Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Eric Lussier of Eric Lussier Corp. represented the applicant with a plan for landscaping at 61 Windsor Road. Academy Brook, an intermittent stream at this point, runs across the rear of the lot. The plan shows a row of shrubs installed along the brook and an existing fence at the end of the brook. Peter Keenan said that his observations on site, Building Department records, and GIS photos, show that the deck and the fence had been installed in the buffer zone without wetlands approval. Rose Marie Richardson, a neighbor, said that the fence was put in about 5 months ago. She reminded the Committee that the Brook was prone to flooding until Babson College made drainage improvements on its campus, upstream of Academy Brook.

Mary Jane O’Donnell asked Mr. Lussier what items on the drawings are part of the present proposal. Mr. Lussier said that the plan was to replant around the edge of the yard, level out the ruts and bumps caused by the recent work in the back yard, and fill in the trench recently dug across the yard toward the stream. This trench was intended for a drainpipe from the air conditioning equipment to the stream, but it was later decided to raise the air conditioning pad so the pipe would no longer be needed to carry condensation water away from the house. He said that the elevation of the back yard has not been raised, just smoothed out. In answer to further questions, Mr. Lussier said that before the recent changes, the lawn extended to the stream. He said he is new to the project and that he stopped the trench digging when Ms. Richardson informed him he could not do it without a permit.

Rebecca Weissman noted that the English ivy, listed on the plan, was an invasive plant that should not be included. Marc Taylor said that much of the work was within the 25 foot No-Disturbance Zone and questioned whether the Committee would allow a fence to be installed at the bank of the stream.

Marc Taylor moved to issue a Positive Determination of Applicability requiring a Notice of Intent for the proposed plan and, after the fact, for work already done in the buffer zone. Besides the landscaping, the plan must include any changes to the asphalt driveway, to the grade, and to the deck. Eric Seaborn seconded the motion which carried 5 – 0.

Engineering consultant Rick Kirby, landscape consultant Lynn Sutton and owner Martin Levin were present for this continued hearing. Mr. Kirby presented his report and restoration plan, with the drawing showing existing conditions and proposed changes. He said he had met with Peter Keenan since the last meeting to preview these plans.

Mary Jane O’Donnell asked for a description of the fence as it now exists and how it would be changed. Mr. Kirby said it is now a solid fence. But the lower six inches of the wood will be removed on the portion running parallel to the stream or through wetlands and buffer zone, but not on the portion parallel to Wellesley Avenue. The purpose of the removal was to allow free movement of small animals through the critical wetland and buffer zones. Mr. Kirby said that the plan included three categories of plants, those originally there before the present owner moved in, those installed since he moved in, and those proposed as part of the restoration wetlands plan.

Peter Keenan noted that the drawing did not show where the recently installed surface drains were located. Mr. Kirby said they were located on the surface of the ground in front and back of the house immediately adjacent to the wall. He said that they drain to already existing underground detention basins installed for the roof runoff. Mr. Kirby said that the landscape mulch areas on the drawing, and other indications of ground cover, represent existing conditions unless clearly indicated otherwise. Mr. Kirby said that the hemlocks were removed because they were diseased. Mr. Keenan asked if the plants listed in the June 8, 2006 correspondence, referenced in the introduction of the current plan, were also included in the newest plant list. Mr. Kirby said that they were.

Mr. Keenan noted that the irrigation system was to be removed from any areas beyond the lawn after the new plants had been established and survived in the wetlands and buffer zones. He also noted that the invasive removal program and its follow-up for a second season would most likely carry the program into 2008. He said that Norway maples, an invasive, were not proposed for removal. Mr. Kirby said that these were mature trees, but the seedlings would be removed as they appeared.

Eric Seaborn asked if areas proposed as meadows would be maintained continually or let go. Mr. Kirby said they would probably be mowed once or twice a year to prevent woody plants from returning. Otherwise, they would not be maintained. The 450 square feet of lawn removed would be turned into a meadow.

Marc Taylor questioned the use of herbicides for controlling invasives in bordering vegetated wetland. Mr. Kirby said that there are several ways of approaching the problem of controlling invasives. One is to use glyphosate in low concentration sprayed on the area. Another and better method is to use a high concentration glyphosate painted on the cut stumps of the invasive plants, particularly in the fall when the plant juices are flowing into the roots. Mr. Taylor asked who would do this work, and Mr. Kirby said it would have to be persons certified to use the concentrated solution. Mr. Seaborn said the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture certifies pesticide applicators.

Mr. Kirby said that the there would be a two-year follow-up on the removal of the invasives to reduce second growth. He also said that glyphosate lifetime in the soil is widely variable, depending on soil conditions; he has seen published reports ranging from 3 days to several months.

Peter Holland, the builder and owner of the house at 84 Chesterton Road, presented to the Committee drawings showing the lot as it existed before he demolished the house and then as rebuilt with the new house. He noted that the old house was closer to the stream than the new one. He then showed the two drawings filed with the Notice of Intent and accepted by the Committee in its Order of Conditions. One was the surveyed plan and proposal and the second showed proposed landscaping between the house and the side property line nearest the stream and the town-owned park land. He said that it was clear at the time the Order of Conditions was issued that he would be able to make some changes to the plant plan, with the Committee's approval. He said that he passed a list of plant species to Peter Keenan who seemed to approve them.

Mary Jane O’Donnell asked what changes from the originally approved plan had occurred or were proposed. Peter Holland said that he was looking for a slightly modified planting plan to include a new path through the area designated a natural area. He also had done work on Town land and was proposing a planting plan to restore or mitigate that disturbance. He mentioned that the original plan had a path going from the new retaining wall near the front yard to the back yard, but he had substituted a path going to the street between the retaining wall and the property line, in the area designated a “natural area planting area”.

Mary Jane O’Donnell asked why the new path was installed. Peter Holland answered it was more convenient for his children to reach the back yard without having to cross the steep retaining wall steps from the front yard. Marc Taylor asked if the path was entirely on his property and Mr. Holland said it was.

Eric Seaborn asked if a paved surface of any sort is planned for the path, and Mr. Holland said he would use only woodchips. He said that the path varies in width from 36” to 48” wide. Mr. Taylor questioned whether the path requires a waiver from the buffer zone regulations because it may be inside the No-Disturbance Zone. Peter Holland said that the original plan had a path and he simply moved it to a different location. Mr. Seaborn asked about the sizes of the Norway maples that have been removed and Peter Holland indicated that they were probably 4" or less in diameter.

The planting plan would be contingent on NRC approval for the portion on Town land. Marc Taylor suggested the need for a waiver for changing the layout of the path within the No-Disturbance Zone, and said he could think of no precedent for allowing it without the waiver. He also asked what the benefits of this plan would be to wetland’s protection. Peter Holland said that the path through the natural plant area would deter people from trampling through vegetation.

Marc Taylor moved to approve the plan as submitted for restoration and the path, contingent upon the NRC’s approval of the restoration plan on Town land, and to grant a waiver for the path in the No-Disturbance Zone. He added that he saw no practical alternative, because of the grade difference between the front yard and natural area. Rebecca Weissman seconded the motion which carried 5 – 0.

Owner and developer Jack Thomas, and consultant Joyce Hastings, asked the Committee to allow a change in the already approved plan for redevelopment of this lot with a new house and a larger back yard. They now wish to remove four trees and move the limit of work and the limit of lawn back further than earlier proposed toward the rear property line, as indicated on the drawing now presented. This would add about 2,500 square feet of new lawn to the 1,200 square feet already approved.

Marc Taylor asked if irrigation would be placed in this area, and said that in his opinion taking down the trees might be acceptable but lawns that required irrigation were not. Jack Thomas said that the buyers these days usually demanded irrigation installed in the lawn, and as a developer he felt it necessary to provide it.

Eric Seaborn moved to allow as an insignificant change the increase of lawn area by 2,500 square feet with the removal of four trees, as long as four additional deciduous trees were planted. Rebecca Weissman seconded the motion which was carried 4 – 0. Members also noted that in this case although the site was in the outer riparian zone, it was separated from the river by a ridge and drainage from this area went away from the river toward the street.

Minyi Lu asked to address the Committee about the situation on his property that led to the Enforcement Order issued by Peter Keenan on August 3rd. Mr. Lu said that as a recent purchaser of this house and a first-time homeowner, he did not know anything of the wetlands protection law. He had hired a tree company to remove some trees in the back yard. He showed a diagram he made of his yard with its rock outcrops and the remaining stumps of the trees removed. He said that he has not removed small trees near the brook. Neighbors who came with Mr. Lu explained that the yard had long been neglected by the previous owner and was in need of work to bring it into an acceptable condition. Mr. Lu understood that the Committee should approve any plan before it was implemented. He would do anything necessary to satisfy the requirements of the law. Mary Jane O’Donnell suggested a professional plan either by someone who knows native plants and the requirements of riverfront areas, or by a non-professional who is well qualified. A friend with Mr. Lu said that she would be able to help him with such a plan

Mary Jane O’Donnell added that he must file a Notice of Intent with a plan showing species to be planted, plant locations and numbers, and lines showing the 25 foot No-Disturbance Zone and the 100-foot buffer zone as well as 100 year flood plain and 200 foot riverfront area.

Rebecca Weissman suggested that trees that have been removed be replaced on a one-to-one basis, or else each tree replaced by two shrubs. Eric Seaborn thought that one to one was not quite necessary in this case. In the meantime, Committee members said that it would be permissible to remove remaining slash from the cutting of trees, but other alternations to the ground and the plants should wait until the filing of a Notice of Intent and the issuance of an Order of Conditions approving a planting plan. Mr. Lu was also instructed not to grind the stumps until he had an approved plan.

After a brief discussion, Committee members agreed that the use of treated wood for the stringers on the Trails bog bridges was preferable to the use of XPotential, because no information on the environmental effects or the chemical composition of the latter is available.

Because of the retirement of the Conservation Administrator on August 31st and the uncertainty about when a replacement will be hired, the Committee decided to postpone the next meeting from the previously scheduled meeting of September 14 to September 28. Peter Keenan reported that although he was retiring on August 31^st, he would be working part time, probably one day a week, in the interim. It was also agreed that when previously announced deadline for the September 14^th meeting arrives, it may be necessary to reconsider this decision if any applicant would be gravely inconvenienced by this two week delay.

Peter Keenan reported that the owner of 5 Washington Street presented a plan to add an extension, 10 or 12 feet out, to the rear of the buildings at this address. One corner of the extension would be in the outer part of the 200-foot riverfront from the Charles River. All the land in question is now impervious, with parking lot extending from this building across adjoining property to the banks of the river. He said that he thought the applicant intended to file a Request for Determination, but at the last minute he submitted this letter asking the Committee to waive the Determination but agreeing to abide by whatever decision the Committee made. Peter Keenan said that the owner had received an Order of Conditions in 2001 for a larger project on this site and had the Order extended to expire later this year. He abandoned those earlier plans, apparently for economic or marketing reasons. Now he has this much-reduced plan.

Members considered whether, because some work was proposed in the riverfront area, at least a Request for Determination and maybe a Notice of Intent should be required. Peter Keenan said that the work in the riverfront is so minimal and would have no effect on impervious area or drainage and he could not see any need for erosion controls or inspections.

Peter Keenan reported that all the restoration work required by the Committee for the building in a flood zone and planting in a buffer zone had been completed satisfactorily some months ago. There may be remaining questions regarding restoration of Town land to satisfy the NRC, but all work required by our Order has been satisfactorily completed.

Peter Keenan issued an Enforcement Order to Needham arising from the discovery of filling in a flood zone and riverfront along the Charles River on land within the Town of Wellesley owned by the Town of Needham. The land in question is in the extreme southwest corner of Wellesley and is part of, or closely adjoins, the Needham DPW tree nursery. The filling consists principally of wood chips and forms a causeway about 18 feet wide, 70 feet long, and 6 feet high, reaching toward the main channel of the River.

The list of property owners in buffer zones or wetlands who would receive a planned mailing and map comes to about 1700 or 1900, depending on whether one counts as individuals the owners living in condominiums. Price for reproduction of the map has not yet been determined.

Peter Keenan reported that the owner at 198 Winding River Road, with a vernal pool on the property, asked if it was permissible to use glyphosate to stop the poison ivy from encroaching on a path around the house. Mr. Keenan said that he was on the site and understood the problem, and had suggested it be used as a direct application to the leaves of the poison ivy only, and only near the path, not attempting to eradicate the poison ivy down to the edge of the vernal pool. In addition, he asked that they not spray it over or on ivy growing in the trees.