Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Guests: Mr. Rob McNeil, Mr. Glenn Krevosky, Mr. David Johnson, Dr. Jerome Carr, Mr. Hamid Nakhace, Ms. Sohaila Rahmatpour, Ms. Cynthia Woo, Mr. Timothy Loo, Mr. Erik Sassamar, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Spinale, Ms. Margie Fey, Mr. David Masuret, Mr. Kaiim Sahyonu, Ms. Douglas Shoup, Ms. Rose Marie Richardson and Mr. Lynford Richardson

Mr. McNeil explained that their proposed project would be partially located on the condominium complex (12 units) property that abuts 20 Overbrook Drive. The proposed project includes cleaning the brook and replacing a culvert under the driveway of 20 Overbrook Drive. Reportedly, a red maple’s root system had “significantly” blocked the stream channel’s flow to the extent that the driveway’s 30” pipe (20 Overbrook Drive) was now restricted to only a few inches, caused by silt flowing from the upstream side of the tree. Mr. Krevosky had asked the condominium complex neighbors to attend the meeting in order to discuss the project as a whole.

Mr. McNeil explained that although 20 Overbrook Drive has an Order of Conditions for their project, the property owners now wanted to fix their culvert (which had not been previously reviewed). He explained that the proposed work would occur on two different properties; they would need the approval of the condominium complex to perform work on their property.

At this point, Ms. O’Donnell indicated that they would need to schedule more time if they wanted to explain the whole project. Ms. Pierce informed the Committee that Mr. Krevosky had called her because he wanted to attend the meeting in order to get the Committee’s input for his proposed NOI filing. She explained that she had indicated that Mr. Krevosky could briefly attend the Public Voice portion of the meeting, telling him that he would need to formally file (and formally notify abutters of) his proposal. She further explained that Mr. Krevosky had told her that he would mail copies of his proposal for her review, before the meeting, but he never sent the information.

Mr. Krevosky apologized, saying that he had misunderstood Ms. Pierce, saying he thought that they would have more time to discuss their proposal. Ms. O’Donnell explained that he could call the office to be scheduled on the next meeting’s agenda, for a specific length of time, for his information discussion, stressing the importance of the “public process.”

Dr. Carr explained the Spinales’ proposed project, a two-story addition to their home. He indicated that the submitted plan indicated that one of the resource areas was “BVW,” but in fact, the resource areas consisted of only a bank without any associated bordering vegetated wetlands (BVW). He explained that the lot’s current impervious surfaces equaled 2,523 square feet, and that only 520 sq. ft. of additional impervious surfaces were proposed. Since approximately 76 sq. ft. of the proposed addition would be located within the Bylaw’s 25 foot no disturbance zone, they had asked for a variance under the local Bylaw for this small area.

Dr. Carr then reviewed the following information regarding the Regulations’ requirements for granting a waiver (i.e. that no practicable alternative provides less impact to the resource area values and that a significant hardship would be imposed upon the Applicant in the absence of a waiver):

1. Regarding “hardship” and “no practicable alternative,” he explained that if the Spinales were to propose an addition on the other end/side of their house (away from the resource area) they would need to get an additional permit from Weston since their foundation runs along the Weston town border. In addition, if they were to propose the addition 30 feet from street (as required by zoning), they would not have enough room to park two cars in their driveway.

2. The property’s entire 25 foot no disturbance zone (“NDZ”) equals 1,115 sq. ft. In their proposal, 76 square feet of work is located in the 25 foot NDZ, and their proposed enhancement (of native plant landscaping) area is 198 sq. ft. (a 2.6:1 ratio), which would improve/increase protection of the wetland resource area. In addition, the area behind the lot is not good habitat, since it includes invasives such as “kew” winter creeper (Eunymus fortunei kewensis), garlic mustard and yellow rocket.

Mr. Taylor opined that, for granting a waiver, he would want to see a slightly larger native plant buffer zone (e.g. 225 sq. ft, rather than 198 sq. ft), adding that with a smaller lawn and a larger buffer of native plants, there would be less need for fertilizer, etc., which would help prevent polluted stormwater from running into the wetlands. The Spinales agreed, indicating that they were amenable to any mitigation that the Committee recommended.

Mr. Taylor made a motion to close the hearing, grant a waiver for the 25 foot NDZ because of the proposed mitigation planting, and issue an OOC with conditions to include increasing the proposed mitigation planting area from 198 sq. ft. to at least 225 sq. ft. (located in the general vicinity of the approved plan’s mitigation planting area). Mr. Lubker seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Ms. Pierce then read her draft Order of Conditions’ findings, including “Resource Areas” and “Waiver Request,” as well as special conditions including “Waiver of 25 Foot Buffer Zone Restriction” and “Mitigation Planting Plan Submission.” Since she had previously forwarded digital copies of her draft Order to the Committee for their review, the Committee signed and issued the Order.

The Committee had previously reviewed Ms. Pierce’s draft Order of Conditions for 15 Royalston Road. She had also drafted a consent agreement, for possible use by the Committee, which they quickly reviewed. Ms. O’Donnell opined that a consent agreement for this site should include the Order of Conditions’ 30-day submission requirement for the penalty and the letter of credit. She also noted a typo; i.e. “Conservation” should be “Wetland Protection Committee.”

The Committee then discussed how to proceed with the violation portion of this project, as well as the merits of using a consent agreement. Ms. Pierce explained that, in this case, she thought it was too late to require Mr. Bevilacqua to sign a consent agreement, adding that it would have been nice if such a document had been prepared/available for him to sign during the previous meeting when he promised to create and plant a remediation landscape plan for his violation.

Mr. David Masuret (homeowner/applicant) reviewed his proposed project, which included tearing down his current single-car garage, and building a new garage that would extend a few more feet than the current structure. He said that structurally speaking, the builder wanted to tear down the garage to create the larger garage. He explained that there is a house (lot) in-between his property and the perennial stream. Ms. O’Donnell asked whether there were side-yard set back requirements that he could not exceed, to which he replied, “Yes.”

Mr. Taylor asked why he did not file a Notice of Intent, adding that there were a couple of types of situations where they would want to have more oversight than what a determination allows. Ms. Pierce indicated that she had recommended that the Committee issue a negative determination for the project because, even though the site was within the 200-foot riverfront area, it is being proposed to be built in an area that is an impervious surface (driveway). In addition, the (abutting) house and yard, located between the proposed project and the river, would prevent any disturbance of the resource areas. She also recommended that the Determination should require (1) the installation of silt fencing, and (2) no on-site stockpiling of materials. Mr. Masuret stated that there would be no stockpiling on-site.

Mr. Taylor indicated that the proposed project was “putting more building in the resource area.” Ms. O’Donnell explained that the proposed project would not be changing the site’s elevations/topography. Mr. Taylor stated that if this had been located in the inner-riparian zone, rather than the outer riparian zone, he would have asked for an increase in the lot’s natural buffer. He emphasized that he did not want to set a precedent of the Committee being too lenient in this case (since it is located in a resource area).

Ms. O’Donnell agreed, stating that she did not want to set a precedent either, but thought that because the project was “pretty minor,” had a house in-between the subject house and the river, and was being proposed in an area that is currently an impervious surface, a negative determination could be issued.

Ms. Ryznar made a motion to issue a negative determination for RFD, 107 Mayo Road, with conditions requiring the installation of silt fencing, and no on-site stockpiling of materials (in addition, add “significantly” to the form’s negative 3 determination language; i.e. “will not [significantly] alter the lot’s impervious surfaces”). Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 0.

The Applicant’s representative, Mr. Doug Shoup (DSAR Architects) and Mr. Karim Sahyoun, Applicant, were present for the discussion. Mr. Shoup described the proposed work, including adding an addition to the current home, as well an addition located outside of the buffer zone (family room). He indicated that the area above the garage addition would be living space (kitchen and dining room). The homeowner’s goals are to add living space, remove and re-landscape the existing driveway, and to move the driveway’s location to be in front of the addition, explaining historical problems with road drainage running down the current driveway. The house was built in 1938 and the garage added later (it was there in 1969, when they moved in). Reportedly, the bottom of the present driveway floods because stormwater runs down the street and into the driveway, pooling at the bottom. Mrs. Rose Marie Richardson (next door, at 65 Windsor Road) then reviewed how the poorly functioning street catch basins cause the area to flood.

Ms. O’Donnell asked why a RFD was being filed, rather than NOI. Mr. Sahyoun indicated that the house projects were being seriously considered by “This Old House,” so they needed a determination as soon as possible for their (“This Old House”) determination. Mr. Shoup indicated that all of the proposed work was farther away from the brook than other recent home additions in the neighborhood (approximately 70 feet away). Ms. Pierce reviewed the plan, describing the impervious vs. pervious surfaces of the site. Mr. Sayhoun told the Committee that the location of the proposed addition is now an impervious surface.

Ms. Ryznar informed the Committee that she had visited the site, and had observed the stream banks, adjacent to the property line, to be very steep. When Mr. Taylor asked if there were any associated wetlands, adjacent to the stream, Ms. Ryznar indicated that there didn’t appear to be any wetlands adjacent to the stream near the street, but said that there might have been wetlands towards the back of the property, near the abutting property line.

Ms. O’Donnell asked (1) how far away from the resource area was the proposed addition, and (2) would the project have any impact on the resource area. Ms. O’Donnell reminded the Committee that they needed to determine how this project would alter any of the abutting resource areas, which included an intermittent stream and a possible floodplain. She asked the Applicant to review the resource areas and how the project would affect them.

At this point, Mr. Sayhoun told the Committee that this was the one opportunity that they would have to have the craftsmen of This Old House work on his home, adding that they needed to let This Old House know if they received a Negative Determination by the next day. Mr. Shoup then summarized his client’s project, saying they believe their proposal will improve the property’s current situation, because:

Mr. Taylor opined that a negative determination should be issued, saying, “we see the resource area, which is the stream, but we don’t see a BVW” (on the plan); he believed that the work was proposed in an area that was not in an actual “resource area,” but rather, a “buffer zone.” Ms. Ryznar agreed, but said that she wanted the Wetlands Administrator to re-visit the site to determine whether the area near the bottom of the driveway contained any bordering vegetated wetlands.

Mr. Taylor made a motion to have the Wetlands Administrator visit the site to make sure that there are no additional resource areas. If she finds only the intermittent stream and bank, then a Negative determination would be issued with the following conditions:

1. A restoration-landscaping plan for the area to be re-landscaped, shall be submitted to the Committee as mitigation for the large trees which would be removed from portions of the lot that are outside of the 100 foot buffer zone, to better protect the interests of the bylaw.

The Committee then discussed Bylaw and Regulations’ resource area protection performance standards, and how Requests for Determinations, etc. should reflect these performance standards (for example, when should a RFD be required, as opposed to a NOI?). No definite conclusion was reached by the Committee.

Ms. Pierce explained that she had been working with Ms. Janet Bowser (NRC Director) on a “problem” that she had found, regarding the Bylaw’s wetlands filing fee monies, and how to account for them. She explained that, based on her review of the files (including letters from Town Counsel and the Advisory Committee), she believed that it was clear that the town’s original intent was that the bylaw fees be placed into a dedicated (53E ½) account, and not co-mingled with State filing fees. Unfortunately, the creation of a dedicated account never occurred, procedurally (i.e. neither was a warrant article for a 53E ½ account ever submitted for Town Meeting vote, nor a similar-type of vote ever taken during previous Annual Town Meetings).

Ms. Pierce continued to explain that the two filing fee accounts needed to be immediately separated, and then reference to (creation of) a 53E ½ (bylaw fees) account needed to be included in the Annual Town Meeting warrant, or else the bylaw fee monies would revert to the General Fund (i.e. the Committee would lose their accumulated bylaw fee monies).

The Committee discussed the history of application fee monies, including the recent implementation of Bylaw filing fees. Ms. O’Donnell opined that wetland filing fees and Bylaw violation fines were meant to be used specifically for resource protection.

Mr. Taylor made a motion to put bylaw filing fees and violation fines into dedicated accounts, to be used exclusively for resource area (as defined in the Town Bylaw and the State Wetland Protection Act) protection. Ms. Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Ms. Pierce asked whether the Committee would pay for her attendance at this Symposium, explaining that it included seminars, given by experts in the field, who will share current information on turtle conservation and management issues. She advised the Committee that she planned to try to locate endangered turtle populations in Wellesley, starting in the springtime. The Committee indicated that they would pay for her attendance (from fee monies).