Waltham Conservation Commission
January 14, 2016
Meeting Minutes
Meeting called to order at 7:02 p.m.
Meeting attendees: Chairman Bill Doyle, Co-Chairman Phil Moser, Brad Baker, Gerard Dufromont, Maureen Fowler,
Tali Gill-Austern, Daniel Keleher
Informal Discussion: Robert Treat Paine Drive Tree Planting Encroachment
Attorney Francis Craig stated that he was assigned enforcement of encroachment on Robert Treat Paine Drive. The Commission and the Legal Department have written to the property owner three or four times re: his trees that were planted on city property, which have been ignored. Atty. Craig can file a complaint on the Commission’s behalf, however the problem is proving and demonstrating it, which would require a survey. Need to draw a plan showing the line and the encroaching bushes. If they hire a surveyor, it is suggested he/she checks out the other neighboring properties that may be also encroaching city property. 1 – Obtain a surveyor; 2 – In order to do the enforcement, they will need a completed survey to reestablish the boundaries, and it should be done for everyone in the area. Mr. Doyle noted that since the Commission has the care and control of a large acreage on the Paine Estate, we should know the boundary lines. The Commission has the budget to pay for this. There are encroachments on the backside of the property, too. Atty. Craig noted there was a survey done in 1977, so there may be a way to obtain that, and letting the abutters know where the line is. Mr. Doyle stated that they need to get a survey, and look at the property as a future master plan. We’ve created a paper trail that there may be an encroachment. Legally, nothing can be done until we can prove they’ve crossed that line. Atty. Craig noted that the Commission could possibly recover the cost of the survey if they can prove encroachment of the boundary lines.
Informal Discussion: 12 Stanley Road, DEP File # 316-527
Attorney Lawrence Levinson represented property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Garniss. They have owned the property since 1976. They obtained an Order of Conditions in 2004 for landscaping work and a Certificate of Compliance was issued later that year. They have decided to downside and sell their property. A problem has arisen with their potential buyers re: the Certificate of Compliance and two of the ongoing conditions. One of the conditions requires signage in front of the vehicle entrance. The other pertains to a drainage system which has never existed on the property. The buyers have asked for a letter from the Commission so the sale can go through. Mr. Keleher asked if Atty. Levinson’s request is limited to what he is requesting now. It appears the letter he wrote for the Commission to sign is broader in scope. Atty. Levinson stated that the buyers don’t want to acquire the property if the Commission is going to complain that the substance of the requirements have not been met. Mr. Moser is in favor of offering relief on the signage. Not sure if the Commission is recertifying. Mrs. Fowler noted that there is no drainage system and stated that the roof drainage goes straight to Stanley Road. Atty. Levinson stated that a major issue involves paper requirements. One of the conditions requires filing every year which hasn’t been enforced. Mr. Doyle read from the Order of Conditions that were placed on the property: 22C (signage), 22D (sand use/de-icing) and 22E (drainage system). He noted these are imposed on Commercial properties, not residential. Atty. Levinson stated that if the Commission signs his letter, it would be recorded. The Certificate of Compliance is not being amended. You are telling the public what your policy is on this specific situation. The buyers are not seeking changes to the following ongoing conditions: 20B, 21G, 22A and 22B. Chairman Doyle stated that the Commission cannot change the Certificate of Compliance that was issued, however they can state in the letter that the Commission will not enforce conditions 22C, 22D, 22E.
Motion made by Mr. Gill-Austern to make the changes re: the enforcement of the special conditions on this matter, seconded by Mrs. Fowler. Motion passed.
Public Hearing (Continued from 12-17-2015)
Notice of Intent: DEP File # 316-706
Applicant: Chapel Hill Chauncy Hall School
Property Location: Off of Beaver and Lexington Streets
Project Type: Renovations to Worcester Hall dormitory and related site improvements.
Al Trakimas, SITEC Environmental, represented the applicant. He noted that the site visit took place on December 22nd.
Lisa Giersbach, G2 Collaborative, summarized the project: making interior renovations to the architecture, removing the main parking lot, reducing the number of parking spots, and revegetating the site to be more of an outdoor space for the students. Some of the issues that came up during the site visit included 1 - Adding more drainage on site. They also came up with an invasives removal plan for all of the invasives on site. Some of the proposed removals: all of the Norway maples (twenty-two in total). The ones that are encroaching on the construction would be removed first. 2 - The proposed planting would promote a more wildlife habitat. 3 - Capturing roof run-off. The updated plan allows for taking clean runoff from the roof. It will infiltrate the first inch, then the rest will be discharged along the bank. It allows for additional recharge into the ground and it also takes care of the roof.
Under existing conditions, in the front of the building, along the driveway, the runoff discharges to the ground. The ones along the rear of the building, the water discharges underground and the school does not know where it goes, but it will be addressed with the new system.
Mr. Moser asked if the Norway maples would be replaced by a species of similar size. Ms. Giersbach replied that they would be revegetating with oaks. Mr. Baker confirmed that the trees will be cut down, not removed. He is pleased with the replanting list. He would suggested they keep track of what they are planting and tag the trees as an educational tool. Mr. Gill-Austern requested that the trees that are coming down be marked so the Commission can do a pre-site inspection to take a look before they come down. Ms. Giersbach noted that they will not take down all the trees at the same time. They can mark them in phases. Mr. Doyle stated that the Order of Conditions that is issued by the Commission is good for three years. All of the work should be completed within that time frame. If it cannot be done, the applicant can request an extension. During the project, the applicant needs to put in erosion controls, flag the trees, then call the Commission before any trees are removed.
Mrs. Fowler asked for clarification re: the runoff and infiltration system (January 7, 2016 letter mentions their using 12 perforated pipes). Mr. Trakimas clarified they would be using just one 12-inch pipe.
Mrs. Fowler asked about hydro-raking. Mr. Trakimas noted that there is a lot of leaf litter on the bottom of the pond. They would remove the leaf litter at the same time that the Norway maples are removed.
Mrs. Fowler would like to have added to the O & M Plan that the infiltration system is inspected annually.
Mr. Doyle opened up comments from the public. (There were none.)
Motion made by Mr. Moser to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion passed.
Motion made by Mr. Moser to issue a positive Order of Conditions with one special condition of adding the annual maintenance of the drainage system to the O & M Plan, seconded by Mr. Dufromont. Motion passed.
Public Hearing (Continued from 12-17-2015)
Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation: DEP File # 316-707
Applicant: Bentley University
Property Location: 400 Beaver Street
Project Type: Approval of the boundary of wetland resource areas.
Mr. Doyle and Mr. Moser recused themselves due to potential conflicts of interest.
Jeremy Fennell, Epsilon Associates, represented the applicant. He noted that there was a site visit on
December 22, 2015.
Mrs. Fowler asked if anyone had any questions from the Commission or from the public. (There were none.)
Motion made by Mr. Dufromont to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Gill-Austern. Motion passed.
Motion made by Mr. Dufromont to find the applicant’s delineation accurate, seconded by Mr. Keleher. Motion passed.
Motion made by Mrs. Fowler to take a two minute recess, seconded by Mr. Keleher. Motion passed.
Motion made by Mrs. Fowler to resume Commission business, seconded by Mr. Keleher. Motion passed.
Public Hearing
Notice of Intent: DEP File # (not yet assigned) (Comment: Incomplete Application. Missing pages 2 – 9.)
Applicant: Natalya Radul
Property Location: 124 Hardy Pond Road
Project Type: Mudroom addition.
Brian Fitzpatrick represented the applicant. They are proposing a 6’ x 16’ mudroom addition.
Mr. Gill-Austern asked if there will be a roof. Mr. Fitzpatrick replied that there will be a shed roof. Mr. Doyle asked if the ground is currently paved where the addition will be built. Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that the area is paved, but it is not paved underneath the deck (it’s soil covered with grass and bricks).
Mr. Doyle noted that the property is 52’ from Hardy Pond, and the addition is an increase in impervious.
Mr. Gill-Austern asked if the mudroom will be put up on stilts. Mr. Fitzpatrick replied that it will be built on three piers.
Mr. Baker stated there should be some sort of catchment of rainwater. Mr. Doyle confirmed that the Engineering Department will require an infiltration system.
Mr. Doyle would like to schedule a site visit and suggested Mr. Fitzpatrick ask engineering if they can attend as well to discuss the infiltration requirements.
Mr. Gill-Austern requested that Mr. Fitzpatrick go through the NOI application and fill out the missing information.
Mr. Moser would like to see a plan for a drainage system before approving the request.
Mr. Doyle would like to see a plan for capturing either driveway runoff or roof runoff. He then opened up comments from the public. (There were none.)
Site visit is scheduled for Thurs., Jan. 21st at 7:30 a.m.
Motion made by Mr. Gill-Austern to continue to the next meeting, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion passed.
Public Meeting
Request for Determination of Applicability
Applicant: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Property Location: Along US-20 and 142 Rose Hill Way
Project Type: Improvements to the Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line.
Carolyn Barker-Bowman, Ramaker & Associates, represented the applicant. MBTA is planning improvements along the Fitchburg commuter line. It involves the installation of two poles along US-20 and near 142 Rose Hill Way. The installations are to comply with the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. It includes the construction of the tower (pole) and radio equipment to allow MBTA to better control their trains remotely. The 74’ towers will support other radio equipment, and a 5’ x 5’ equipment pad has been proposed at each location. They believe the potential adverse effects to the wetlands are low.
Mr. Doyle asked how this gets installed. Ms. Barker-Bowman stated that it will be from the tracks. All of the equipment, personnel, and installation materials will be moved in via rail.
Mr. Doyle asked if the erosion controls will be installed off the property. Ms. Barker-Bowman noted that they should be within the MBTA right-of-way.
Mrs. Fowler is concerned that property owners aren’t notified that a 75-ft. tower is being installed.
Mr. Doyle stated that the Commission needs to determine if this project is applicable to the Wetlands Protection Act.
Motion made by Mr. Moser for a negative determination of applicability, seconded by Mr. Gill-Austern. 6 Yays, 1 Nay (Mrs. Fowler). Motion passed.
Public Hearing
Request for Amended Order of Conditions: DEP File # 316-695
Applicant: KW Development, LLC
Property Location: 135 Second Avenue
Ara Aftandilian represented the applicant. They went through a lengthy permit process with the City Council to build a hotel, and during part of the review process, the city engineer requested that certain improvements be removed from the city’s sewer easement. The city engineer asked that the grading within the easement be minimized. The result is the drainage structure is getting pulled back from the easement, and the bioretention area is moving 15 – 20 feet toward Second Avenue. There is no impact on wetland resource areas.
There is a potential I and I in that sewer line. They filmed the line. It’s an old clay pipe that has cracks in it, and they plan on making improvements to it, which may provide sufficient flow for I and I.
Mr. Doyle opened up comments from the public. (There were none.)
Motion made by Mrs. Fowler to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Gill-Austern. Motion passed.
Motion made by Mrs. Fowler to issue an amended Order of Conditions of the approved plan, seconded by
Mr. Gill-Austern. Motion passed.
Motion to take an item out of order, made by Mrs. Fowler, seconded by Mr. Moser. Motion passed.
· 12 Stanley Road: Commission read letter written by Atty. Levinson and voted to strike Item #4.
Motion made by Mrs. Fowler to resume Commission business, seconded by Mr. Gill-Austern. Motion passed.