectmen, requesting that the Commission review and revise the Wetlands Protection Bylaw and Regulations. The letter asks for a proposal from the Commission outlining a process and time line for review. Mr. Maughan reported on the meeting he had with the Town Manager, Community Services Director, and Conservation Administrator. Mr. Maughan suggested they form an ad hoc committee Conservation Conunission, March 2, 2011 to carryout the review and make recommendations to the Commission. He offered to act as Chair. He also suggested including one or two other Commissioners, past Commissioners, and also local lawyers, engineers, wetlands consultants, and developers with experience using the Bylaw. The committee could ask for public opinion through a survey and through one or more fact-finding meetings. Invitations could be sent to recent applicants, abutters to recent applicants, and other stake-holders. Mr. Hecht suggested that the public meetings should not be run by the Commission to encourage frank expression. He also suggested drafting a one-page handout comparing the State and Town laws and procedures to help people understand the similarities and differences. He asked Mr. Maughan to draft the proposal for review by the Commission at the March 16th meeting. Motion made by Ms. Stewart for Mr. Maughan to prepare such a proposal for the meeting on March. 16th. Ms. Ohlson seconded. Vote was 6-0-0. Ms. Stewart said that the "legalese" should be removed and the bylaw and regulations should use plain language and be shortened to simplify use. Mr. Maughan noted that the ad hoc committee will need to read and understand the bylaw and regulations before seeking and digesting public feedback and making recommendations for revisions. Mr. Heckenbleikner thought the plan was a good one. He suggested that the public meetings not be held in the Selectmen's Meeting room but in a more casual setting such as the Library or the Senior Center. He also thought a neutral facilitator should chair the meetings. He said part of the process is to make sure that people can feel comfortable and fully participate in a non-threatening way and not fear retribution. He said the website could be used for the survey. Ms. Fink questioned the open meeting law and how it might apply to ad hoc committee meetings. Mr. Heckenbleikner said the committee should post agendas and keep minutes in accordance with the law. Adjournment Motion made by Ms. Ohlson to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Stewart seconded. Vote was 6-0-0.