MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2014 Approved July 10, Chair L. Cohen, Vice-Chair G. Lima, N. Celik, A. McNamara, K. Melanson

Transcription

1 Town of Burlington 29 Center Street Phone Burlington, MA Fax Burlington Conservation Commission MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2014 Approved July 10, 2014 Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Chair L. Cohen, Vice-Chair G. Lima, N. Celik, A. McNamara, K. Melanson W. Boivin, I. Deb Conservation Administrator J. Keeley and Assistant Administrator J. Keene 1. Call Meeting to Order L. Cohen called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. 2. Citizens Time There was no one present for Citizens Time. 3. Approval of Minutes a. May 22, 2014 A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 22, 2014 WAS MADE BY K. MELANSON. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY G. LIMA AND APPROVED (3-0-1, A.M. ABSTAINED, N. CELIK HAD NOT YET ARRIVED) b. June 12, 2014 A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 12, 2014 WAS MADE BY K. MELANSON. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY G. LIMA AND APPROVED (3-0-1, A. MCNAMARA ABSTAINED, N. CELIK HAD NOT YET ARRIVED). 4a. Request for Determination of Applicability Continued 26 Lexington Street Richard Caplan Clearing and grading Richard Caplan was present for this discussion. J. Keeley explained that he and J. Keene had further explored the site for the presence of wetlands. After looking at the soils on site, they determined there is a wetland on the property, but it is isolated and fairly small. It is therefore jurisdictional only under the local bylaw as it is not large enough to be jurisdictional under the Wetlands Protection Act. L. Cohen noted that when the Bylaw and Regulations were written, the intention of the Conservation Commission was to have a 500 square foot minimum size threshold for isolated wetlands. L. Cohen explained that if R. Caplan wished to clean up some debris and do some planting, there is no issue.

2 However, if he is looking to expand upon his lawn, he would have to file a Notice of Intent and provide compensation for the filled wetlands. J. Keeley clarified that the Commission could issue a waiver for the work under the bylaw. He noted that if there was any filling proposed, R. Caplan would have to determine the wetland boundary and file a Notice of Intent. Removal of dead trees and clean up of fallen debris would not require an additional filing and could be approved under the current application. R. Caplan said that he does not want more lawn area. He is suggesting that he would like to remove the poison ivy, remove the dumped yard waste, remove the dead trees, and clear out a horseshoe shaped area beyond the yard. He eventually would like to fill in a depression beyond the yard, but he is willing to come back to the Commisison for that portion of the project. G. Lima asked how he proposes to remove the poison ivy. R. Caplan said that he would hire a landscaping company to remove it. G. Lima said that mechanical removal is preferred to broad spectrum herbicide and noted that they would not want machinery back in the wetlands. N. Celik thought it better to include the proposed filling in this application process rather than phase it. R. Caplan and J. Keeley discussed the location where he would like to fill. It was determined that the area is likely the isolated wetland. N. Celik asked if the wetland is likely to be under 500 square feet. J. Keeley thought it was fairly likely. L. Cohen suggested that R. Caplan hire a wetland scientist to determine the wetland boundary and if it is found to be under 500 square feet, the Commission would likely issue a waiver for the filling. R. Caplan thought that was a reasonable approach and will proceed as discussed. This hearing will continue at the July 10, 2014 Conservation Commission meeting. 4b. Request for Determination of Applicability 20 Wall Street Gutierrez Company Removal of dead trees from Riverfront Area Scott Weiss, from the Gutierrez Company, and Tom Keough, wetland scientist with Vanasse, Hangen, and Brustlin, were present for this discussion. S. Weiss described the site, which is bordered on two sides by wetlands and a brook behind the Harvard Vanguard building. Along the edge of the parking area there are approximately 75 unhealthy trees, which they are proposing to remove. The will restore the site by planting trees along the banks, which will likely occur this fall. J. Keeley noted that this work is in the inner riparian zone of the riverfront area, contrary to what the application materials said. This stream is on the Burlington Streams Map, and therefore has a riverfront. 2 P a g e

3 J. Keeley thought that grinding the stumps is unnecessary and that the tree species should be native species. T. Keough said that the white pines were intentionally planted as a screen, which is why they are looking for a conifer screen to replace them. They are also proposing species that will not reach to the top of the power lines. S. Weiss said they are willing to work with the Commission to identify native species that are acceptable. G. Lima said that chemical removal of the poison ivy, which is what the applicants have proposed, is not a good practice in the riverfront area. G. Lima warned that the white pines in the commercial areas of town seem to be dying. She does not think that white pine is a suitable tree for this location. G. Lima then asked if they use salt on the lot. A. McNamara asked about snow storage. They do use salt on the lot and the snow is stored along the stream. K. Melanson asked the number of trees proposed to be planted. T. Keough said they are proposing upwards of 60 trees but also noted that the trees had been planted too closely before to allow planting as many trees as they are removing as the root masses will be in the way. K. Melanson asked if the straw wattles are appropriate if they are going to grind the stumps. J. Keeley said that they would not be allowed to grind the stumps. S. Weiss stated that they would not have enough room to plant trees if they are not allowed to grind the stumps. G. Lima and J. Keeley noted that the disturbance associated with the stump grinding is more that they think is appropriate on the river bank. L. Cohen thought they should be allowed to grind some stumps to allow for the planting of the trees. The Commission disagreed. K. Melanson asked the size of the trees they are proposing to plant. T. Keough said they would be looking at 8-10 foot tall trees with a few inch diameter trunks. L. Cohen thought staff should work with the applicant in the field to identify what can be planted and where. J. Keeley will edit the draft determination to condition that as many trees as possible be planted without grinding the stumps, in consultation with the staff. There was no one in the audience for this discussion. A MOTION TO APPROVE NEGATIVE CONDITIONAL DETERMINATION FOR THE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT AT 20 WALL STREET WAS MADE BY G. LIMA. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY A. MCNAMARA AND APPROVED (5-0-0). 4c. Request for Determination of Applicability 51 North Avenue New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) Cell tower co-location Audra Klumb, President A & D Klumb Environmental, was present to describe this project. 3 P a g e

4 The project is for an antenna co-location at 51 North Avenue. The work is within the 100-foot buffer zone to wetlands, which is why they are seeking a determination. J. Keeley noted that this project is approximately 40 feet from bordering vegetated wetlands. He reminded the Commission that they approved another co-location project at this site earlier in the year. G. Lima asked if there was a new concrete pad proposed. A. Krumb said there will be one for the equipment shelter and one for the generator. There was no one in the audience for this project. J. Keeley went through the findings and conditions in the determination. A MOTION TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE CONDITIONAL DETERMINATION AS DISCUSSED FOR THE CO-LOCATION PROJECT AT 51 NORTH AVENUE WAS MADE BY K. MELANSON. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY G. LIMA AND APPROVED (5-0-0). 5. Continued Public Hearing Notice of Intent (WPA only) Route 128 / I-95 MA DOT District 4 Dredge drainage channel DEP Renata Welsh, environmental engineer with MA DOT District 4, and Sergio Breña were present for this discussion. S. Breña stated that J. Keeley had visited the site and did not see any additional work that needed to be done. J. Keeley reminded the Commission that this work had been done under an emergency certification to resolve drainage problems on Route 128. The wetlands were disturbed when they dug to restore the drainage channel previously established. The work is done and the vegetation has reestablished. J. Keeley went through the findings and conditions for this project. J. Keeley will add that the Commission requires the submission of a wetlands report be submitted in the fall. A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING FOR THE DRAINAGE PROJECT ON ROUTE 128, DEP # , WAS MADE BY G. LIMA. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY A. MCNAMARA AND APPROVED (5-0-0). A MOTION TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR THE DRAINAGE PROJECT ON ROUTE 128, DEP # , WAS MADE BY G. LIMA. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY A. MCNAMARA AND APPROVED (5-0-0). 6. Continued Public Hearing Notice of Intent 41 Burlington Mall Road Lahey Hospital and Medical Center Facility expansion and parking and roadway reconfiguration/construction DEP # P a g e

5 Richard Hollworth, engineer with Vanasse, Hangen, and Brustlin, and Larry Carterelli from Lahey Hospital were present for this discussion. R. Hollworth summarized the site visit that took place June 25 th with staff and some members of the Conservation Commission. He submitted an updated grading and drainage plan that incorporated the suggestions and decisions that were reached during the site visit. Much of the conversation was around the LID feature for bioinfiltration on site. He was very careful to design a system that will have minimal disturbance to the mature vegetation, though they will be removing the dead or dying trees in the area of the proposed LID. He also researched the catch basin on site that was shown to be just off the wetlands boundary. He did not see the catch basin, but did see some silt fence which at one time protected the wetland. It is likely just buried in place. They are proposing to abandon the catch basin in place in a more formalized way. K.Melanson had asked at the site visit if there was an opportunity for another water quality unit to treat runoff from the upper parking lot. R. Hollworth said there is an opportunity, but requests that it be conditioned in the permit as he would like to have a discussion with the manufacturer about the most cost-effective and best result for the area. He might consider one larger unit or a few smaller units, depending on the suggestion of the manufacturer. L. Cohen asked R. Hollworth to summarize the questions that J. Keene had requested he answer. R. Hollworth said that most questions were regarding some disconnected sections of the stormwater management system, which were due to the compiled nature of the data they were working with. He was able to track down and determine the connections. He also noted that they are going to abandon the catch basin at the edge of the wetland, as requested. They will be resolving a catch basin to catch basin connection at the southeastern corner of the property as well. L. Cohen had some concern over the maintenance of the bioinfiltration area and the use of salt on the roadway which would discharge to the swale. He was concerned of the potential effect on the trees if they were receiving the salt from the roadway. J. Keeley thought that the area already was exposed to salt as they store snow in the area currently. G. Lima also noted that the trees that are present in the area of the proposed LID are species somewhat more resistant to damage from salt. L. Cohen asked about the proposed future pathway which will be constructed along the outer edge of the ring road. They had talked about a meandering path but what is shown is very straight. R. Hollworth said that for the most part, they are constrained by the wetlands and the grading that would be needed for the pathway. There may be an opportunity to meander the pathway at the eastern edge of the parking lot known as Lot 3. L. Cohen asked how they might improve the aesthetics of the path and specifically how they would address the poison ivy. R. Hollworth said they could eradicate the poison ivy in the path presently and could reapply stone dust as needed. L. Carterelli though said they would take the steps necessary to reestablish the walking path to which they are trying to connect. R. Hollworth also said there were some interesting views along the wooded edge of the wetlands that they could capitalize upon. There was also some discussion of adding some trees or shrubs to enhance the canopy providing shade to the future path. 5 P a g e

6 J. Keeley suggested that the Commission consider voting on the Order of Conditions tonight but that the staff utilize the 21 days they have before the Order of Conditions needs to be issued, which would allow the applicant to provide final plans incorporating the walkway details and the resolved stormceptor issue. They will also submit a revise erosion control plan which will incorporate the plans for the pathway. L. Cohen asked R. Hollworth to discuss the pedestrian connectivity to the pathway from Mall Road. R. Hollworth said that there is an unimproved pathway from Mall Road which follows the gas line to the more formalized pathway, which we have been discussing. L. Cohen asked if they could mark the pathway at Mall Road to notify pedestrians the existence of the path. L. Carterelli thought the path should be upgraded from Mall Road, reestablishing the stone dust for the length of the property. N. Celik asked how the discussions had progressed around aligning the ring road at the intersection of Mall Road with the driveway at the RJ Kelly building. R. Hollworth said that the Planning Board approved the filings as proposed, without relocating the ring road for alignment. They did, however, allow for changes to occur if, after further investigation, they find the alignment is necessary for public safety. There was no one in the audience for this hearing. J. Keeley went through the findings and conditions for this project, noting that the applicants will submit final plans to staff prior to issuance of the Order of Conditions. L. Cohen requested that J. Keeley include a condition stating that no snow be stored on the outside of the ring road. He also requested that signage be installed marking the location of the trail. A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING FOR THE PROJECT AT 41 BURLINGTON MALL ROAD, LAHEY HOSPITAL, DEP # , WAS MADE BY G. LIMA. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY N. CELIK AND APPROVED (4-0-1, A. MCNAMARA ABSTAINED). A MOTION TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS FOR THE PROJECT AT 41 BURLINGTON MALL ROAD, LAHEY HOSPITAL, DEP # , WAS MADE BY K. MELANSON. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY G. LIMA AND APPROVED (4-0-1, A. MCNAMARA ABSTAINED). A MOTION TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECT AT 41 BURLINGTON MALL ROAD, LAHEY HOSPITAL, DEP # WAS MADE BY G. LIMA. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY N. CELIK AND APPROVED (4-0-1, A. MCNAMARA ABSTAINED). A MOTION TO REQUIRE A $15,000 PERFORMANCE BOND FOR THE PROJECT AT 41 BURLINGTON MALL ROAD, LAHEY HOSPITAL, DEP # WAS MADE BY K. MELANSON. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY N. CELIK AND APPROVED (4-0-1, A. MCNAMARA ABSTAINED). 7. Continued Public Hearing Notice of Intent New England Executive Park NEEP Investors Holdings, LLC c/o National Development Commercial redevelopment DEP # P a g e

7 R. Hollworth, engineer with Vanasse, Hangen, and Brustlin, summarized the developments concerning the Vine Brook Riverwalk as a result of the site walk with Conservation Commissioners and staff and Planning Board members and staff. They are able to further the walking path along Vine Brook and will offer a more formalized connection to the pedestrian access to the Burlington Mall. They will be narrowing a portion of the roadway and introducing one-way-traffic to allow for some additional sections to be constructed at this time. Updated plans are needed showing the continuation of the Riverwalk through the site. This hearing will continue at the July 10, 2014 Conservation Commission meeting. 8. Continued Public Hearing Sedimentation & Erosion Control Permit Application New England Executive Park NEEP Investors Holdings, LLC c/o National Development Reconstruct/reconfigure roadways Rich Hollworth, engineer with Vanasse, Hangen, and Brustlin, and Andrew Gallinaro with National Development were present for this discussion. Items 8 & 9 were discussed concurrently and are recorded herewith. A. Gallinaro stated that they received approval from the Planning Board for the first two phases of the project, which is everything before the Commission except for the tower building and proposed garage nearest the southeast corner of the property. They are looking to start work on this project this summer and are hoping to close out any outstanding issues with the Conservation Commission at this hearing. R. Hollworth noted that they are seeking approval on the two Sedimentation & Erosion Control permit applications, which cover the roadways and the area of redevelopment outside of wetlands jurisdiction. J. Keeley noted that the roadway project is primarily upgrading drainage structures, which is fairly straightforward. There are no outstanding issues concerning that part of the project. The second Sedimentation & Erosion Control application has some issues that he would like to discuss. There is a small bioretention area proposed near the hotel, which is not shown on the grading and drainage plan. They are also proposing a 450i stormceptor and staff would rather see a larger stormceptor further down the drainage line to capture and treat a larger area. R. Hollworth said there was some concern if they were to introduce a stormceptor further down the line as they would be working right up against the property boundary. He also does not think there would be much more water quality improvement with a modified stormceptor design. J. Keeley advised that the Commission could vote to issue both Sedimentation & Erosion Control Permits, but they would have to include conditions that they submit plans showing the bioinfiltration area on the grading plan, and that will address the outstanding drainage question. There was no one in the audience for this discussion. 7 P a g e

8 J. Keeley went through the findings and conditions for the Sedimentation & Erosion Control Permit, noting that an erosion control plan needs to be submitted. L. Cohen requested that the applicant inspect the catch basins in area 1 and submit a report to the staff. J. Keeley will include that condition in the permit for the commercial redevelopment. The votes for the Sedimentation & Erosion Control Permits are recorded under items 8 and 9 below. A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND ISSUE THE SEDIMENTATION & EROSION CONTROL PERMIT FOR THE ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT NEW ENGLAND EXECUTIVE PARK WAS MADE BY G. LIMA. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY N. CELIK AND APPROVED (5-0-0). A MOTION TO REQUIRE A $5000 PERFORMANCE BOND FOR THE ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT NEW ENGLAND EXECUTIVE PARK WAS MADE BY K. MELANSON. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY A. MCNAMARA AND APPROVED (5-0-0). 9. Continued Public Hearing Sedimentation & Erosion Control Permit Application New England Executive Park NEEP Investors Holdings, LLC c/o National Development Commercial redevelopment A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND ISSUE THE SEDIMENTATION & EROSION CONTROL PERMIT FOR THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT NEW ENGLAND EXECUTIVE PARK WAS MADE BY A. MCNAMARA. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY K. MELANSON AND APPROVED (5-0-0). A MOTION TO ISSUE TO REQUIRE A $5000 PERFORMANCE BOND FOR THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT NEW ENGLAND EXECUTIVE PARK WAS MADE BY N. CELIK. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY K. MELANSON AND APPROVED (5-0-0). 10. Continued Public Hearing Erosion & Sedimentation Control Permit Application 25 Network Drive Network Drive Owner, LLC Construct office building, parking structure, and parking lot This hearing will continue at the July 10, 2014 Conservation Commission meeting. 11. Public Hearing Notice of Intent 34 Davida Road Kendra Rivers Residential addition/garage DEP Steve Eriksen, from Norse Environmental, and the homeowners, Michael Whalen and his fiancé, were present for this discussion. S. Eriksen explained the project, which is for two residential additions on an existing single-family residence. The site is quite limited due to the lot size and the wetlands on site. They are proposing a garage addition off the front right of the house and a small, two-story addition off the rear of the house. 8 P a g e

9 S. Eriksen explained the wetlands are bordering an intermittent stream which runs along the right side of the property. J. Keeley noted that the applicant originally came in to the Conservation Department with a plan for the garage in the wetlands. He worked with the staff to come up with an improved plan. However, they are obviously still limited at this site. J. Keeley explained that the Commission would have to grant a waiver as they would be working within the no-disturb and building within the no-build zones set in the Bylaw Regulations. J. Keeley said he has some concern for the proposed back yard and the potential for the property owners to want to remove additional trees. G. Lima asked if they could relocate the turn out on the driveway. S. Eriksen didn t think an alternative alignment would work. G. Lima asked if they could use a pervious surface. M. Whalen asked if they could do nothing to the turn out and leave it as is. There was some discussion over what is proposed for the lawn expansion and the filling in the rear yard. Although unclear at this time, S. Eriksen said they will explore that further and depict any filling and change of grade on revised plans. G. Lima asked if they know the depth to ground water and if it is a concern for the proposed basement. S. Eriksen did not know the depth to ground water, but it is certainly a concern. J. Keeley requested that they darken the contours on the plan before resubmission. N. Celik asked what type of fence they are proposing. M. Whalen said they will be trying to re-use the existing fence, which is a wooden stockade. G. Lima asked what they are proposing between the right side of the house and the fence. Her concern is if they are planning a paved walkway, it would be additional impervious within the no-disturb zone. M. Whalen did not think they would pave the pathway, it is more likely that it will be lawn. G. Lima clarified that the only point that encroaches upon the 20-foot no-disturb is the one corner of the addition that would be 17.3 feet from the boundary. L. Cohen asked how the Commission felt about voting on a waiver for the 2.7 feet of disturbance within the no-disturb zone. N. Celik asked if the section of the addition within the no-disturb zone is going to be constructed on an area of existing pavement. S. Eriksen said the area is currently paved. N. Celik asked how much of a precedent the Commission would be setting allowing the waiver for the disturbance within the 20-foot no-disturb zone. L. Cohen said the Commission has allowed disturbance within the 20-foot no-disturb zone for other projects when the site has similar constraints, so the precedent has already been set. 9 P a g e

10 G. Lima asked if they would consider removing the concrete under where the deck is proposed. Mike said he would certainly consider it though S. Eriksen argued that they are improving upon existing conditions already by infiltrating rooftop runoff and that he saw no benefit to removing the concrete under the proposed deck. N. Celik said that given that there is a net improvement on the site he would be in favor of issuing the waiver. A. McNamara would also vote to issue the waiver. K. Melanson is also in favor of the waiver. G. Lima said she was fine with the waiver and asked what the plan is for the shed. Mike said he is going to relocate the shed further from the wetlands. L. Cohen thought they had done the best they can with the constraints on site. He does not see the benefit of removing the concrete pad under the deck. He is in favor of allowing the filling in the rear yard outside of the 20-foot no-disturb. J. Keeley summarized the issues that need to be addressed before the next meeting. Staff will have to check the wetland delineation The erosion control boundary should be moved to the 20-foot no-disturb The filling and grading needs to be shown on the plan The plans need to show darker contours This hearing will continue at the July 10, 2014 Conservation Commission meeting. 12. Administration a. Planning Board Comments: There were no comments at this time. b. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: July 10, August 14 (G. Lima might not be able to attend the August meeting.) c. Other: The article written by G. Lima and W. Boivin was published in the Burlington Union. A MOTION TO CLOSE THE JUNE 26, 2014 CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING WAS MADE BY K. MELANSON AT 9:38. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY A. MCNAMARA AND APPROVED (5-0-0). Minutes respectfully submitted by: Jodie W. Keene, Recording Clerk 10 P a g e