Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Approved 10/11/07

Wellesley Wetland Protection Committee

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Natural Resources Commission Office

Town Hall, Lower Level, 7:30 PM

Present: Ms. Mary Jane O’Donnell (Chair), Mr. Marc Taylor, Mr. Robert McDonnell and Ms. Rebecca Weissman (Associate Member). Ms. Jane Sears Pierce, Wetlands Administrator.

Absent: Ms. Rhonda Ryznar and Mr. Robert Lubker

Guests: Ms. Victoria Lazelle (15 Lexington Road), Mr. Jeff Olsen, Mr. Dan Kenslea (16 Indian Springs Way), Ms. Carol Rianaghan (Upson Road), Ms. Beverly Rubin (9 Lexington Road), Mr. James Agabadis, Mr. Hugh Johnston (3 Boulder Road), Mr. George Allen (110 Glen Road), Ms. Mary Trudeau, Mr. Jim Frates (133 Lowell Road), Mr. Steven Berg (5 Aberdeen Road), Mr. Robert McTighe (28 Wellesley Avenue), Ms. Hubert and Mr. Raynor Caplan (6 Wilson Street), Ms. Joyce Hastings (GLM, Holliston), Mr. Larry Borins (5 Arlington St., #36, Cambridge), Mr. Arthur Allen (EcoTec, Inc.), Mr. Frank DiPietro (VHB, Inc., Watertown), Mr. Desheng Wang (CRC), Mr. Stanley Brooks (for 15 White Oak), Mr. Jay and Ms. Marni Grossman (15 White Oak Road), Ms. Kathy Riley (10 Valley Road), Mr. Ned Bartlett (Bowditch & Dewey, LLP), Mr. Chris D’Antono (73 Pelham Island Road, Wayland), Mr. Rob Broggi and Ms. Jessica Broggi (209 Cliff Road), Mr. Philip Dubuque (200 Cliff Road), Mr. Kurt Losert (14 White Oak Road), Ms. Allison Mankivsky (26 White Oak Road), Mr. Philip Riley (10 Valley Road), Mr. Jack Thomas (208 W. Central Street, Natick), Mr. George Preble (Beals & Thomas, Inc.), Ms. Nancy Westenberg and Mr. David Westenberg (50 Windsor Road), Ms. Debra Raizman (49 Windsor Road), Ms. Patricia Frank (46 Windsor Road), Mr. George Field (53 Windsor Road)

Ms. Victoria Lazelle (15 Lexington Road) attended the meeting to informally discuss a proposed second floor addition/room over a room on the first floor or her home. She indicated that there would be no ground construction, no additional foundation footprint, no excavation, and no heavy equipment on site. Mr. Taylor indicated that for proposed work in the riverfront area, even small projects usually require a Notice of Intent. Ms. O’Donnell and Mr. McDonnell both thought that filing a Request for Determination would be sufficient. Mr. Jeff Olsen, the contractor for her project, reiterated that the work would be on the inside of the house, only. Mr. McDonnell then indicated that Ms. Lazelle should send a letter to describe the proposed work, adding that they would not need to file a wetland application unless any of the ground or vegetation would be altered. The Committee agreed with that approach.

General Business

3 Brookmere Avenue, DEP #324-542. An Order of Conditions for this filing was approved and signed by the Committee.

Meeting Minutes. Mr. Taylor made a motion to approve the Draft Minutes of 5/11/06, 12/21/06 and 1/11/07, with Mr. McDonnell’s changes (as submitted to Ms. Pierce). Mr. McDonell seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Reed’s Pond: Ms. Pierce reviewed Mr. Jesse Doran’s (high school student) proposed Reed’s Pond clean up project, which included removing trash and dead branches from the area, cutting small branches that overhung the conservation land’s pathways, and possibly planting some native plants. Mr. Taylor reminded the Committee about the issues that they had encountered with a previous boy scout’s “clean up“ project at Morses Pond. He also digressed about the upset that DPW summer help, hired to “clean up” an area near the Kelly tennis courts, had caused a neighbor when they had chopped down a ten-foot flowering dogwood. He thought that a little more supervision should be required for Mr. Doran’s project. Ms. O’Donnell then read excerpts from the Wetland Protection Act’s Regulations regarding exempt minor activities, which seemed to indicate that the proposed work was exempt from review. Mr. McDonnell thought that the Committee should let Mr. Doran proceed with his proposed project. Mr. Taylor stated that he would like to have Ms. Pierce visit the site with Mr. Doran to review his proposed work, before he started his project.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion that Mr. Doran’s proposed Reed’s Pond clean-up work would be considered a minor activity and that Ms. Pierce would meet with him prior to commencing the project, to review what Mr. Doran could, and could not, do. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

16 Indian Springs Way: Mr. Dan Kenslea, homeowner, and Mr. James Agabadis, his landscaper, attended the meeting. Mr. Kenslea indicated that the riverfront area (where trees had been removed) still had a significant amount of tree canopy, which was shading the river.

Mr. Agabadis distributed and reviewed his list of potential plants for the site’s landscape restoration plan, and stated that since the removed trees had been located under the existing tree canopy, he recommended planting understory trees. Ms. O’Donnell asked how many trees were being proposed to be planted, and where would they be located. Mr. Agabadis indicated that two from the evergreen group (i.e. shown on his list in the “higher canopy” category), and three or four plants from the shrub or small trees category.

Mr. Kenslea explained that the removed trees were all either dead or approaching death and, in addition, no tree stumps had been removed. He then distributed pictures of the site’s current conditions. He explained that the trees had been removed because his neighbor’s tree had recently fallen on their house, causing extensive damage, so they were concerned that the dead trees might fall onto their, or their neighbor’s buildings.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion that Mr. Kenslea should plant two evergreens (from the “higher canopy” category) and four shrubs in similar locations to the removed trees’ locations. Ms. Weissman seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

The Committee then discussed whether penalties should be levied for Mr. Kenslea’s wetland violation (i.e. tree cutting in the inner riparian area without a wetland permit). Mr. Taylor opined that they ought to temper the penalty, based on the amount of cooperation they received from Mr. Kenslea.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to fine Mr. Kenslea $50.00 for the wetland violation of cutting trees in the inner riparian area without a wetland permit. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried, 3-1 (Ms. O’Donnell voted against the motion).

Mr. McDonnell summarized the vote, saying the Committee needed to have a fine because typically, a fine is assessed for wetland violations, but the overall damage and level of cooperation in this case did not warrant a large figure. Mr. Taylor agreed, saying, “it’s the principal of the matter that requires at least a minimum fine.”

Mr. Kenslea then asked for the Committee’s guidance regarding their proposed plans to install a hot tub in their back yard. He explained that in order to put it where they wanted to, they would need to level out the area by moving around 75 to 100 cu. ft. of soil to the side of the current patio, and edge the area with landscape timbers. He indicated that the only soil disturbances needed would be to move the soil to install the hot tub at ground level and to install an electrical conduit. He believed that the closest point to the river would be about 40 feet. Ms. O’Donnell recommended that he file a NOI, due to excavation in the riverfront area.

Wight’s Pond: Messrs. Hugh Johnston and George Allen, Trustees of Wight’s Pond, attended the discussion. Mr. Johnston explained that the property had been set-aside as a sanctuary for people in the Carrisbrook area. The previous owner, General Dean, had maintained the woods, had the pond dredged (reportedly, the town had worked with him to dredge the pond), and had rebuilt the dam, until sometime in the 1980s when he died. He stated that since Mr. Dean’s time, there had been no maintenance of the site’s invasive species, including bittersweet and wisteria vines, which had overwhelmed the area. The Trustees plan to perform the proposed clean-up work; they are aware that the property should be maintained as a sanctuary and want to return to maintaining it in better form. Their intention is to maintain the existing mature trees on the property; many trees have been killed, choked and/or pulled over by the invasive vines. They want to start the clean-up work before the foliage comes out.

Ms. O’Donnell asked how many people would be performing the work, and for how long. Mr. Johnston reported that they had hoped to work all spring, as well as the fall, adding that they mainly wanted to reclaim their ability to walk into the woods. Ms. Pierce showed the Committee photos of the vines, taken during her recent site visit with Mr. Johnston.

After reviewing the resource area maps, Mr. McDonnell indicated that if the DPW had proposed to do this work, they would be required to file a Notice of Intent. Ms. Pierce then stated that she would like to be able to encourage homeowners to be good (landowner) stewards, and allow them to maintain their properties by eradicating invasive plant species. Mr. Johnston agreed, stating that their goal is to be able to maintain the area as a sanctuary.

Mr. McDonnell then talked about the Committee’s previous discussions regarding a homeowner who cut down trees, just downstream of this pond. He emphasized that the Committee does not have the discretion under the law to say, “that’s fine – go ahead.”

Ms. O’Donnell spoke to the importance of the public process, including providing notice to all abutters. Mr. Johnston told Ms. O’Donnell that he had notified all of the neighbors of his proposed work, as advised by Ms. Pierce during their site meeting. Ms. Pierce then told the Committee that she would like to have a philosophical discussion with them about this subject. Ms. O’Donnell indicated that she would be happy to discuss this, but that there was not enough time to discuss it during the evening’s full agenda.

Mr. Taylor stated that “wildlife habitat” is an interest of Act, pointing out that Wight Pond is a sanctuary.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion that Mr. Johnston should file a NOI for the proposed Wight Pond clean-up project, adding that it did not need to be a massive, scientific document. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried, 4-0.

Mr. Johnston asked why the Committee did not require the submission of a NOI for the Reed’s Pond clean-up work. It was explained that the Reed’s Pond work only included trimming/maintenance along a pre-existing trail, rather than the removal of plants or vines, adding that the Wight Pond work was much more intensive. Mr. McDonnell explained that when the Committee issues a wetlands permit (Order of Conditions), it contains/explains the “rules of the game”, and it would be valid for three years. He then spoke of the Morses Pond Eagle Scout proposal to rejuvenate a previously maintained area, explaining that they had been required to file a NOI for the proposed work.

NOI Hearings/RFD Discussions

RFD, 166 Winding River Road

Ms. Pierce reviewed homeowner, Ms. Helen Stewart’s proposal to remove six side and back-yard trees (several of which had lost limbs during recent storms) in the riverfront area of the Charles River. She indicated that the trees were all located in a previously disturbed area (lawn/yard) and that, in her opinion, the work qualify as an “exempt minor activity” in the riverfront area.

Mr. Taylor moved to issue a Negative Determination for RFD, 166 Winding River Road. Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

NOI, 133 Lowell Road, DEP #324-TBD

Mr. Jim and Ms. Beth Frates, homeowners, and the representative, Ms. Mary Trudeau, were present for the hearing. Ms. Trudeau reviewed the proposed project, including backyard regrading and landscaping, with portions of work within the buffer zone to a certified vernal pool and BVW, explaining that the landscaping was considered jurisdictional (in a recent Determination) because it was located within 100 feet of a certified vernal pool and bordering vegetated wetlands. She reviewed a revised site plan (enlarged version), which had been previously submitted.

Mr. McDonnell spoke to the various cases that had come before the Committee for properties that surrounded the vernal pool, specifically a project at 45 Hampshire, which had been controversial.

Ms. Trudeau explained that the entire planting bed and some of the yard were within the 100-foot buffer. The back yard is saddle shaped, with a slope to a low area that the homeowners wanted to level out to create a seasonal skating rink. They would need to fill the “saddle” with approximately one to two feet of fill to accomplish their plan, but the yard’s drainage patterns would not be changed. They would then plant an existing bed with native plant species to increase the thicket between the yard and the resource area.

Mr. Taylor wanted to know what type of vernal pool habitat the area had, asking how they could increase the habitat value. Ms. Trudeau indicated that the proposed “thicket” would add density, height and food supply to the wildlife habitat.

Ms. Weissman made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried, 4-0.

Mr. Frates gave permission to issue the OoC beyond the 21-day period (i.e. sign the Order during the following meeting and then mail it).

NOI, 47 Walnut Street, DEP #324-544

Mr. Arthur Allen (EcoTec Inc.), representing the applicant, Scott Realty Trust (Ms. Susan Stekty), was present for the hearing. Mr. Allen reviewed the proposed plan, which included replacing a pre-existing (current) sewer line, located in the Charles River’s inner riparian area.

Ms. Pierce asked him to clarify information in the submitted plan, which indicated that a cesspool would be removed/filled. Mr. Allen apologized for this error, saying that it was probably due to the use of boilerplate information on the plan. He stated that the site did not have a cesspool and that only the existing sewer line was proposed to be repaired/replaced.

Mr. Allen continued, stating that the site, located in an industrial park, included an industrial building and a parking lot. In order to replace the sewer line, the parking lot and walkway would need to be dug up, but no other riverfront alterations would be necessary and no change to the floodplain elevation would be made. He anticipated that the work would take about a week.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to close the hearing. Ms. Weissman seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

NOI, 19 Lexington Road, DEP #324-545

The applicant’s (Ms. Ann Adams) representatives, Ms. Joyce Hastings (GLM), and Mr. Larry Borins, were present for the discussion.

Ms. Hastings reviewed the proposal, which included the construction of a first-floor bedroom addition to a single-family home, within a riverfront area. The site’s resource areas include Boulder Brook, the Bylaw’s 25-foot no-disturbance zone, and the 100-foot riverfront area. The plan included infiltration for the first one inch of rain; the proposed deck would have stone underneath for infiltration. As mitigation, they were proposing to remove a small patch of lawn, adjacent to the brook, and plant red ozier dogwood and rhododendron maximum; no trees would be removed during the project. A slab foundation was proposed; there would be no basement under the addition.

Ms. Pierce told the Committee that she had visited the site after a recent storm, expecting to find that the brook was flooded. She was surprised to find that there was no flooding at all in this location.

Ms. Weissman made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to use a boilerplate Order of Conditions, with no extra conditions. Ms. Weissman seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

NOI, 5 Aberdeen Road, DEP #324-TBD

The applicant, Mr. Steven Berg, and his representative, Ms. Mary Trudeau, were present for the hearing.

Ms. Trudeau reviewed the proposed project, which included the construction of an addition to a single-family house within the riverfront resource area. She had flagged the wetlands for the site, represented by the limit of hydric soils in a grassed lawn area adjacent to Fuller Brook, a perennial stream. She explained that the River Protection Act allows for the alteration of up to 10% or 5,000 square feet of the riverfront area, with 100 feet of native vegetation between the proposed work and the river. She explained that this could not be done for this site, since the town owns and mows most of the 100-foot inner riparian area.

Ms. Pierce reviewed the findings of her site visit, including the observation of a drift line (from a previous storm/flooding event), which was located approximately on the delineated wetland line.

Mr. Berg is proposing to remove an existing garage, and then construct a house addition with a garage underneath it. All of the new work is lower than the existing grade; the garage is now at 124 feet; the new garage would be at 117 feet; Fuller Brook would probably flood to 118 feet. The plan proposes the installation of a trench drain, along the edge of the garage, to intercept water. They have proposed to put a small berm at the limit of their yard, built from soil that would be removed from area of the proposed garage. The current driveway’s stormwater runs to the sides of the driveway; the current garage and driveway (current garage floor is at 122 feet) were built up to create the garage.

Ms. O’Donnell then opened the questions to the audience.

Mr. Robert McTime (28 Wellesley Avenue) asked what the level of the driveway would be, after the existing garage is removed. Answer: it will be slightly below natural topography, and flat. He then asked whether there would be any compensatory storage for the proposed project. Answer: there will be “the ability to store more water on site.”

Ms. Hubert and Mr. Raynor Caplan (6 Wilson Street): Mr. Caplan advised the Committee that Fuller Brook usually floods during storms, but around 10 years ago, it had flooded extensively. He indicated that this lot was definitely located within the floodplain. He was concerned about the construction, disturbing the environment and flooding.

Mr. McDonnell asked whether it would be considered an improvement to remove the freestanding garage. Mr. Caplan responded by saying that the Fuller Brook area is a corridor along which many people walk. He was not concerned about aesthetics, but was more concerned about the environmental impact of the underground garage, saying that they (riverfront abutters) all rely on their sump pumps and generators.

Mr. McDonnell asked whether a hydrologist had looked at the plan, and wondered whether the Bergs were worried about the garage flooding. Mr. Berg indicated that they had been focused on watching recent flooding events since last May, stating that they were concerned about flooding.

Ms. O’Donnell wanted to see a drainage plan for the site. She suggested keeping the hearing open until a drainage plan is submitted.

Mrs. Caplan told the Committee that one year, the water came half way up the hill on their side of the stream. (They live on the opposite side of Fuller Brook, probably more than 200 feet away.) Mr. Taylor indicated that one of the interests of the Act and Bylaw is storm damage prevention, so Commission is very concerned about flooding. (Mr. Berg consented to a continuance of the hearing.)

Ms. Weissman made a motion to continue the hearing to May 17. Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Ms. Pierce asked for a proposed grading plan and the percent of proposed change in impervious area. She reminded Ms. Trudeau of the Committee’s four-business day requirement for the submittal of new information.

NOI, 205 Cliff Road, DEP #324-543

Meeting Attendees: Mr. Chris DiAntonio (Chadwick Properties), Applicant, and Applicant’s representatives Atty. Ned Bartlett and Mr. Desheng Wang (Carr Research).

Mr. Wang reviewed the proposed project, which included the proposed demolition/reconstruction of a single-family home within the buffer zone of a BVW. The property, currently a single lot with a single-family home, is proposed to be subdivided into two building lots.

Mr. Wang reviewed the information that Ms. Pierce had requested in her email (excerpts below), sent to Mr. Wang on April 9, 2007, informing him that his filing was incomplete and advising him to submit the following in order to complete his submission:~

1.~~~ Existing Conditions plan, including locations of trees in buffer zone

2.~~~ Retaining wall construction details

3.~~~ Proposed amount (cubic feet) of fill for site

4.~~~ Number of trees to be removed from the Bylaw's 100-foot buffer zone resource area ("BZRA")

5.~~~ Square footage of alteration in the 100-foot BZRA (add to NOI application)

6.~~~ Square footage of alteration in the 25 to 100-foot BZRA (add to NOI application)

7.~~~ Location of drywells or leaching trenches for rooftop stormwater

8.~~~ Location of stockpile areas

9.~~~ Construction sequencing plan

10.~~Request for Waiver of Buffer Zone Requirements (Wellesley Bylaw form)

11.~ More detailed narrative of work, including information to show how the proposed project has overcome the Bylaw's 100-foot BZRA presumption of significance

12.~ Describe how the area between the proposed house and the 25-foot no disturb zone will be adequate (in size) during construction.

13.~ Restoration planting plan (i.e. the Committee usually requires a two-to-one planting restoration for removed trees and vegetation in the BZRA)

Mr. Wang indicated that the site’s wetland resource area is about 30-feet wide, extending “downstream”. He explained that the proposed retaining wall would act as a permanent boundary of the No Disturbance Zone.

He reviewed the number of trees that would need to be removed during construction, which included 50 trees; 34 trees were 6 inches in diameter or larger and 16 trees were smaller than 6” in diameter. In addition, they hoped to save one 24-inch oak, but they might not be able to save six hemlocks that were infected with wooly adelgid. Mr. Wang advised the Committee that they would provide full replication for cut trees (i.e. 50 trees) and would submit a revised plan, showing the locations of the current trees, but had not submitted a detailed planting plan.

Mr. Wang reviewed his hydrological analysis, indicating that the area (Cliff Road) consisted of a high ridge, with water draining east towards the site’s wetland, via a swale at the side of the property. The proposed plan would make the terrain “more terraced.” At the top of the proposed retaining wall, they would have a mulched landscaped area, and a four-galley dry well would be installed to recharge the roof. As mitigation for the impact of the proposed project, they proposed to remove approximately ten invasive plants (burning bushes) in the 25-foot no-disturbance zone, and replant with native plants. Mr. Wang stated that the proposed plan would reduce peak flooding by providing more groundwater recharge. The current lot’s existing house would be demolished and the lot subdivided. The second home (at the corner of Cliff Road and White Oak Road) would drain toward White Oak and Cliff Roads.

The proposed lot’s infiltration basin has been designed for the two-year storm, and covers 96% of the total water volume. The proposed recharge area has type C/D soils, and would not infiltrate in its current condition, but with the proposed fill and the infiltration basins, Mr. Wang indicated that there would be a net benefit for the site’s groundwater recharge and flood control. The site’s new lawn area would be 3,270 sq. ft. larger (see Table 1 for details).

Mr. Taylor asked whether the wetland included a stream or pond, asking what the BVW bordered. Mr. Wang said that the BVW bordered a “far away” steam, Indian Spring Brook.

Ms. O’Donnell then opened the questions to the audience.

Attorney Stanley Brooks, representing Ms. Marni and Mr. Jay Grossman (15 White Oak Road) advised the Committee that the property was located in the middle of a hill; the bottom of the hill is on the Grossman’s lot in the resource area. He stated that the entire property at 205 Cliff is an adjacent upland resource area, indicating that the hillside’s stormwater runoff, not caught by catch basins on Cliff Road, runs into the lot’s resource area.

Atty. Brooks continued, stating that the intent of the Wellesley Wetland Protection Bylaw is to protect ground water, prevent changes in drainage patterns, control erosion, and prevent storm damage. The proposed project, in his opinion, violated many of the values that the Bylaw was trying to protect. He asserted that part of the problem with the evening’s discussions was caused by an incomplete filing, including materials that had not been seen until the meeting. The proposed plan included a significant increase in impervious surfaces. Mr. Brooks contended that it does not appear that the proposal could have anything but a significant impact on abutting properties and the resource area.

Atty. Brooks continued, stating that it appears that 12-14,000 sq. ft. of the lot is proposed to be altered, including re-grading, removal of ledge, etc., and the property denuded of trees and vegetation, which would seem to have a significant effect upon the site’s soil conditions and resource areas. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they have overcome the presumption of significance. Furthermore, no soil conditions, hydrology, run-off calculations, construction sequencing, landscaping plans, etc. were included in the submitted information, so the negative impacts could not be determined. Regarding the 25-foot to 100-foot “Limited Disturbance Zone,” the Bylaw’s Regulations require that “no activity shall be permitted in a Limited-Disturbance Zone that is more likely than not to harm or eventually harm resource areas, including No-Disturbance Zones, with respect to the interests of the Bylaw.”

Mr. McDonnell asked, regarding the Grossman’s recently constructed home on the abutting property at 15 White Oak Road, whether there had been any disturbances on that property within the 75-foot Limited Disturbance Zone. Atty. Brooks indicated that they had eliminated a grassed lawn area in the property’s 25-foot No Disturbance Zone (NDZ) and had replanted with native plants, restoring the NDZ area.

To summarize, Atty. Brooks stated that the submitted information was incomplete, indicating that the Committee would be well served to request that outside consultants be hired to (1) look at the site’s hydrology and (2) review the wetland delineation.

Mr. Frank DiPetro, Civil Engineer (VHB), also representing the owners of 15 White Oaks Road, indicated that he would be commenting on the engineering aspects of the proposed project. He said he had only received a copy of the info earlier in the afternoon.

Mr. DiPetro stated that the earthwork analysis in the newly submitted documents showed a 78 cu. ft. net excavation on-site, but there were inconsistencies in the table, including:

1. no change in volume of 95/96 foot contours,

2. questions as to whether or not all materials on site could be used (i.e. ledge, leaf debris),

3. 3,000 to 4,000 cu. ft. of fill brought in, and

4. what was the height of the retaining walls and steps.

After a quick review of the new materials, Mr. DiPetro explained some of his concerns, as follows:

1. He believed that 7,000 to 8,000 cu. ft. of fill would be brought on site.

2. There would be a 10% increase in the lot’s impervious areas.

3. A good-sized layer of leaf debris is currently at the site, which acts to slow down runoff. Replacing the area of heavy debris with lawn “wouldn’t be a match.”

4. He wanted to know depth to bedrock throughout the lot, explaining that this would determine how well the infiltration system would work.

5. The proposed infiltration system was located very close to the retaining wall.

6. The proposed plan’s retaining wall details did not include a foundation. Mr. DiPetro indicated that four feet of soil behind the retaining wall, receiving runoff from the infiltration system, could push the wall over.

7. In the SE corner of the site (the area where the closest corner of the proposed building is 31 ft. from BVW), the foundation at the corner of the building would be 4 feet above grade; they would need to dig down to provide a footing, but only have five feet of space to work in, which is very tight.

8. Since the site’s existing materials include rock and/or poorly draining soils, breakout is a concern.

9. Where would the replaced trees be planted?

10. If they blast the site’s ledge, can they reuse any of the materials on site?

He indicated that he would be happy to look at the drainage report and other materials as well.

Atty. Ned Bartlett (Bowditch & Dewey, LLP, Applicant’s representative) asked about the resource areas on 15 White Oaks Road, stating that he had looked for the property’s recent Order of Conditions at the Registry of Deeds, but was unable to find it. He indicated that he would like to see a copy of the Order.

Mr. McDonnell, reading from the 15 White Oaks Road hearing minute’s excerpts (previously compiled by Ms. Pierce), stated that it looked like the Committee had approved a planting plan on 3/30/06. The meeting minutes indicated: “no trees or other vegetation were to be removed from the 100-foot buffer zone unless shown on the plan. The new landscaping plan would extend the lawn farther back into the property, including areas within the outer 75 feet of the buffer zone, but would mitigate this by removing all existing lawn in the wetland and the inner 25 feet of the buffer zone and replanting with a specified variety of suitable native shrubs.”

Mr. Taylor pointed out that for 20,000 sq. ft. lots, such as this one, the ZBA allows 20% impervious coverage; the proposed plan was “at 16.9%.”

Mr. Philip DuBuque (200 Cliff Road) indicated that he had read the state statutes. He advised the Committee that the drainage system on Cliff Road was over 80 years old, adding that there was “very little drainage piping on the roadway.” He believed that a lot of the lot’s water ended up in Rockridge Pond, adding that when it rains, “there is a tremendous amount of water.” He then quoted the 75-foot limited disturbance zone language in the Wetland Protection Bylaw’s Regulations, saying that he found it hard to believe that the proposed project would not have a negative effect on the wetlands.

In answer to Mr. Taylor’s question, Mr. Wang stated that there would be 2,200 sq. ft. of house on this lot. Mr. Taylor advised Mr. Wang that on large lots, the Committee is very strict about requiring the Bylaw’s 25-foot no-disturbance zone.

Mr. McDonnell then explained that the State Wetland Protection Act did not have a 25-foot no-disturbance zone, but rather a 100-foot buffer zone. In other words, under the State Act, work could take place in this zone.

Ms. O’Donnell summarized the issues that had been discussed, including:

1. The submission of incomplete information,

2. Increased impervious surfaces,

3. Extensive tree removal, and

4. Amount of fill.

Ms. O’Donnell then advised the Applicant that the Committee needed to receive, and have a chance to review, the newly submitted information before they could continue the discussion

Ms. Weissman pointed out the fact that the NOI’s Limited Disturbance Zone calculations were incorrect, advising that the NOI needed to be revised to show the square footage between the 25 to 100 foot zone, rather than the 0-to-75 foot zone, as currently calculated.

In addition, Ms. O’Donnell advised Mr. Wang to provide copies of the newly submitted information (submitted during the meeting) to the abutters for their review.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to continue the hearing to May 17, 2007, setting a strict deadline of May 11, 2007 for the submittal of new information to Wetland Protection Committee, asking that the Applicant communicate any new information to the abutters. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Mr. Wang then made the following comments for the record.

1. The town bylaw and federal laws exempt single-family homes from stormwater requirements, but pointed out the fact that they were submitting requested stormwater information for the neighbors.

2. Regarding the proposed project’s science (stating he was a hydrologist, with a PhD), he spoke to the current impervious conditions of the bedrock, advising that the bedrock outcrops had been included in his impervious surface calculations.

Atty. Brooks advised the Committee that the Grossmans would be out of town on May 17, asking for a continuance to the following meeting. Ms. O’Donnell advised Atty. Brooks that, in order to do this, the Committee would need the permission of the Applicant. The Applicant stated that there would be a lot of time to address concerns before the meeting in three weeks, including the exchange of information. He indicated that he did not want to continue the hearing for six weeks, but said that he would meet with the neighbors in the interim.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed the DEP’s new rule regarding adjudicatory appeals for meeting attendees, advising them that they would have to submit written comments if they wished to preserve any right to appeal.

24 Chatham Circle, DEP #324-511.

A Certificate of Compliance was issued for this project.

Continued NOI, 56 Windsor Road, DEP #324-541

Mr. Jack Thomas (property owner) and his representative, Ms. Joyce Hastings (GLM Engineering, Inc.), were present for the discussions.

Ms. Hastings commenced the discussion by explaining that she had dug soil pits throughout the yard, and had included her findings on her newly submitted plan. In response to the soil pits’ data, she revised the proposed cultic system (dry well) to be shallower, in order to create more than the required two-foot separation between the bottom of the system and the groundwater. She explained that the site’s groundwater depth varied, depending on the location (as indicated on revised plan), including the following depths: three feet, 63”, 66”, and 71” in front of the house.

Since drainage issues were the abutters’ main concern, she repositioned the infiltration chambers; to address their concerns about stormwater sheet flowing across the street, she had added a small, six-inch-wide swale to catch and divert stormwater runoff from the front lawn, directing it towards the stream. The driveway was proposed to be pitched slightly, so that stormwater would run toward the abutter’s garden on one side, and the front-yard swale on the other side.

Ms. Hastings explained that she had included a Conservation Restriction for the removed lawn area, adjacent to the stream). She proposed that the area be bounded by monuments (she recommended two-foot high concrete bounds) as a visible reminder that this would be a “no touch area.” She advised the Committee that the revised plan (submitted during the meeting) had incorrect spot elevation shots that she would need to revise. In addition, as requested, she changed the proposed planting plans’ hemlocks to white pines.

Mr. Taylor asked whether air conditioning was proposed. Mr. Thomas stated that he would be installing four outdoor compressors. Mr. Taylor wondered whether the compressors’ noise would be considered an environmental concern. Mr. McDonnell explained that DEP regulations indicate that there cannot be a 10-decibel increase in noise over background conditions at the property line. He suggested that the applicant look into the state noise laws and regulations and consider installing noise preventive measures around the compressors. He indicated that the DEP’s website would contain guidance information.

At this point, Ms. O’Donnell asked the audience for their comments.

Ms. Nancy Westenberg (50 Windsor Road) asked the neighborhood’s consultant, Mr. George Preble (Beals & Thomas), to speak regarding the abutter’s concerns.

Mr. Preble wanted to make it clear that the abutters were not opposed to this development, explaining that he had been asked to determine whether the proposed design would exacerbate the condition of the brook (i.e. due to increased impervious surfaces). He had received the revised plans earlier in the day, stating that he just wanted to properly document that the site’s increased impervious surfaces would not increase the rate of stormwater runoff, opining that Ms. Hastings could perform simple drainage calculations to prove this.

Mr. Preble admitted that Ms. Hastings had addressed many of the abutters’ concerns, but they would like to have the impervious area calculations, including where each drainage area would discharge (i.e. drainage calculations including information regarding impervious areas). In addition, the neighbors were concerned that the current topography would need to remain the same in the future.

Mr. Taylor reminded Mr. Preble that single-family homes are exempt from the DEP’s stormwater requirements. Mr. Preble agreed that they are exempt from the nine standards of the DEP’s policy, but they are not exempt from the Bylaw and its Regulations.

At this point, Ms. Westenberg indicated that she wanted to know where the site’s vegetative cover would be, specifically; she wanted information about all of the proposed landscaping, including foundation plantings.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Westenberg whether she had been asked for increased impervious calculations during her property’s recent NOI hearings; to which she responded “yes.” He then noted (reviewing the minutes excerpts of her hearing) that she had significantly increased the impervious areas of her lot, asking what other issues she had with the proposed project. She said that she had videotaped, for the record, the brook and Centennial Park (flooding) after the recent Nor’easter.

Mr. Taylor indicated that he was concerned that the basement floor would be below the high ground water level. Ms. Hastings said that it would be located at the same level as the current basement.

Mr. Preble indicated that he was concerned that the proposed foundation perimeter drain would be picking up more water than the current basement’s drain. He wanted to ensure that there would not be any additional water going into the stream than current conditions, adding that he wanted to see pre- versus post-construction calculations of the flow into the stream.

He explained that the proposed plan represents a 100% increase in the lot’s impervious areas, and stated, “You can’t increase the runoff onto a neighbor’s property.” Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Preble what statute or law indicated that you could not increase runoff onto an abutter’s property. Mr. Preble was unable to respond to this question.

Mr. Taylor advised the Committee that in all his years on Conservation Commissions, he had never permitted the installation of a basement floor below high ground water, indicating that he always asks for the elevation of a proposed basement floor compared to the high ground water level.

After further discussion, Ms. O’Donnell asked “where are we at this point?”

Mr. Taylor indicated that he was concerned about storm damage prevention regarding building the foundation in the high ground water table.

Ms. Westenberg stated that she wanted to respond to/rebut statements contained in the previous meeting‘s draft minutes. She explained that Mrs. Bagdasarian (60 Windsor Road) had written a note (after the previous meeting), that she disagreed with, which indicated that the stream’s buffer had not been cleared for eight years. Ms. Westenberg explained that after the previous owner could no longer continue maintaining the area, she had taken over the cutting of the bittersweet. She opined that it should not go down as public record that the bittersweet had not been removed during the last few years.

Mr. Taylor spoke regarding maintaining the stream’s buffer, explaining that, under the Bylaw, this area is a no-disturbance zone. Mr. McDonnell informed Ms. Westenberg that, if she wanted to, she could submit a copy of her video of the flooded brook for the project’s file.

At this point, Ms. O’Donnell indicated that it appeared that most of the information needed to review the project had been submitted, asking whether the Committee wanted to close the hearing and then issue the Order of Conditions during the following meeting.

Ms. Hastings advised the Committee that Mr. Thomas wanted to close the hearing. Ms. O’Donnell asked Mr. Thomas whether he would be willing to continue the hearing until May 17^th (next meeting), so that Ms. Hastings could prepare and submit (to the Committee and the abutters) the requested drainage calculations for the record prior to the next meeting, with the condition that an OoC would be drafted for that meeting. Mr. Thomas stated that he would continue the hearing to the next meeting for the submission of the new information, only, if the Order of Conditions would be issued on that date.

Mr. McDonnell suggested that if any of the neighbors wanted to add anything into the record, then they would need to submit it to the office before the next meeting.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to continue to hearing to May 17, 2007. Ms. Weissman seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

To Summarize, the following information was discussed/requested:

Fix/revise the Plan’s “spot shots,”

Calculations regarding how impervious vs. pervious areas were calculated, and

Concerns regarding building foundation in water table.

Conditions to include in the Order of Conditions:

Planting Plan requirement (including foundation plantings plan).

Indicate that no changes could be made to the site’s topography without coming before the WPC.

Continued NOI, 3 Sunnyside Avenue, DEP #324-538, continued to May 17, 2007.

Adjournment at 11:15 pm.

Next meeting: May 17, 2007

Wetlands Administrator