Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Alex Hoffman presented a proposal for the removal of invasive plants and the installation of new benches near the town beach at Morses Pond. He planned this as his Eagle Scout project, in cooperation with the NRC’s Trails Committee. He said 2887 square feet, outlined on a photomap, would be cleared of vegetation using hand tools and mowers to give a view of the Pond from the existing footpath. The work would be done by a team of volunteers, organized by Alex Hoffman and, if time permitted, the clearing could be extended farther along the shore than planned. Park benches had once been at this site overlooking the Pond; their remaining posts would be removed and new benches installed.

Rhonda Ryznar asked what would be left as ground cover once the clearing was completed, and Alex Hoffman said that the Department of Pubic Works would cover with grass or mulch. Mary Jane O’Donnell asked how close to the edge of the Pond the clearing would extend, and Mr. Hoffman said he intended to clear to the water. Ms. O’Donnell said that work within 25 feet of the Pond would be in the wetland bylaw’s No-Disturbance Zone, where alterations can be permitted only if they qualify for a waiver.

Denny Nackoney, representing the Trails Committee, said that the clearing could be considered maintenance, since this area had once been cleared as a beach but had been allowed to become overgrown. Rhonda Ryznar said that there is some lawn within the outer part of the No-Disturbance Zone. Mr. Nackoney said, in answer to a question from Marc Taylor, that restoring a view of the Pond from the trail was the main purpose of the project. Robert McDonnell said that a waiver under the bylaw would be possible if the benefit was greater than the disturbance. Peter Keenan said it was not clear how the area would be maintained in the long run, after the initial clearing, and it was not clear that removal of plants would be limited to undesirable invasive species. Marc Taylor questioned whether grass down to the water would be an improvement.

Mary Jane O’Donnell said that a negative Determination of Applicability can be issued only for a project that would have no significant impact on resource areas. She said that vegetation removal so close to the pond is significant and, even if permissible with a waiver, would require a Notice of Intent.

Robert McDonnell moved to issue a positive Determination of Applicability, requiring a submittal of a Notice of Intent and the issuing of an Order of Conditions for the project to go forward. Rhonda Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 0.

Mr. Nackoney said he was very disappointed in the decision and had been led to believe by Mr. Keenan that this project would be approved after a presentation to the Committee. He said it would be an improvement for the Town and a good project for the Scouts. Mr. Keenan said that the plan was earlier presented to him as removal of invasive species, and its full scope was not known to him until the recent filing of the Request for Determination and the added details provided at this meeting.

Ms. McMenemy presented her plan (dated February 24, 2006) for restoration of the riverfront area, which she had presented in preliminary form at the January 26 meeting. Mr. Allen said he had reviewed the plan with Ms. McMenemy and he liked the general approach taken. Mr. Allen said that the plan represented a real and substantial benefit to the riverfront. He suggested some minor changes to the planting plan. First, each clump of plants might better contain a mix of species rather than a single species. For example, winterberry, red-osier dogwood, and highbush blueberry could be inter-planted to increase diversity in the clumps. Second, the large gap toward the north end of the plot should probably receive a clump of plants.

Ms. McMenemy accepted these suggestions. She then presented the proposal for treating invasive plants, which is a part of the overall restoration plan. In a circular area dominated by euonymous, those plants would be removed by hand and the area replanted with cinnamon fern. Over a two-year monitoring period, any regrowth of euonymous would be removed. European buckthorn, which is scattered throughout the area, would be cut and the stumps would be treated with small amounts of Roundup herbicide applied with a small paint brush.

Ann McMenemy addressed the remaining component of restoration: the system of lights installed in the inner riverfront area. She said that Larry Gottesdiener knows he has to decommission the lights, but he would like to do it in a way that saves substantial cost, estimated at several thousand dollars, for complete removal of the wiring, transformers, and fixtures. Ms. McMenemy said that removing all the bulbs from the fixtures, many of which are high up in trees, should be sufficient to make the system inoperative. Mr. Allen said removing all above-ground components of the system would be a more certain remedy. Ms. McMenemy proposed as a middle ground the disabling of the transformers, which alone would cost several thousand dollars.

Attorney Len Freiman asked if there would be a certificate of compliance or similar formal document from the Committee when the restoration is satisfactorily completed. Peter Keenan said that although the Enforcement Order is an official state form under state regulations, no similar form is available for ending an enforcement proceeding; the Committee could, at the appropriate time, issue a letter lifting the Enforcement Order.

Mr. Freiman said he was concerned that the Committee intends to impose a fine but has not yet given his client any idea of its amount. Robert McDonnell said that so far the Committee has had a common-law approach to setting fines, basing new fines on precedents set earlier, and is now working on regularizing the process. Mr. McDonnell thought that this case might result in a penalty of $1,000 to $4,000. Mr. Freiman asked the Committee to consider his client’s cooperation with the Committee and his expenses in installing and removing the lighting and in restoration. He asked if the Committee could address the penalty now.

Mr. McDonnell said that the Committee had spent much time over many meetings with Mr. Gottesdiener and his representatives, and he should have known about wetland protection requirements. Mr. McDonnell said the fine might depend on the quality of the restoration work.

Applicant Dean Behrend presented a revised plan, dated March 8, 2006, that included some of the information requested by the Committee at the February 16 meeting. Contour lines for existing conditions and a line representing the 100-year flood limit had been added to the drawing. The 100-foot and 25-foot buffer areas are not shown.

Peter Keenan said that his request at the last meeting for the hydrological calculations was based on the partial information submitted with the original Notice of Intent package. A “Stormwater Management Compliance” paper reported only the results of a hydrological analysis, without supporting input data and calculations. Mr. Behrend said that the “Stormwater Management Compliance” was the work of an earlier study by another consultant and should not have been submitted. Mr. Keenan suggested that most of the stormwater statistics were not needed and could be ignored, since this plan would obviously improve drainage characteristics, given the lack of any treatment under existing conditions. However, he said that the DEP Stormwater Management Form should be filled out correctly and completely, since it provides the required summary of the plan’s compliance with state guidelines.

The Committee asked Mr. Behrend to provide a corrected Stormwater Management Form and to agree to a continuation to allow the Committee to review it. If satisfied with the Form, the Committee could issue the Order of Conditions at the next meeting (on March 30). Mr. Behrend agreed to the continuation. Robert McDonnell moved to continue the hearing to March 30, Rhonda Ryznar seconded, and the motion carried 4 – 0.

Since the last meeting, the applicant has requested a further continuation to a later date, probably April 20. The applicant understands that legal notification to newspaper and abutters would be needed before resumption of the hearing

Caroline Brook mosquito control: Peter Keenan reported on plans to clear blockages caused by accumulated debris and silt in Caroline Brook. The work would be done by the East Middlesex Mosquito Control Project, with assistance from the town DPW. Blockages near the footbridge between Forest and Paine Streets would be removed with a small backhoe and spread in the adjoining wetland. Other blockages would be removed in more channelized sections of the stream in front of the high school. These mosquito control projects are exempt from the Wetlands Protection Act and Bylaw, but the Project directors intend to work only with the approval of a town’s Conservation Commission or Wetlands Protection Committee. Peter Keenan had met on site with representatives of the Mosquito Control Project, the Trails Committee, the Natural Resources Committee, and the Department of Pubic Works. The Committee unofficially gave its approval for the exempt project.