Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Approved 10/11/07

Wellesley Wetlands Protection Committee

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Natural Resources Commission Office

Town Hall, Lower Level, 7:30 PM

Present:Ms. Mary Jane O’Donnell, Chair, Mr. Marc Taylor, Mr. Robert McDonnell, Committee Members, Ms. Rebecca Weissman, Associate Member. Ms. Jane Sears Pierce, Wetlands Administrator.

Absent: Dr. Rhonda Ryznar, Vice Chair, Mr. Robert Lubker

Guests: Mr. Paul Kauranen (Gerard Associates), Mr. John Edwards (3 Brookmere Avenue), Ms. Gayle Workman (57 Russel Road), Ms. Barbara Sullivan and Mr. Daniel Grossman (8 High Ledge Avenue), Mr. Leo Garneau (P.O. Box 294, Lowell, MA 01853), Mr. Michael Collins (Michael Collins, Inc.), Mr. Dick Malcum (Re: 38 Cottage Street), and Ms. Jean Thomas (49 Glen Road)

General Business

Public Voice. No one spoke during public voice.

OoC for 89 Ledgeways, DEP #324-495. Mr. McDonnell made a motion to sign the Order of Conditions for 89 Ledgeways. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Meeting Minutes. The Committee reviewed and discussed the draft minutes of the previous meeting. (These discussions continued after the wetland applications review/discussions were finished.)

3 Brookmere Avenue, Probable Wetlands Violation.

Mr. Paul Kauranen (project designer), of Gerard Associates, and the property owner, Mr. John Edwards, attended the meeting. Mr. Kauranen reviewed the proposed landscaping plan for 3 Brookmere Avenue, which included re-landscaping the property’s backyard.

Ms. Pierce then reviewed the site’s resource areas, as shown on her computer monitor, including an aerial photo of the site with GIS overlays. She explained that the area of the backyard that had been altered without Committee review appeared to be located within (1) the outer (100 to 200 foot) riparian zone and (2) the Bylaw’s 100-foot bordering vegetated wetland (BVW) resource area. She then explained that she had observed (from the rear of the property on Woodside Avenue) a backhoe working in the backyard, adjacent to the wetlands. She pointed out the area in which the work had occurred (i.e. in the backyard, including an area that sloped down towards the wetland).

Mr. Kauranen stated that everything Ms. Pierce had described was accurate, and explained that the property owner had wanted to create a flatter, more level lawn in his back yard. He reviewed the property’s location on an assessor’s map, which indicated that the altered area was approximately 225 feet from stream. He reviewed the construction sequence of work to be performed at the site, stating the following:

1. On Monday, Mr. Dervan (Mr. Bill Dervan, Dirtworks) began to cut the channel in the existing lawn;

2. Boulders had been delivered during the prior weekend (at front yard);

3. A call came in on Monday regarding the on-going work, and they ceased their work as directed by Ms. Pierce during her site visit.

Mr. Kauranen stated that Ms. Pierce had asked him to attend the evening’s discussions, which is why he was attending the meeting. He then reviewed his construction plan, stating that they had planned to raise the back yard’s grade by three to four feet in the area of the stone retaining wall, which would be installed in the “channel” that had been dug. They would then spread wildflower seed mix among the newly set stones.

Ms. O’Donnell asked Mr. Kauranen whether he planned to re-grade the altered area, asking about the steepness of the slope. Mr. Kauranen stated that the back yard currently has a two-to-one slope (i.e. the seeded lawn area), and then it takes a sharp drop into a wooded area. He continued to explain the proposed work, which included

1. Following the rear lawn’s perimeter and cutting a channel into the rear extent of the lawn;

2. Setting boulders in the newly created channel to create a retaining wall that would be approximately 40 feet long;

3. Raking out the soil; and

4. Hydro seeding in and around rocks with wildflower mix.

He further explained that the channel-excavated materials (soil) would be placed behind the boulder wall, and topsoil would be brought in to level the area over this material. Mr. Kauranen explained that the final grade would be more like a slight pitch, rather than a two-to-one slope. The approximate area of disturbance was approximately 4,000 square feet.

The Committee reviewed the aerial photo again. Mr. Taylor wanted to know what would be lost, if the project were approved, stating that since the area of work was located within a resource area, the owner should have filed a NOI. The homeowner told the Committee that his back yard consisted of an irrigated and maintained lawn, adding that he did not use pesticides, but did use fertilizers in this area.

Mr. Kauranen told the Committee that the channel/trough was almost finished, adding that the Caterpillar 312 excavator had only altered the lawn area of the back yard. Ms. Pierce pointed out that another NOI filing, located across Reeds Pond, was scheduled for discussion later in the meeting.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to require a Notice of Intent for the proposed project at 3 Brookmere Avenue. Ms. Weissman seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Mr. McDonnell explained that the Committee could not waive the procedures (i.e. the public process), emphasizing that the Committee needed to treat everyone equally in Town. Ms. O’Donnell then explained the NOI filing process, including filing fees, abutter notification, etc.

Concerned about how long the NOI process would take, Mr. Kauranen asked how soon the hearing would be opened if he filed a NOI with application fees on the following day. Ms. O’Donnell replied that it could be opened during the Committee’s next meeting, scheduled for April 5, 2007, adding that a 10-day appeal period would follow the issuance of an Order of Conditions. Mr. Kauranen stated that he would file a NOI on the following day.

Ms. Pierce posed a question to the Committee, in an effort to save the applicant time and money. She asked whether the Committee would allow the applicant to assume the worst-case scenario (i.e. assume that all of the proposed work area was within the 100-foot to 200-foot riverfront area and the Bylaw’s 100-foot BVW resource area) rather than having the resource areas professionally delineated.

Mr. McDonnell explained that there are regulations that the Committee needed to conform to, as well as performance standards and an alternatives analysis requirement under the River Protection Act that needed to be taken into consideration. He further explained that the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate where the resource areas are actually located.

Ms. O’Donnell opined that the applicant could decide how to complete the application, adding that they have the burden of conforming to the performance standards. She recommended having the wetlands delineated/flagged, but the applicant needs to make the final decision on how to proceed. After some discussion, Mr. Taylor agreed that the applicant should have the resource areas flagged.

Ms. O’Donnell brought up the question of issuing a penalty for the violation. Ms. Pierce indicated that she had done some research regarding requiring the filing of a Notice of Intent versus issuing an Enforcement Order requiring restoration of the site. She explained that the MACC recommends that if the violation’s project could have been allowed after review of a wetland application/NOI, then requiring the filing of an NOI might be appropriate. On the other hand, if the violation could not have been allowed, then an Enforcement Order and fine should be issued.

Ms. O’Donnell asked for a discussion regarding issuing a penalty, stating that the un-permitted work was a violation; that the Committee wants to deter future violations; and that they dug a trench with the intent of filling a portion of the back yard.

Mr. McDonnell asked how steep the slope was, and was informed by Mr. Kauranen that it was “two-to-one going steeper beyond”. Mr. McDonnell made a motion to require payment of a $100 fine for the wetland bylaw violation. Mr. Taylor opined that if the applicant was going to hire a professional to flag the wetlands, then in his opinion, that was enough. Ms. Weissman agreed with Mr. Taylor and Ms. Pierce.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion that no fine would be required at this time. Ms. Weissman seconded the motion, which carried 3-1 (Ms. O’Donnell was in favor of a fine).

Ms. O’Donnell then summarized how the applicant should proceed, specifically:

2. Comply with performance standards; and

3. Flag/delineate the wetlands and riverfront areas.

NOI Hearings/RFD Discussions

RFD, 57 Russell Road

Ms. Gail Workman, owner, reviewed her proposal to add a second floor to her home, located within a BVW (vernal pool) buffer zone, explaining that she needed to go before ZBA for a variance, but was not proposing to change the footprint of the house. The roof would need to be removed, but debris from the roof would go right into a dumpster (to be located to the left of the house in a grassed area). No soil would be altered during the renovation.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to issue a negative determination with the condition that there be a method for disposing of wood and shingle debris, which would be taken away from the site. Ms. Weissman seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 0.

NOI, 8 High Ledge Avenue, DEP #324-540

Ms. Barbara Sullivan and Mr. Daniel Grossman, homeowners/Applicants, and Mr. Leo Garneau (Northeastern Consulting Forestry Services), the Applicants’ representative, attended the hearing. Ms. Sullivan reviewed their proposal to demolish and rebuild sections of their Cape-style home, with proposed work located within the buffer zone to Reeds Pond. She indicated that they plan to remove the garage and mudroom at one end of the house, as well as two small rooms on the other end of the house. They would then enlarge the house and create a terrace to the rear of the house.

Ms. Sullivan indicated that they were proposing to remove 1,000 square feet of building, and to construct 1,600 square feet; the area of the proposed terrace was 550 square feet. She explained that downspouts would connect to a drywell on the property. They proposed to remove some trees on top of a hill that are “at risk” and planned to hire an arborist to create a plan for the tree removal.

The new addition would have a basement. Most of the excavated soils would be trucked off-site, but some would be used to back fill the terrace area, which will have a retaining wall with a maximum height of five feet. The slope, beyond the current lawn area, is now all wooded.

Ms. O’Donnell asked how many trees were proposed to be removed. Mr. Grossman indicated that fewer than ten trees, but more than one (probably three) would need to be removed, with possible additional trees (white pines) that might need to be “sacrificed.”

Ms. O’Donnell asked the Committee whether there should be a condition to replace removed trees. Mr. McDonnell suggested that the Committee could require “no tree removal below the 165 topo line.” Ms. Weissman asked whether a tree removal and restoration plan would be submitted. Mr. Garneau stated that the silt fence was shown on/along the 165-foot contour line.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion

1. That a tree restoration plan should be submitted;

· With no trees to be removed below the 165 topo line; and

· With a requirement that all removed trees would be replaced at a one-to-one ratio.

2. In addition, no trees may be removed until a restoration plan has been reviewed and approved by the Wetlands Administrator.

Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to close the hearing for 8 High Ledge Avenue, DEP #324-540. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 4-0. .

NOI, 38 Cottage Road, DEP #324-539

Mr. Michael Collins (D. Michael Collins Architects) and Mr. Dick Malcum (project contractor), representing the Applicants (Mr. Michael and Ms. Linda Moody) were present for discussion.

Mr. Collins reviewed the proposed project, which included:

1. Constructing a one-and-one-half story addition; and

2. Demolishing and reconstructing a detached garage to a single-family home, with portions of the project located within the 100-foot to 200-foot riverfront area to Fuller Brook.

The corner of the new garage would be located 150 feet from brook (i.e. the closest area of construction). He explained that this would be an addition to a pre-existing, non-conforming lot, in the historical district. He indicated that a modest addition and replacement of the existing two-car garage were being proposed. Mr. McDonnell explained that Fuller Brook is very channelized in this area, and that the brook path is located on the opposite side of the brook. This area contains full-grown trees and maintained lawn.

Mr. Collins indicated that he could calculate the additional roof area (from the addition) to create a dry well for the roof runoff. The stockpile area will be located inside the silt fencing. Mr. Taylor asked whether an alternatives analysis had been performed. Mr. McDonnell suggested that they would not be able to do anything else on this lot. Mr. Collins indicated that they are planning to restore the existing house. Ms. Weissman advised that conversion of a lawn to accessory uses to a single-family house is considered to qualify for “exempt minor activities.”

Mr. McDonnell moved to close the hearing for 38 Cottage Road, DEP #324-539. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Request for Order of Conditions Amendment, 49 Glen Road, DEP #324-482

Ms. Jean Thomas, homeowner, attended the meeting to review her plans, which included the addition of an attached two-story garage/art studio to her single family home, within a riverfront area. She explained that two rivers, Indian Springs, merging into Cold Springs abutted two sides of her property. She explained that her original NOI had been filed for the restoration of her home; at that time, she could not afford a garage studio. She explained the proposed location of the garage studio, indicating that a “natural place” for the structure exists in an area that used to be a paved parking area (Plan B, depicted as C2A), but it is located within the ZBA’s required 30-foot setback. The alternative would be to build the addition on the hillside, which would have some negative environmental impact, including the removal of several mature trees, and extensive excavation. If the ZBA denies the request for a setback variance, then Ms. Thomas would propose building the addition in the alternative location (Plan A).

In summary, Ms. Thomas seeks the approval of the alternative plan, Plan B. She would then ask the ZBA for a variance to build Plan B. Ms. Pierce reviewed Mr. Thomas’ and the Committee’s recent discussions, on January 11, 2007, when he had come to the Public Voice section of the meeting to ask for the Committee’s advice on how to proceed with the proposed addition. Ms. Thomas reminded the Committee that their main concern at that time had to do with the public notification process.

The Thomas’ previous project included adding bays to the house and revising the driveway. Ms. Thomas informed the Committee that all work from the original OoC had been finished. The Thomas’s have been holding off on requesting a Certificate of Compliance, pending this possible amendment.

Mr. McDonnell opined that since there had been abutter notification and legal notice publication for the amendment discussion, he would be willing to go forward with the amendment. As a general note to the Committee, the general practice for a proposed activity of this size should require the filing of a NOI. He then reviewed the two plans, indicating that one would go straight out from (i.e. in line with) the house, and one would be built at an angle to the house, toward the front boundary line and fence.

Ms. O’Donnell suggested that (since there are two proposals) perhaps the Committee should okay the Thomas’ preferred plan (Plan B), to be submitted to the ZBA, and if they are not granted a variance, then they should be required to file a NOI for their alternative plan (Plan A).

Mr. Taylor restated Ms. O’Donnell’s suggestion, indicating that the Committee would be approving the plan that was less intrusive to the land and environment, but more intrusive to Zoning (i.e. Plan B).

Mr. Michael Ahern (abutter, 21 Pine Ridge Road) asked which plan was preferred. Ms. Thomas responded that Plan B (plan C2A), rather than Plan A, is the preferred plan.

Ms. O’Donnell asked whether there should be any additional conditions, such as requiring dry wells. Ms. Thomas stated that, currently, the house has no gutters or downspouts. Mr. McDonnell asked if the addition would have a basement. Ms. Thomas responded, saying “No,” the addition included only a two-car garage with an artist studio over it. Mr. McDonnell stated that the previous driveway had been covered with (impervious) asphalt, but was now covered with (pervious) pavers, asking whether pavers were proposed for the area that would abut the garage; Ms. Thomas stated that pavers would be used.

Mr. McDonnell made the following motion:

1. To close the hearing;

2. Issue an amended Order of Conditions incorporating Plan C2A;

3. Allow the driveway to be extended with the same type of pavers as presently installed;

4. Require a pre-construction meeting with the Wetlands Administrator to review the plans and determine whether erosion controls would be needed (since there would be no excavation, there may be no need for erosion controls), but if so, where to install the erosion controls.

Ms. Weissman seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Mr. McDonnell suggested that Ms. Thomas should file a Notice of Intent for proposed Plan A with the Committee if the ZBA denies the variance request. Mr. Taylor added that at the same time, the Thomas’s would need to file a request for a Certificate of Compliance to close out their current project.

Mr. Ahern asked an unrelated question, stating that he has a vegetable garden on the south of his house; the stream is downhill to the south of it. He said that lots of trees have grown in over time, shading his vegetable garden. He asked what he would need to do in order to take the trees down. Mr. McDonnell advised Mr. Ahern that he would need to file a NOI if he proposed to remove any trees from the riverfront. He added that he was not saying that the Committee would necessarily allow such a proposal.

Continued Discussion, 15 Royalston Road, DEP #324-516, OoC Requirements

The Committee continued its discussions regarding the site’s Order of Conditions (“OoC”) requirements regarding remediation of the site’s prior wetland violations. Neither Mr. Paul Bevilacqua (Applicant) nor his representative attended the meeting.

The Committee reviewed the documents that had been requested during the previous meeting’s discussions with Mr. Bevilacqua (also required by his OoC), including:

1. The proposed bank agreement document; and

2. Cost estimates for the restoration plan’s installation, to show that Mr. Bevilacqua’s assertion that costs for completing the site’s restoration landscaping would be between $8,000 and $10,000.

The Committee determined the submitted “bank agreement document” (letter from Mr. Jack W. McGeorge, President of The Needham Cooperative Bank, dated February 21, 2007) to be inadequate. The Committee determined that if Mr. Bevilacqua had not submitted an acceptable form letter of credit within two weeks of this meeting, it would start fining him for his violations, stating that it had made it clear that only a letter of credit would be accepted, adding “if not from his bank then from another bank”. Mr. McDonnell advised that the Zoning Board had letter of credit arrangements, saying that it would have form letters of credit that Mr. Bevilacqua could use.

The Committee asked Ms. Pierce to send a letter to Mr. Bevilacqua, with a copy to Mr. McGeorge (Needham Cooperative Bank), advising him that the Committee had found the “bank agreement document” that he had submitted inadequate. In addition, fines will be assessed for $300 per day against Mr. Bevilacqua if the Wetlands Administrator has not received an acceptable letter of credit within fourteen days (from March 15, i.e. March 29, 2007). Mr. Bevilacqua’s requested waiver of his $3,000 wetland violation fine (to reduce it to $1,000) will be in abeyance until an adequate letter of credit has been submitted to, and accepted by, the Committee.

The Committee reviewed the following two job estimates (for installation of the restoration landscaping), submitted by Mr. Bevilacqua (both were unsigned copies, not original documents):

1. “Nowak Brothers Landscaping” of Needham’s (Faxed copy from Mr. Ken Nowak) Job Estimate dated 3/10/07 (without reference to a specific plan) for $8,975, and

2. “Hepatica Design, Incorporated” of Wellesley dated March 5^th, 2007 (without reference to a specific plan), indicating that the “price for this work is $11,225.”

The Committee deemed these job estimates to be inadequate. It asked Ms. Pierce to include in her letter to Mr. Bevilacqua, the requirement that written, signed originals of the estimates with clear descriptions of work to be performed (including plan references) also needed to be received within two weeks.

The Committee asked Ms. Pierce to get an example of a letter of credit from the Planning Board’s Administrator for reference. The Committee then signed the “Letter of Agreement and Consent between Town of Wellesley Wetlands Protection Committee and Mr. Paul Bevilacqua” (previously signed and notarized by Mr. Bevilacqua).

General Business (continued)

Meeting Minutes. Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the draft minutes of February 22, 2007, with his hand written corrections (as given to Ms. Pierce), deleting the words “foundation was not coming out, but” in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph in the 3 Sunnyside Avenue hearing discussions (on page 4). Marc Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

The Committee asked Ms. Pierce to do some research to determine whether a Committee Chair could:

1. Make a motion, and/or

Discussion Re: Creation of a WPC List of Projects and Priorities,

Ms. O’Donnell explained the rational behind the proposed list, as discussed with Ms. Pierce during the MACC Annual meeting. Ms. Pierce had initially recommended forming working groups to address administrative tasks/projects that she believed should be updated or created. The Committee reviewed Ms. Pierce’s proposed list, and agreed to the following order of importance:

1. Public education;

2. Wetlands map update; and

3. Expired OoCs project, including a mailing to homeowners with expired OoCs.

Adjournment at 9:45 pm.

Next meeting: April 5, 2007.

Wetlands Administrator