Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Mr. Ben Zaehringer, a Boy Scout in Troop 185, reviewed his proposed Eagle Project plan to replace an old and rotting footbridge over a stream in the Guernsey Sanctuary. He indicated that he would like to start working on the project within the following two weeks. He explained that he would be using "ACQ" (Alkaline, Copper, Quaternary) pressure treated wood, a relatively newer version of pressure treated wood that is more environmentally safe than the older CCA. Mr. Denny Nackoney, member of the Trails Committee, advised the Committee Members that the Trails Committee had approved Mr. Zaehringer’s plans, as well as the wood product that he proposed to use. The owner of the property, the Wellesley Conservation Council, has approved this project

Mr. Zaehringer then reviewed his proposed bridge construction plan, explaining that he would not be cutting any pressure treated wood on-site, but would rather bring the pre-assembled bridge to the project site. He asked the Committee about a pipe, located under the old bridge that he referred to as "rusted and sticking out," indicating that he would like to remove this pipe. Committee members asked Mr. Zaehringer about the size and location of the pipe. He responded, saying that the pipe was about 2 1/2 inches in diameter, but was partially buried in the wetland so he couldn’t tell how long it was or whether anything drained through it.

Ms. O’Donnell asked how he planned to build the "foundations" for the ends of the bridge. Mr. Zaehringer explained that he planned to dig into the embankment "a little bit" on both ends, to make the bridge level with the ground, but that it would create very little excavated material. He also explained that he would not be removing any vegetation during his project.

Ashbrook reviewed his proposed project, consisting of adding two garage bays (towards the street and side yard) and a small porch on the street side of his home. The resource areas of his lot consist of a BVW buffer zone in his side yard and a stream, said to be intermittent, to the rear of his property. He explained that he would need to add a foundation (without a basement) around the perimeter of the proposed addition and a new slab for the garage addition. In addition, the driveway would need to be moved approximately 3 ½ feet closer to the BVW, but this work is proposed for an area that is currently lawn; no off grading will be needed for the driveway alteration. Mr. Taylor asked if hay bales and silt fence would be installed. Mr. Ashbrook responded, saying that haybales and silt fencing would be installed along the stream. Ms. O’Donnell added that siltation controls needed to be installed along the driveway, as well.

When asked how close his proposed work was to the BVW, Mr. Ashbrook responded by saying that the back corner of the proposed work would be approximately 28 to 29 feet from the stream. Ms. Ryznar, who had visited the site prior to the meeting, opined that she didn’t think the work would pose a problem, but warned that it was very close to the stream at the back, and agreed that erosion controls will be needed along the stream.

In discussing language to be included in an Order of Conditions for this project, Ms. O’Donnell (who had also visited the site) recommended that the standard conditions should be used; Ms. Ryznar added that erosion controls would be required on the BVW side of the project.

Mr. Taylor advised the applicant that the Committee would need a plan that showed all parts of his proposed work/alterations, explaining that when all of the proposed work has been completed, and he requests a Certificate of Compliance, the actual work would need to match the plan that the Committee ultimately approves.

Mr. Ashbrook asked if he could hand-draw the additional information on his submitted plan, as he wanted to start working before the hard frost and did not want to continue the hearing. Ms. O’Donnell indicated that hand-written modifications would be fine, advising that they would need to include all of the proposed site work, in the correct scale.

Ms. O’Donnell opined that the Committee could close the hearing, subject to receiving (no adverse) comments from the DEP (comments not yet received; DEP on-line information indicated "Under Review"). She further explained that if the DEP review letter did not contain adverse comments, then Ms. Pierce could process and mail the Order of Conditions, but if the DEP letter did contain adverse comments, then the hearing would need to be re-opened to review the new information. Mr. Ashbrook said that he understood, indicating that he would give his permission to re-open the hearing if the DEP issues adverse comments.

The Committee had closed the hearing for this project on September 21, 2006 and had determined that an encroachment restoration plan would be required to be submitted before beginning any site construction, but the project’s Order of Conditions had not yet been issued.

Ms. Pierce, who had drafted an Order of Conditions for the Committee’s review, asked that the members closely review conditions #20-25, which pertained to the Encroachment Restoration Plan requirement. The Committee discussed these conditions, particularly the requirement of submitting and planting the restoration plan and installing permanent bounds before commencing any building activities.

Mr. Taylor opined that the permanent bounds should be installed before beginning construction, and that the restoration requirement should be part of the Order or Conditions, adding that if the applicant’s didn’t do this work, they wouldn’t be issued a Certificate of Compliance. Ms. Ryznar added the fact that the Committee could also issue an Enforcement Order if the restoration is not done/completed.

Ms. Pierce explained that she had drafted the conditions as she had (i.e. requiring that restoration plantings and permanent bounds are installed prior to starting construction work) as a “carrot and stick” approach. She said that the MACC does not recommend including violation restoration work in Orders of Conditions, since it would imply that the violation was permitted, but also because an Order of Conditions can be appealed (an Enforcement Order cannot be appealed). Ms. Ryznar wanted to ensure that the Applicant understood that the encroachment restoration work must be completed, regardless of whether the applicants build their addition or not.

Ms. O’Donnell opined that the Order of Conditions should require that the applicant must submit a proposed restoration plan to the Committee within six months, followed by planting/restoring the encroachment area within three years (i.e. the term of the Order), explaining that she did not want to tie the restoration work into the construction work.

The Commission then debated the subject and decided that the Order would require that the permanent bounds are installed within 60 days of the issuance of the Order of Conditions. The Committee asked Ms. Pierce to make conditions 20, 23, 24 and 25 consistent with their discussions. The Committee signed the Draft Order’s signature page and instructed Ms. Pierce to process the Order as soon as she had revised it.

This is a continuance of the previous meeting’s discussions (on October 19, 2006), at which time the Committee had asked for additional information (reportedly received). Ms. O’Donnell stated that she had performed a site visit for the request for a Certificate of Compliance. The Committee and Ms. Pierce reviewed the proposed planting list, which included barberry plants. Ms. Pierce advised that she believed barberry plants were invasive exotics. The Committee decided that they would sign the Certificate of Compliance and then Ms. Pierce could issue the document after she had determined that the barberry plants, as shown on the plan, were not an invasive species.

The Committee reviewed the site’s Planting Plan by Joan Weiss, dated 8/14/99, and revised 10/13/99. Ms. O’Donnell reviewed the project’s Order of Conditions. Condition #20, required that a river front restoration (planting) plan needed to be submitted to the Committee for their review and approval before commencing construction.

Ms. O’Donnell reviewed the documents contained in the project file, stating that the project’s hearing was opened on October 27, 2005. Peter Keenan’s site inspection notes dated 5/8/06 indicated “demolition to begin” on the lot’s house. His “Administrator’s Checklist for Start of work” indicated that either a planting plan for the area along the river or acceptance of the 1999 Moses Residence (Weiss) Plan was required, noting that the owner, on that date, had said they would replant, using the 1999 plan. The Committee reviewed the 1999 plan and did not have any objections to it. The Committee members asked Ms. Pierce to visit the site to see how work was progressing.

Ms. Pierce had made copies of the outstanding minutes for Committee members to review. She requested that they review the minutes as soon as possible, since her review of the approved minutes would be instrumental in becoming familiar with the Committee’s recent project history. Mr. Taylor advised Ms. Pierce that he had reviewed many of the outstanding minutes. Ms. Pierce then asked him to re-send his revised drafts to her for inclusion in her files, which he said he would do. Ms. O’Donnell took copies of the draft minutes home for her review.