Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Denny Nackoney, member of the Trails Committee, described two proposed footbridges to be built as Boy Scout projects. The first would be along the Sudbury Aqueduct trail east of Cartwright Road, and the second in Carisbrooke Reservation near White Oak Road. The first would use 16' pressure-treated stringers to span the brook. The second would cross a wetland rather than a stream and would employ a lumber substitute (XPotential, made of materials recycled from automobiles) lying directly on the ground. Mr. Nackoney will send more information on XPotential to the Committee.

Homeowner Michael Stanton presented his plan for planting five trees in the corner of his lot closest to a stream on the adjoining lot. The stream emerges from a culvert near the proposed planting area. Mr. Stanton said it appears to drain a catchbasin on Hampshire Road and, according to his observations, runs constantly and therefore must be supplied by additional sources. The area in his yard nearest the stream is usually wet.

Peter Keenan said that Town orthophotos showed that large trees stood in this location as late as April 2004, and were apparently removed without regard to their location in wetland or buffer zone. Mr. Stanton said his family purchased the house in June 2005 and those trees had already been removed.

Committee members discussed whether a Notice of Intent should be required, and whether the Determination should be positive or negative, considering that the plantings would be in the inner buffer zone and quite possibly in bordering vegetated wetland. Mary Jane O’Donnell referred to the regulations at 310 CMR 10.02(2), which list among minor projects not subject to the Act the planting of native plants (other than turf lawn) in buffer zones. Robert McDonnell said that an important consideration would be whether the activity was significant to any of the interests specified in the wetland protection laws. Marc Taylor said the planting would seem to be beneficial as long as lawn was not being planted or extended. Michael Stanton said he would not be introducing more lawn but did not plan to reduce the size of the lawn except as might occur incidentally when the trees were planted.

Robert McDonnell said the presumption that activities in jurisdictional areas were significant to interests of the Act and Bylaw could be overcome in this case, since the effects were beneficial to those interests. He moved to issue a negative Determination stating that the activity was in the jurisdiction of the wetland laws but would not adversely impact its interests or values. Robert Lubker seconded, and the motion carried 4 – 0.

Mary Jane O’Donnell opened by noting that this was the fourth continuation of the hearing for this Notice of Intent. Applicant Dean Behrend was present and said that his engineer, Frank Iebba, had not yet produced the previously requested information.

Peter Keenan reviewed some of the concerns he had earlier presented in a letter to the applicant, and said that he found the submitted material deficient in several respects. Most importantly, the hydrological information was inadequate to support both the design of the stormwater system and the claim that it would discharge no water to the wetland even in the 100-year storm. Mr. Behrend said that Town engineer Doug Stewart agreed with Peter Keenan's insistence that analysis of peak rather than average runoff was needed.

Behrend, Iebba, and Keenan had met on May 8, and the applicants had agreed to submit new Notice of Intent and Stormwater forms, and to submit a new coherent package of supporting material. However, Mr. Iebba did not agree to run a peak flow analysis and said that the HydroCAD analysis he had earlier submitted should be ignored and was unnecessary. Mr. Keenan said he had questions also about the claimed infiltration rate, since the infiltration basins would extend well below the surface elevation of the water in nearby Morses Pond, raising the prospect of the basins filling with groundwater rather than stormwater.

Mr. Behrend asked that the hearing be continued to June 1 and expressed regret that his engineer had not responded in time for this meeting. He said that he and Mr. Iebba had written a letter in answer to Keenan's list of comments. Mr. Keenan said that he found the letter unsatisfactory because it provided little of the needed information.

Applicants Matthew & Mary Dunne, environmental consultant Arthur Allen, and architect Tim Sorrell were present on behalf of this proposal to demolish the existing house at 19 Ridge Hill Farm Road and rebuild at approximately the same location. Arthur Allen presented the result of his delineation of the vegetated wetland behind the house. He found that it bordered an intermittent stream, which did not meet the regulatory definition of a river. He pointed out on the plan the lines demarcating the wetland line, the 25', 50' and 100' buffers, and the proposed erosion controls. The proposed house would be no closer to the wetland than the existing house. The ground around the house would be raised only outside the 25-foot buffer.

The plan presented at this meeting had been revised since the filing of the Notice of Intent as a result of the town DPW requiring a change in the sewer connection from the house into the town main, which runs in an easement close to the wetland. There would be a temporary disturbance extending into the 25-foot buffer to make the new connection.

The Committee said work in the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone requires a waiver under bylaw regulations. After discussion, the Committee found that the proposed sewer work would qualify for the waiver. There is no practicable alternative to the location of the sewer connection. The impact to the buffer and wetland from digging and refilling a trench for the sewer line would be insignificant and of very short duration. No trees would have to be removed. Restoration would be required after the work as mitigation for the slight disturbance.

Robert McDonnell moved to keep the hearing open pending receipt of a file number from the DEP, but closing the hearing and issuing an Order of Conditions once the number arrives. Marc Taylor seconded, and the motion was approved 4 – 0. The applicant had agreed to the continuation.

Peter Keenan said that the April 13th Enforcement Order required the submission of a restoration plan by May 1 for review by the Committee on May 11. No plan has been submitted. He has reminded the applicant and his landscape consultant of these requirements and the expectation of a response. They responded only that an engineer was working on the drainage problem this week.

The Committee discussed fines for the continuing violation. Robert McDonnell listed three violations. First, the initial cutting of the trees, for which he suggested a fine of $100. Second, a violation of the Enforcement Order in failing to submit a restoration plan, for perhaps another $100. Third, a daily fine for each day that the violation remains, perhaps at the rate of $10 per day beginning on May 1. He said that although there are clear violations here, the impact is not of a very serious nature and probably not deserving of fines approaching the $300 per day maximum.

*The DEP has been slow recently in issuing file numbers and comments. For the Wellesley Country Club, the comment arrived this week stating that the project could not be approved because it discharged stormwater to a resource area and it needed a 401 Water Quality Certification for which it would not qualify as proposed. Peter Keenan reported that a DEP analyst said her Department would probably appeal if we issued an approval. In later phone conversations, the applicants claimed that DEP was not properly evaluating the project and that they would seek to correct the misunderstanding.

57 Whiting Road, Restoration plan: Members of the Committee visited the site on May 4 with the owner, Marc Levin, and his landscape designer, Lynne Sutton, to view the areas within wetland jurisdiction that have been altered. The Committee asked Peter Keenan to send the owner a letter requiring a plan showing the delineation of wetlands and buffer zones, and a restoration plan to return the bordering vegetated wetland, the Limited-Disturbance Zone, and drainage alterations to their earlier condition.

Personnel: Peter Keenan announced his intention to retire as Conservation Administrator by the end of the coming summer. The committee congratulated Mr. Keenan but did so with regret and said they were grateful for the superb job he has done over the past seven years.