Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Guests: Denny Nackoney; Aliana B.E. von Richthofen; Jonathan Thomas; Phil Bevins; Deadra Doku; Alexander E. von Richthofen; James Bougioukas, PE; Hawk Furman; Walter Lewinsky; Dean Behrend; Jerry Rossman; Trustin Ennacheril; Roy Ennacheril; Rob Marini; Lynn Sutton.

Guernsey Sanctuary: Denny Nackoney, a member of the Trails Committee, brought to the attention of this Committee a proposed Boy Scout project to replace an old and rotting footbridge over a stream in the Guernsey Sanctuary. No fill would be used. Committee members agreed that the project looked reasonable, but a decision on approval could not be guaranteed until the plan is filed and heard. In answer to a question from Marc Taylor, Mr. Nackoney said he would forward information on X-Potential, the lumber-substitute made from recycled plastics and auto shredder residue which he proposed for support of the footbridge instead of pressure treated wood.

Aliana von Richthofen asked the Committee to accept as insignificant a change to the plan recently approved in the Order of Conditions. Because the garage had to be recessed to meet restrictions of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the outline of the house addition would be altered to extend about 2.4 feet farther to the side, but without further extension toward the stream. The Committee accepted this change (as shown on the drawing dated June 13, 2006).

Phil Bevins presented a plan for replacing steps on the bank near the Charles River and replacing a deck at the riverbank with a screened-in pavilion. (The plan is a modification of the proposal that received a positive Determination of Applicability at the June 1 meeting.) The existing wood steps would be replaced by granite steps of about the same size, set in gravel, with ornamental peastone between the steps. The new pavilion would be supported by existing concrete posts and would not require excavation.

Marc Taylor asked the applicant if he sought a waiver from the buffer zone regulation of the Bylaw and, if so, on what grounds. He said that in a previous case on Washington Street, the owner was required to remove a structure close to the river. In fairness, and to avoid a precedent that would allow similar riverside structures, the proposed pavilion should not be permitted unless shown to qualify for a waiver. Robert McDonnell said the pavilion was a replacement rather than an alteration of the buffer and therefore would not need a waiver. Mary Jane O’Donnell agreed that since the pavilion would have the same footprint as the deck it replaced, it would not constitute an alteration under the Act and Bylaw. Further discussion led to the question of whether the existing deck had been properly permitted when installed an unknown number of years ago.

Marc Taylor said that if the existing deck were shown to have been properly permitted, he might be able to approve the replacement, but it would be with reservations. Marc Taylor asked if the timbers in the water, or at the water's edge, would also be replaced by granite. Phil Bevins said that only one 4-foot wide granite step would be placed at the water's edge, to prevent erosion, but peastone would not be placed under this lowest step.

Robert McDonnell moved to close the hearing, allow the granite steps, deny the deck replacement subject to allowing a reopening of the hearing for the applicant to prove that the existing deck is a permitted structure, and require the submittal and approval of a detail for the bottom step. Rhonda Ryznar seconded the motion, and discussion followed. The motion was put to a vote and carried 3 – 0; Marc Taylor abstained.

Jack Thomas requested a clarification regarding the Order of Conditions about to be issued for this project. He would prefer to remove several trees located between the back of the proposed house and the location of the erosion control line shown on the plan, but their removal was not indicated in the Notice of Intent, on the proposed site plan, or at the hearing. The Committee agreed that the trees in question could be removed with no significant adverse effect on wetlands or riverfront values, and issued the Order of Conditions with this permission explicitly stated.

Deadra Doku presented a proposal to remove a timber retaining wall alongside the driveway and replace it with a knoll-like area, planted with evergreens, shrubs, and grass. Two trees would be removed in the process. Ms. Doku said she proposed to use the excess soil to level some of the land behind her house, which slopes down to Morses Pond.

Robert McDonnell moved to issue a negative Determination of Applicability for the removal of the wall and the two trees and the regrading along the side of the driveway, with the condition that no fill be placed behind the driveway and house. No erosion controls would be needed. Rhonda Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 0.

Peter Keenan reported that that the filing was incomplete. The list of abutters submitted with the Notice of Intent did not include all the required properties, and the survey plan to accompany the Notice of Intent has not yet been submitted. The DEP does not yet list the filing.

Lynn Sutton said a copy was sent to the DEP within the last few days. She had notified all abutters on the list provided her by the applicant. The engineer has not yet been able to complete his survey of existing conditions and recent changes. Peter Keenan said that he had encouraged the prompt filing of the Notice of Intent even if incomplete because of the deadline for response under the Enforcement Order, and he thought a continuation to allow for completion of the plan seemed reasonable. He also said that the plan should document recent filling in wetland and buffer. Lynn Sutton agreed to a continuation.

Applicant Dean Behrend and surveyor Jerry Rossman (representing Frank Iebba, the applicant's engineer for the proposal) were present. At the request of the chairman, Mr. Behrend reviewed the scope of the project. He said all requirements were being met. The plan was being modified to increase the number of drywells but make them shallower. Peter Keenan reviewed some of the items on the list of questions and deficiencies he had presented at the May 11 meeting. Robert McDonnell said that the plot plan was difficult to read because so much information was layered onto this one drawing, and he suggested that multiple sheets be provided. The applicant agreed to continue the hearing.

Walter Lewinsky and Hawk Furman presented a revised plan (dated 6/5/06) with several changes based on the discussion at the last meeting. The plan adds shrubs and trees along the slopes at the outer edges of the covered leaching galleys. The lawn atop the leaching galleys is now shown sloping slightly toward the east, where the drain manhole will now be equipped with a grate to catch the runoff. This will direct it to the detention galleys rather than into the wetland. Hawk Furman said that during the subdivision approval process, the Planning Board had originally favored the enclosed detention galleys which are now being proposed. He favors a return to this concept because it would eliminate an “eyesore”, remove a structure that will collect debris, and eliminate a mosquito breeding place.

Maintenance of the underground basins was discussed. Committee members said that a workable and verifiable operation and maintenance plan for the system should be in place and made a part of the Order of Conditions. Robert McDonnell said that an engineered system that requires maintenance should not be favored over a simpler system needing little maintenance. For larger institutions, such as Babson College, maintenance plans can work, but the likelihood of neglect is greater with small stormwater systems. He compared this buried storage system to the proposal for floodwater storage at 15 Winding River Circle, which the Committee denied. He said he is not adamantly opposed and would not argue strongly to have the Committee reject this project, but he was personally and philosophically opposed.

Hawk Furman said he sees the proposed system as an improvement from all aspects. Mr. McDonnell said that his reservation concerns monitoring and maintaining the system into the future. Walter Lewinsky said that a maintenance checklist would be submitted annually to the Planning Board.

Rhonda Ryznar moved to close the hearing and approve the project, with the special condition that the Wetlands Protection Committee must receive an annual maintenance report. Marc Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 3 – 1. Robert McDonnell voted in opposition.

Owners Roy Ennacheril and Trustin Ennacheril and their consultant Rob Marini were present. Mary Jane O’Donnell said that the hearing had been continued to permit the applicant to add to the plan clear indications of wetland and buffer boundaries and make changes to the restoration area.

Trustin Ennacheril presented a revised plan, dated June 9, 2006. It shows a buffer restoration area extending out to the 50-foot buffer line, a plant list for the restoration area, locations of house and badminton courts, and the existing tree line. Except for one corner of a badminton court, all proposed development is farther than 50 feet from the wetland line. Trustin Ennacheril said that the two proposed houses would be outside the 100-foot buffer zone, though part of one deck extends about 5 or 10 feet into the buffer zone. The badminton courts would be lawn. The tree stumps in the outer 50 feet of buffer would be ground down. On lot #12, one more tree would be removed. Trustin Ennacheril said that both wetland consultants now agree with the delineation presented here. There are no drainage issues. Rob Marini said that no grades would be changed, with the exception of some minor leveling for the driveways.

Marc Taylor moved to waive any fine for the violation when the trees were cut without approval. The motion received no second. Robert McDonnell moved to issue a token fine of $100, Marc Taylor seconded, and the motion carried 3 – 1. Mary Jane O’Donnell favored a more substantial fine and voted against the motion.

Robert McDonnell moved to issue a negative Determination of Applicability, on condition that the erosion control line be placed at least 25 feet from the wetland line instead of the location shown on the revised plan. Marc Taylor seconded, and the motion carried 4 – 0.

The Committee discussed the planned move of the Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Building Department offices to the proposed new DPW building. It appears uncertain at this time whether the Natural Resources office would move or would remain in Town Hall. Members said that the public would best be served with the wetlands administration remaining close to Planning, Zoning, and Building. Peter Keenan said that the majority of walk-ins to the NRC office come with wetlands concerns, and most of these visitors have related business with the three departments supposed to be moving. Members also noted the advantages of keeping wetlands administration near the three other departments, now located together in the lower level of Town Hall, and of bringing wetlands administration closer to the DPW and Engineering.

On a motion by Robert McDonnell, seconded by Marc Taylor, and approved 4 – 0, the minutes of the meetings on January 26 and March 9, 2006, were approved as drafted and revised. Members expressed preference for the present practice of detailed narrative minutes, because of their usefulness for future reference and despite the difficulty of keeping up to date with minute approvals.