Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Approved 4/26/07

Wellesley Wetland Protection Committee

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Natural Resources Commission Office

Town Hall, Lower Level, 7:30 PM

Present: Ms. Mary Jane O’Donnell, Chair, Ms. Rhonda Ryznar, Mr. Marc Taylor, and Mr. Robert McDonnell, Committee members. Ms. Jane Sears Pierce, Wetlands Administrator.

Absent: Mr. Robert Lubker

Guests: Ms. Mary Trudeau, Mr. Paul Bevilacqua, Dr. Arthur Gertler, Ms. Judith Gertler, Ms. Diane Triant, Mr. Jim Triant, Mr. Robert Levy, Ms. Pamela Pappas, and Mr. Peter Holland

Mr. Steven Berg, 5 Aberdeen Road, had asked Ms. Pierce if he could review his proposed fence installation with the Committee to get their direction. Although he didn’t attend the meeting, Ms. Pierce explained his intent which was to install a child safety fence at the boundaries of his property (a riverfront area), indicating that it should not create a barrier to wildlife movement (as required by the DEP’s “Exempt Minor Activities in Riverfront Areas and Buffer Zones”). She asked for the Committee’s interpretation of this DEP policy, explained that her interpretation of the policy was that fencing, as long as it allowed for small animal movement, was exempt from the Committee’s review. She indicated that she believed that a letter/statement from a resident (as a file paper trail), with information about the fencing, installation specifics, and why it would comply with the DEP’s policy, should be sufficient. The Committee agreed that this would be an appropriate way to deal with proposed fence installations in riverfront areas and buffer zones.

Continued NOI Hearing, 15 Royalston Road, DEP #324-516

Ms. Mary Trudeau (applicant’s representative) and Mr. Paul Bevilacqua (applicant) were present for the discussion.

Ms. Trudeau explained that the filing’s original proposal had included the demolition and reconstruction of a single-family home, but that plans had now been revised to include only an addition to the current home. She reviewed the location of the property’s resource areas, including a stream and bordering vegetated wetlands to the rear of the property. During the previous meeting, the Committee had asked for the stream’s watershed size calculations, in order to determine whether it was perennial or intermittent.

She then reviewed a letter submitted by Mr. Michael Soraghan, PE (applicant’s representative), dated October 4, 2006, in which he determined the stream to be intermittent; his determination was based on the following facts:

1. the stream is not shown on the town’s USGS quad,

2. the contributing watershed is only .02 square miles, and

3. the stream is not named.

She explained that although the stream reportedly runs year-round, the engineer thought that this could be due to possible sump or drain tie-ins, which might cause the stream to run throughout the year. In addition, he also indicated that cracks in the stormwater pipe could contribute to the streams flow (i.e. intercepting ground water). Ms. Trudeau further explained that the stream “began” at an outlet to catch basins, located on Hampshire Road, and that its (day lighted) length between the two culverts (the stream entered a second culvert at it’s downstream crossing at Royalston Road) was approximately 200 feet.

Ms. Trudeau stated that the applicant was currently only proposing to put an addition onto the house, indicating that she would modify the project’s NOI to reflect this fact. She also indicated that the plan would be revised, since the most recent version (submitted to the Committee on the previous day) did not include the wetland delineations or the infiltration system information. She acknowledged that the hearing would need to be continued for these additional details. Ms. Trudeau further explained that the original filing had proposed work/building reconstruction that was 15 feet closer to the wetlands, but in the current proposal, only parts of the project would be located within 50 feet of the wetlands.

Ms. O’Donnell then asked for input from the public; several abutters spoke as follows:

Ms. Diane Triant, 166 Hampshire Road indicated that her certified letter did not say that the evening’s discussions would be regarding intermittent or non-intermittent stream status, adding that her question did not have to do with the property’s stream. She explained that her concern was that the applicant had asked the former owner (an 84 year old man, since deceased) to take down trees in his back yard. The owner had said okay, apparently not knowing that the trees were in the wetland area and needing WPC review. She said that now, when it rains, there appears to be more flooding.

Ms. Triant wanted to know:

1. with the proposed addition, would there be more water runoff, and

2. what could the Committee require the applicant to do to correct the current (flooding) situation?

Ms. O’Donnell advised that Ms. Triant’s questions would be addressed at the continued hearing.

Mr. Robert Levy, 21 Royalston Road, saying that he lived at the corner of Royalston and Hampshire, referenced several trees that had been cut down in his and his neighbor’s, properties without their permission. Mr. McDonnell responded, asking, “who caused the cutting”.

Mr. Bevilacqua (applicant/owner), appearing offended, stated that he had cut trees on his property only, stressing that he had no association with the other tree cutting. When asked who had performed his cutting, he responded that this work had been performed by “Noack” tree service.

Mr. Levy indicated that he had not meant to accuse Mr. Bevilacqua of cutting down the trees, but rather believed that his new neighbors at 172 Hampshire Road had had the trees cut down.

The Committee asked Ms. Pierce to review the file and then call the owners of 172 Hampshire Road, requesting a site visit, and then send the property owners a violation form letter, requesting that they attend the next meeting.

Dr. Art Gurtler, 11 Stanford Road, stated that he lived at the corner of Royalston and Stanford Roads. He said that half of his backyard was wetlands and opined that the tree cutting had exacerbated flooding in his back yard, stating that he could not use his back yard for half of the year due to flooding. He said that his next-door neighbor (7 Stanford Road) had previously filled in his back yard, building it up by 2-3 feet, a few years back. He stated that since that filling, his yard had flooded more often.

Ms. Pierce then explained the science behind the Wetland Protection Act’s definition of intermittent vs. perennial streams. She had downloaded GIS information about the site’s watershed, adding a data layer that showed the stream’s input from culverts on Hampshire Road, explaining her printout as well as the approximate watershed size and how it was determined.

Mr. McDonnell indicated that, based on the information given at this meeting, it was the sense of the Committee that the stream should be classified as intermittent, so the Committee should proceed with the assumption that the stream is intermittent.

Mr. Levy suggested that the Committee table the discussion and vote on it at the next meeting.

Ms. O’Donnell agreed with Mr. McDonnell, saying that the Committee should assume that the stream is intermittent, adding that they would make a written determination at the close of the hearing. She then advised that the Committee could consult with Mr. Jim Coles, who has experience with this type of issue.

Ms. Trudeau indicated that they would include remediation for the (four) previously cut trees on their next version of the plan, adding that they would also be using an infiltration system for roof runoff which would be shown in the revised plans. She then explained how they proposed to protect the wetland resource areas.

Mr. Levy then stressed that he wanted to make it clear that he was not accusing Mr. Bevilacqua of cutting down his trees.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion that it was currently the Committee’s non-binding sense that the stream behind 15 Royalston Road is intermittent, which would be finalized at the end of the hearing. Ms. Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4–0.

The hearing was continued to January 11, 2007 at 8:00 PM. Ms. Trudeau indicated that she would try to get the revised plan submitted to the Committee ASAP.

Ms. Pierce asked Ms. Trudeau to modify the project’s NOI and plan (as listed on her Wetlands Administrator’s meeting memo, giving her a copy for her convenience/reference) as follows:

NOI modifications:

1. revise property owner name (property has sold since initial filing)

2. add assessors map and parcel number

3. revise project description

Revised Plan, dated 12/18/06, revisions needed:

1. wetland lines are not shown

2. show proposed regrading, if proposed

3. location of retaining wall(s), if proposed

4. location/detail of infiltration system and/or test pit results (discussed 1/05/06)

5. impervious surface lot coverage; current and proposed

6. previous location of trees, previously cut/removed without review of Committee

35 Overbrook Drive, DEP #324-532, Order of Conditions

This Order had not yet been issued. The Committee reviewed, approved and signed the draft as submitted by Ms. Pierce.

General Business

84 Chesterton Road, DEP #324-480, Request for Certificate of Compliance

Mr. Peter Holland (homeowner/applicant), present for the discussion, explained that during the last meeting he had attended, the Committee appeared to be ready to sign the Certificate of Compliance (“CoC”), with the exception of final (Town conservation land) encroachment restoration details. He indicated that Ms. Cricket Vlass (Town Landscape Architect), Mr. Peter Keenan (prior Wetland Administrator) and Ms. Janet Hartke Bowser (Director, NRC) had all visited his site; Ms. Bowser, reportedly, had told him that the NRC preferred granite bounds.

Ms. Pierce reviewed excerpts of Ms. Bowser’s letter to Mr. Holland, dated August 17, 2006, which had required that he “place permanent bound markers” at the property’s boundary. Ms. Pierce explained that she had reviewed the site’s encroachment issues with Ms. Bowser, and had then reiterated the NRC’s preference (for bounds) when she had spoken to Mr. Holland before the meeting (she also advised him that she would recommend that the Committee wait to issue a CoC for his property).

Mr. Holland informed the Committee that he had used steel rods with orange caps as boundary markers (installed/located below grade), admitting that they were “not entirely visible to people”. He again stated that Ms. Bowser had mentioned the preference for granite bounds, adding that he would install them, but preferred not to because of the expense of granite bounds. He told the Committee that evergreen shrubs had been planted along the property/conservation land boundary, opining that they should be sufficient. The Committee discussed the issue of how to deal with encroachments, in particular the WPC vs. NRC jurisdiction in such matters.

Mr. Taylor moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 84 Chesterton Road, DEP File #324-480. Ms. Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 0.

The Committee then double-checked the site’s Order of Conditions (“OoC”), determining that the only mention of boundary markers was in Ms. Bowser’s August letter to Mr. Holland; the installation of markers had not been specified in the OoC (the encroachment had occurred after the issuance of the OoC).

Mr. Holland blamed Mr. Keenan for his encroachment, stating that Mr. Keenan had advised him to cut down the “invasive Norway Maples” (reportedly located on the conservation land) adding that he did not intentionally cause the encroachment. He believed that most homeowners did not know where their property boundaries are. The Committee did not investigate the veracity of the allegation against Mr. Keenan, and it expressed skepticism since the assertions were made without Mr. Keenan being present.

Ms. Pierce wondered aloud, saying Mr. Holland is a builder; if he had been unable to determine his property boundaries, then how would homeowners (who are not used to reading plans, etc.) be able to find their boundaries without visible (above-ground) bounds?

Mr. Holland opined that three-foot high granite markers would be an eyesore, especially if they were placed along the (home-owners’) boundaries along all Town conservation lands. Mr. Taylor reminded Mr. Holland that he might not be finished with the NRC regarding this issue.

The Committee debated the use of permanent bounds, as well as what their jurisdiction was, regarding NRC conservation land encroachment issues. Mr. McDonald said that he would draft a letter to send to the NRC, requesting the NRC to come up with a policy regarding (specific requirements for) bounds (for encroachments). Ms. Pierce informed the Committee that she had located the NRC’s Encroachment Correction Policy (approved 2/28/06), and then read it aloud for the Committee, including the following excerpts:

“The encroaching party will be required to pay for all expenses related to correcting the encroachment including, but not limited to, having the land surveyed and marked and for developing and implementing a restoration plan subject to the review and approval of the NRC.”

Mr. Taylor explained that NRC might have drafted this policy due to discussions from the previous March (2006) Annual Town Meeting, when an encroachment of many years had been a topic of concern. Mr. McDonnell discussed the use of monuments as bounds in encroachment cases. Mr. Taylor opined that the use/requirement of bounds/monuments should not be arbitrary, adding, “we don’t have to enforce it, NRC can still go after him” (Mr. Holland).

Ms. Ryznar, reading from a recently issued OoC, reminded the Committee that they had, in fact, included specific conditions regarding the use and installation of bounds in their Wingate Road OoC (issued during the previous meeting). Mr. McDonnell indicated that he had been absent during that meeting.

15 Edgewater Drive, DEP #324-525, Certificate of Compliance

Mr. McDonnell moved to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 15 Edgewater Drive, DEP File #324-525. Ms. Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 0.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve Draft Minutes, with his changes (submitted to Ms. Pierce during the meeting) of June 22, 2006, July 13, 2006, August 3, 2006, October 19, 2006 and November 30, 2006; Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Future Meetings/Application Deadline Schedule

The Committee approved Ms. Helen MacDonald’s draft meeting/application deadline schedule, advising Ms. Pierce to “make it so.”

Administrator’s Report

Ms. Pierce discussed miscellaneous “house-keeping” items, asking for Committee discussion/guidance, including:

Minutes Scorecard vs. review of minutes at beginning of meeting. Ms. Pierce asked whether the Committee would consider reviewing the previous meeting’s minutes at the beginning of each meeting, due to the recent backlog of outstanding (draft) minutes. She also questioned whether requiring a quorum to review the minutes for their approval was actually necessary (although she didn’t have a problem with this procedure/requirement).

Mr. McDonnell, stressing the importance of the meeting minutes (not only as historical reference, but they are required to be retained by the Town in perpetuity, so needed to be accurate), stated that he wanted to continue to use the current scorecard and quorum requirement. In his opinion, the review and approval of draft minutes by a quorum was necessary.

Enforcement procedures document (draft distributed by Ms. Pierce during previous meeting). The Committee indicated that they would discuss this during the following meeting after having had additional time to review the document.

Order of Conditions boilerplate (draft distributed by Ms. Pierce during previous meeting). The Committee indicated that they would discuss Ms. Pierce’s recommendations during the next meeting. They asked Ms. Pierce to provide them with a digital redlined copy that would show Mr. Keenan’s boilerplate as well as her proposed revisions/changes.

Website update and revisions. Ms. Pierce asked the Committee to give her “free-rein” to update and revise their website, citing her previous experience (she had created and formatted Holliston Conservation Commission’s website). When the Committee didn’t seem completely comfortable with her request, Ms. Pierce suggested that they review her (Holliston) website, stating that if they do not feel 100% comfortable with her revising their website without their prior review and approval, then they could revoke her “free-rein” during the next meeting (adding that this action wouldn’t offend her). Committee members indicated that they would visit Holliston’s website, agreeing to her compromise.

Babson Certificate of Compliance Requests. Ms. Pierce advised the Committee of Babson Requests for Certificates of Compliance for several open projects, indicating that she felt a bit overwhelmed by this request since she did not know the history of the projects. The Committee advised Ms. Pierce that there was no rush to issue these CoCs, indicating that she could review the Babson project files for issuance of the CoCs as time permitted.

Adjournment at 10:30 pm.

Next meeting: January 11, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,

Wetlands Administrator