Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Approved June 22, 2006

TOWN OF WELLESLEY

WETLANDS PROTECTION COMMITTE

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Natural Resources Commission, Lower Level

Town Hall, 7:30 p.m.

Present: Mary Jane O'Donnell, Chairman; Robert Lubker; Rhonda Ryznar; Marc Taylor; Peter Keenan, Conservation Administrator.

Absent: Robert McDonnell.

Guests: Hamid Nakhaee; Sahaila Rahmatpour; Glenn E. Krevosky; David Johnson; Sanjeev Singh; Len Freiman; Ann McMenemy; Arthur Allen.

No one spoke for public voice.

Continued Notices of Intent (DEP File #324-514 & 324-515)

20 Overbrook Drive, Sohaila Rahmatpour & Nakhaee Hamid

Glenn Krevosky described changes to the plans since the last meeting, as outlined in his letter to the Committee dated January 26. He has reduced the amount of work proposed within the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone (NDZ). When exotic bushes are removed, they will be replaced by native plant species in order to better inhibit the return of the invasives. Restrictive covenants to ensure organic lawn care practice for an extended period will be drawn up by the applicant’s attorney and submitted to the Committee for its review. And the drawing was revised to add several delimiters, i.e. lines to better display critical features, and to note that all roof drains will be routed to StormTech infiltration chambers.

Mr. Krevosky said that all regrading is now eliminated from the NDZ, and only two small areas of temporary disturbance in that area would be needed to work on the installation of the foundations for the houses. The proposed slopes would be farther from the stream and entirely in the Limited-Disturbance Zone (LDZ). As indicated on the plan, no trees would be removed from the NDZ, but several trees in the LDZ would be removed to accommodate the new houses. The plan now shows the riverfront area, which extends across Overbrook Drive onto part of Lot A; Mr. Krevosky measured 200 feet from the bank of Bogle Brook with a tape measure. For the smaller stream, he said he has photographs showing no flow on four different days, thus meeting the regulatory standard for rebutting a perennial classification. Part of the asphalt driveway extending to the existing house would be removed. The driveway runoff would now go into a drainage swale alongside to provide for at least partial infiltration into the ground. He believes that the soil on site is principally medium to coarse sand and will allow good infiltration of roof runoff.

Mary Jane O'Donnell asked about the proposed monuments to mark the edge of the No-Disturbance Zone and the limit of lawn. Mr. Krevosky pointed out the 12 locations on the plan, and said that the monuments would be concrete, three feet long with one foot extending above ground. In the restored buffer zone, the large rhododendrons would be removed and replaced with the native shrub species designated on the plan. In the “natural woodland area,” invasive species would be replaced with suitable plant material.

Ms. O’Donnell asked about the covenant for lawn care and the proposed extent of the lawn. Mr. Krevosky said that the covenant language was not yet drafted, but he would be having a lawyer working on it immediately. He said lawn would not extend to or across the stream. He added that there are two small stands of Japanese bamboo across the stream, and their rootstocks would be removed completely to prevent spreading.

Peter Keenan asked if the driveway area could be reduced. Architect David Johnson said that the driveway could be pulled back at its southwest corner and could probably also be reduced at its north edge, where additional pavement was proposed inside the No-Disturbance Zone. Mr. Johnson agreed that pervious paving material might be used. Mr. Keenan asked about surface cover in the restored buffer area, and Mr. Krevosky said that it would be left as natural leaf litter.

Ms. O’Donnell listed remaining concerns to be addressed before an Order of Conditions is issued.

1. Monuments should mark the edge of the driveway where it is closest to the stream.

2. Pervious paving material should be used, at least on portions of the driveway nearest the stream.

3. Future landscaping should be prohibited inside the designated restored buffer area (as marked by the proposed concrete monuments) and on the far side of the stream.

4. A draft of a restrictive covenant for organic lawn care should be submitted.

5. Area of paved driveway should be reduced, as discussed.

6. For groundwater recharge, soil infiltration rate should be tested and a detail of installation be added to plans.

Mr. Krevosky plans to submit all needed information by February 6 for distribution to Committee members, and an Order of Conditions might be issued at the February 16 meeting. The applicants agreed to allow a continuation of the hearing to February 16 in case any remaining questions need to be addressed. Mr. Keenan will draft an Order of Conditions for that meeting.

Rhonda Ryznar moved to continue the hearing to February 16, Marc Taylor seconded, and the motion passed 4 – 0.

Restoration Plan

15 Winding River Circle, Larry Gottesdiener

Environmental consultant Ann McMenemy and attorney Len Freiman represented Larry Gottesdiener, the homeowner of 15 Winding River Circle. Also present was Arthur Allen, environmental scientist with EcoTec and consultant to the Committee. Mary Jane O'Donnell asked for a report on progress toward a final restoration plan.

Ms. McMenemy presented a conceptual sketch plan. She said that she took the restoration plan proposed by Mr. Allen as a guide toward a more detailed planting plan that is both site specific and takes into account Mr. Gottesdiener’s preferences. The drawing, now only conceptual and not to scale, shows the area of interest for this restoration. Ms. McMenemy said the area is vegetated with a high tree canopy, low shrubs, ferns and other ground cover, but a middle level of vegetation is missing. This area would be planted with shrubs and trees, though numbers and species are not yet determined. The plan will not specify exact placement of plants; instead, it will call for a wetland scientist to be on site with the landscaper to supervise planting and select best locations. The plants will include shrubs about 2 or 3 feet tall and small trees such as white pine and Nyssa sylvatica, a species particularly suitable close to the river bank. Ms. McMenemy will ask nurseries for sizes that can be planted manually. The shrub species would include kalmia, highbush blueberry, red-osier dogwood, and sheep laurel. Cinnamon fern would be used for the lower level, and invasives would be removed. A two-year control program for the elimination of European buckthorn is proposed, by cutting plants and painting stumps with chemical herbicide or, if chemical control is unacceptable, by mechanical removal. Ms. McMenemy said that she and Mr. Gottesdiener are committed to planting in the preferred season, from mid-April to mid-June.

Art Allen said he approved of the direction the planning was moving. He would recommend allowing maintenance of the pathway to the dock, and he agrees that the application of herbicide to the cut stumps is acceptable for controlling buckthorn.

Marc Taylor asked if removal of the lights was part of the proposal. Ms. McMenemy referred to her site meeting with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Allen to see the lights under almost dark evening conditions. She estimated that there were 10 to 20 lights, some in the trees shining downward, others on the ground shining up into the trees, and a series of lights along the path to the dock. Mr. Taylor said he favored removal of the lights, at least for the precedent they would otherwise set for properties along the river. Ms. McMenemy said she knew the Committee had earlier expressed the wish to have the lights removed, and she could understand that point of view. She asked if the lights along the path, with shades over them, would be acceptable. Mr. Allen said he is not opposed to keeping the path lights.

Ms. O’Donnell said all parties appear to agree on the current situation and the way forward toward completion of this matter.

§ The conceptual plan is acceptable.

§ A final proposal will be needed for approval before installation in the spring.

§ A wetland scientist will supervise the planting.

§ A 2-year invasive plant removal program will be undertaken, using chemical stump treatment.

Following brief discussion on scheduling, all parties agreed that Ms. McMenemy is to deliver a complete plan by February 27. At the March 9 meeting, which Mr. Allen will also attend, the Committee will consider the plan and approve a final restoration order.

Enforcement Order & Order of Conditions

Edgemoor Avenue, H & R Development

1. Roadway upgrade (File #324-462)

Sanjeev Singh, of H & R Development, referred to the Roadside Stabilization Plan, from Carr Research, distributed earlier to Committee members. The plan was stamped by professional engineer Desheng Wang and approved by town engineer George Saracino. Peter Keenan confirmed that Mr. Saracino had approved the plan and added that he and Mr. Saracino were to be notified when the work was to be done so that they could view and inspect it while in progress, to avoid further non-compliance.

Mr. Singh said that all machinery would work from the pavement. The limit of temporary disturbance during construction would be 3 to 5 feet from the proposed toe of the slope. Marc Taylor asked about the safety of the narrow road and the possible need for guardrails. Mr. Singh said that there would be a 1-foot wide margin of grass along the side of the pavement, but then the 3-foot drop on a 1-to-1 slope. Guardrails had been considered, but they would have to be on private property, leaving the landowners subject to liability for any failure of the rails.

The Committee discussed conditions to be incorporated into an Enforcement Order for restoration. Peter Keenan will prepare a draft Order for the February 16 meeting, to include these conditions:

§ No machinery will be permitted outside the 25-foot wide roadway layout.

§ Erosion controls will be required.

§ The grass margin of the roadway will be monitored and maintained

§ The Administrator and town engineer must be on site.

§ Work must be done in April or May.

Marc Taylor moved to issue at the next meeting an Enforcement Order approving the submitted plan, with conditions. Robert Lubker seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 0.

56 Edgemoor Road (324-449)

Mr. Singh distributed copies of his hand-drawn proposal for regrading the north edge of the completed house lot at #56 Edgemoor Avenue. Mr. Keenan noted that the plan and cover letter were delivered earlier today but were due, not as a sketch but as a stamped plan, by January 16. The proposal would reduce the slope of the land by removing some fill.

Marc Taylor moved to accept the revised grading plan, Robert Lubker seconded, and the motion carried 4 – 0.

The Committee discussed the need to assess a penalty for the violations leading to these revised plans, and asked Peter Keenan to provide a history or chronology of the projects of H & R Development on Edgemoor Avenue. Marc Taylor moved to discuss penalties at the next meeting, February 16. Rhonda Ryznar seconded, and the motion carried 4 – 0.

Peter Keenan said he would provide a condensed list of the criteria DEP uses in calculating penalties, though DEP does not appear to publish quantitative guidelines for penalties. Perhaps other towns have guidelines. Mr. Keenan will also ask Mr. Singh for written confirmation of his withdrawal of the long-continued Notice of Intent for #60 Edgemoor Avenue (file #324-493).

26 Overbrook Drive (#324-513): Order of Conditions signed as drafted.

182 Winding River Rd. (#324-471): Amended Order of Conditions signed as drafted.

Wellesley College Alumnae Valley (#324-444): The Committee had visited the site on January 21 with Lisa Standley, the College’s consultant, to view the existing as-built conditions. Peter Keenan said that the minimum standards for wetland replications are met despite changes that have reduced the area of replication. Committee members noted also the overall improvement to wetlands values brought about by the Alumnae Valley project. Mr. Keenan said he has suggested to Ms. Standley that the site of the proposed replacement bordering vegetated wetland, now filled and covered with lawn, could be made into a vegetated buffer, and Ms. Standley said the College would be willing to do that. The Committee agreed to ask for a planting plan for this buffer area.

Beard Way (#324-316 & -359), Certificate of Compliance requests: Peter Keenan reported that a satisfactory as-built plan and certification have finally been submitted for the roadway and wetland replication, covered in Order of Conditions #324-316. He asked to have approval of a Certificate of Compliance postponed to allow for final inspection without snow cover.

The Order of Conditions of lot #2, file #324-359, still presents a problem. Mr. Keenan said that the Order required a 10-foot buffer between the lawn and the wetland. In August 2004, the applicant agreed he would soon submit a planting plan meeting the condition for approval by the Committee or Administrator before implementation. The plan was never submitted, the area was landscaped, and now as-built plans are submitted. Mr. Keenan suggested that the mulch, which the as-built plan shows in the buffer strip, is not a suitable groundcover for this area, and the Committee might not have approved had the plan been submitted before installation. The area should probably either be cleared of mulch and replanted or seeded, or the mulch should be allowed to rot and the area to allowed regrow naturally. The Committee accepted this suggestion and asked Mr. Keenan to inform the applicant that the present condition does not meet its approval.

MACC Annual Conference, March 4, 2006: All members present asked to be registered for the conference.

Shore Road: The Committee discussed the letter from the resident at 50 Shore Road concerning junk buried with fill at 46 Shore Road and onto his property. This might be a wetlands violation and a water supply issue, since it is in the buffer zone of Morses Pond. Evidence of culpability and characterization of the material may need to be addressed. Guidance from DEP might be helpful and will be sought.

Related to this is the status of the larger undeveloped lot at 40 Shore Road, listed on assessor’s records as “owner unknown.” The Committee viewed an aerial photo shows the resident of 46 Shore Road occupying a significant part of the otherwise wooded lot #40 with driveway, retaining walls, lawn, outdoor storage, and perhaps building structures. The town, and Natural Resources Commission in particular, might be interested in acquiring and preserving this undeveloped lakeside land for conservation purposes.

Minor violations: Peter Keenan reported that minor alterations in buffers without a permit, or failures of permit holders to abide by some of the conditions in an Order of Conditions, are not unusual. As recent examples, he notes the clearing of trees at 172 Hampshire Road, mentioned by neighbors at a recent hearing, and the covering of drywells without the required inspection at 84 Chesterton Road. The Committee supported enforcement in such cases, including the uncovering of drywells for inspection.

Perennial vs. intermittent: Peter Keenan distributed a memo with his summary and interpretation of the definitions of river in 310 CMR 10.58. He invited comments from the Committee. This is a question affecting the currently continued Notice of Intent for 15 Royalston Road, and potentially affecting other sites in town.

Adjournment at 11:00 pm.

Next meetings: February 16, March 9.

Respectfully submitted,

Peter Keenan, Conservation Administrator