Conservation Commission

Waltham Conservation Commission May 8, 2025 Meeting Minutes Meeting took place via public Zoom call with participation information posted at City Hall, Government Center, and on the Commission’s page of the city web site. Zoom information was circulated directly to all applicants and others on the public agenda. Meeting called to order at 7:03 PM. Attendees: Chair Alexander Sbordone, Vice Chair Bill Doyle, Philip Moser, Michael Donovan, Gerard Dufromont. Conservation Agent Meghan Sullivan. Absent: none Public Hearing Notice of Intent (DEP File # 316-0836) Applicant: Robert Waters, City of Waltham – Planning Department Property Location: 901 Moody Street Project Description: The City of Waltham proposes to cap the Woerd Avenue landfill on the Waltham/Newton city line and make improvements to, and expand recreational opportunities at, the Jack Koutoujian Playground in conjunction with the landfill closure. Wetland resource areas located within the project site include Inland Bank, Riverfront Area, Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF), and Buffer Zone. Robert Waters, Planning Director, and Richard Cooke, planning department, were present. Briony Angus and Jaclyn Caceci of Tighe & Bond presented for the applicant. Ms. Angus described the site conditions and the proposed work. The landfill at this site was closed in 1973 and MA DEP requires that it be capped. The landfill site is entirely vegetated. The existing playground, which will be redeveloped as part of this project, is not within the landfill area and is not in wetlands jurisdiction. Jurisdictional areas include bank and BLSF of Cram’s Cove, which is part of the Charles River. Ms. Caceci presented details on the landfill capping portion of the project. Ms. Angus noted the planned recreational improvements after capping: walking trails, golf chipping tunnel, golf putting area, pollinator garden, improvements to Koutoujian playground. 8.4 acres of trees, which have grown in since the landfill was closed, will be removed. The area will be revegetated with a native seed mix, as trees cannot be planted on a landfill cap. She noted that while there will be work in the riverfront area, most of the site is outside jurisdiction. Some details, such as the native seed mix, have been negotiated with MA DEP. A MEPA review has been done. She highlighted resource area impacts. 1.95 acres of the site is within riverfront. There will be a small amount of fill in BLSF. This has been filed as a limited project and riverfront redevelopment and an alternatives analysis has been done. Capping will result in 1,200 CF of flood storage loss. The considered alternatives were mentioned. Ms. Caceci gave details of the proposed stormwater management and highlighted expected improvements. She noted that infiltration is not allowed over a landfill. Ms. Angus presented a list of the permits required for this project, showing those issued and in process. Ms. Sullivan began the review of comments on this project by noting that she has solicited and received a quote for a third-party review, should the commission wish to pursue that option. Discussion of comments included: 2023 ORAD not filed with Registry of Deeds; shortest distance from riverbank and limit of disturbance; sediment forebay details on plan; fence wildlife gap; erosion control methods at riverbank; stormwater improvement clarifications; native species requirements for revegetation. Specific focus on issues relating to alterations of practices and methods due to being on a landfill cap and the landfill extending up to the riverbank, and the steepness of the bank. Responses will also be provided in writing. Ms. Angus expressed the opinion that the extra scrutiny on this project by DEP through the MEPA process probably already provides more value than an outside review would. Commission comments and discussion. Mr. Moser thanked the presenting team for their efforts and noted that everyone supports the capping. He supported the idea of a peer review as it would help support any conclusions the commission might reach. He believes this is the first landfill capping project the commission has seen, so they lack expertise. He had a concern with the 1,200 CF [44+ CY] of lost flood storage. While not a large number for the overall Charles River flood plain, the commission has previously permitted no fill in flood zones unless applicants provide compensatory storage. He asked for more specifics of the alternatives, and why this plan [no compensation] has been selected over, for instance, possible compensatory storage at another city-owned location. Ms. Angus clarified that compensatory storage is required at the same elevation, and that is not possible at this site due to the solid waste. Removal of fill as compensatory is also difficult because that requires disturbing the waste. They have not looked at off-site compensation and are not sure how that fits with regulations. Mr. Moser accepted this explanation. He asked to review the detail of the edge of the cap at the bank, to help understand the plan. Ms. Caceci described this but was not sure an image had been included in the filing. Mr. Moser would like to review this detail and will look for it when reviewing the filing. He asked about the large loss of existing tree coverage and replanting details. Mr. Moser noted that he has seen other parks on capped landfills in MA that include tree plantings, and asked what is the obstacle to planting trees; could the soil depth be increased to support tree growth? Discussion of the prohibition of trees on landfill caps, and vegetation alternatives. Tree roots can damage cap material and undermine its integrity. This site will include 12” of drainage sand and 9” of loam above the cap layer. The wildflower mix approved by DEP is already an exception, as they usually approve grass only, to avoid root systems. Mr. Moser was satisfied that the applicant is following the regulations. He commented that Ms. Sullivan’s recommendations suggest that the meadow should be about 50% larger than currently planned, but agreed with the assessment that plantings would need to be appropriate for the locations, as the steepness of the bank would probably not be appropriate for wetland species. He raised the issue of maintenance of the meadow, so that it would not naturally reforest and become a problem for the cap. Discussion of best practices for mowing and other maintenance. Ms. Angus agreed that they will look at expanding the meadow area. The O&M plan will address maintenance, but Ms. Caceci noted there are potential regulatory issues due to the landfill status: annual maintenance (mowing) is usually required as part of integrity inspections. Mr. Moser accepted this and suggested annual mowing could be scheduled after the growing season to minimize wildlife impact. Mr. Donovan is excited about the project addressing a long-standing need. He asked for some details about the tree clearing, because of potential landfill disturbance issues. He also wondered about prevention of new growth from stumps. Ms. Caceci responded with satisfactory details. Trees will be cut close to flush, stumps will be ground in place to the degree possible, and potential saplings will be prevented by the cap. Maintenance and inspection will be done to confirm. Mr. Dufromont asked for and received cap structure details from Ms. Caceci. He recognized it was not the focus of the current application, but asked what had been done at the site in the 50 years since the landfill was closed. It appears nothing: DEP has been looking at closed landfills across the state and requiring proper capping. The recreational improvements are a side benefit. Brief discussion of the pipe system for venting. Mr. Dufromont asked if any odors would be generated. This could not be answered definitively, but the waste the site is known to contain is mostly ash and large solids (appliances, etc.), so there is little if any material which could generate gas. Mr. Doyle asked for details related to the site grading and stormwater management, to clarify existing and proposed drainage. Some discussion of stormwater connection to adjacent non-city owned properties, including the Olympus site [48 Woerd Ave] and the self- storage warehouse [945 Moody St]. Conditions were discussed and the applicants noted multiple AULs [Activity & Use Limitations] in this neighborhood, including on the Olympus site. The city’s landfill capping obligation applies to the 901 Moody parcel only. Ms. Angus clarified that this is being regulated under both the MA DEP solid waste regulations and the MA contingency plan. Mr. Doyle asked that it be confirmed by site visit or other method that existing drainage from 945 Moody will not present a problem to the 901 Moody site. His thought is that properly directing drainage across this site to Cram’s Cove will help revitalize the cove. Discussion of Cram’s Cove, property lines, jurisdictional lines, existing outflows. He looks positively on this project and believes the applicant will do it properly. Mr. Moser noted recent work at the Cram’s Cove culvert by an applicant at 74 Rumford Ave, across the cove [316-0790]. The outfall end of an existing culvert was found to be collapsed, and that applicant was looking into repairing the collapsed end. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Moser noted the culvert on the city mapping system. Mr. Daly from the ConCom office added that it was determined at the time that this culvert, while in Waltham, is part of Newton’s stormwater system. Mr. Doyle asked that documentation of this be produced. Mr. Moser noted potential issues at that location, as the landfill capping might be planned to go on top of the culvert. The applicant will need to take a look at that. Mr. Donovan asked about the parking plan, if any, for the site. There will be a new lot at the northern edge. Discussion of the grading and drainage relative to Moody Street, as that area is below Moody’s grade. It was recognized that this area is out of jurisdiction, but the commission wants to understand the full site. Mr. Moser raised the outside review proposal. He felt the commission would learn things from a review, but would not oppose if the majority chose not to. Discussion. The majority of the commission did not see value. Mr. Moser felt that if the size of the meadow is expanded, he will not see a need for it. Mr. Sbordone anticipated that voting on an outside review would happen at the next meeting. Mr. Doyle moved to continue to the 22 May meeting. Mr. Donovan seconded. In favor: Sbordone, Doyle, Moser, Donovan, Dufromont. Motion passed. Discussion of whether a site visit should be organized. It was confirmed that the site is accessible city land and not fenced, so commissioners can visit on their own if desired. The applicant will provide written responses by the Monday before the meeting. Commission Business • Approval of meeting minutes from 4-24-2025. Motion by Mr. Donovan, seconded by Mr. Doyle. Minutes approved. • Discussion of new and revised Commission procedure documents. o Mr. Moser moved to adopt the revised Standard Special Conditions document as previously discussed and further revised and reviewed. Mr. Donovan seconded. In favor: Sbordone, Doyle, Moser, Donovan, Dufromont. The revisions were adopted. o Mr. Moser moved to adopt the 30 Foot No Disturbance Zone Policy as previously reviewed. Seconded by Mr. Donovan. Discussion. Ms. Sullivan provided a summary of the rationale for and contents of the policy. Mr. Sbordone approved, as the policy allowed for exceptions. Mr. Moser noted a recent project that required extra effort and time because no policy existed. Ms. Sullivan noted that many applicants expect a policy to work within. Mr. Doyle noted that NDZ policies are common, and that MA DEP typically defends them at 25 feet. This encourages better projects. In favor: Sbordone, Doyle, Moser, Donovan, Dufromont. Motion passed. The policy will be placed on the commission’s page of the city web site and made available to applicants. Correspondence • NOTED: Receipt of City of Waltham’s 2025 Yearly Operational Plan for integrated vegetation management along the city’s rights of way. • NOTED: 77 Copeland Street appeal withdrawal. Old Business • Mr. Moser asked into any updates on the FY2025 approved staffing issue or the FY2026 budget. Mr. Sbordone relayed the mayor’s comments regarding the full-time conservation agent, stating that she continues to withhold the signature to upgrade the agent to full-time because she feels the commission needs more structure around supervision of staff (the agent and the office assistant). She has asserted that the conservation agent needs direction from the full commission for all site visits, except emergencies, in which case the chair could approve. Discussion. It was noted that the mayor and city council authorized and approved the upgrade to full time for FY2025, which ends in June. It was noted that the volunteer nature of the commission and infrequent meeting schedule makes a commission approval requirement impractical. This hinders the activities of the commission. Mr. Sbordone would like to show the mayor summary information from other ConComs demonstrating that agents acting on behalf of the commission, but with significant independence, is the norm. In response to a question from Mr. Dufromont regarding commission site visits, Mr. Sbordone stated that the mayor will not indemnify the agent or any commissioner if they perform site activities without a specific approval vote. Ms. Sullivan added, for the benefit of the commission, that as a member of MSMCP and MACC, two statewide agencies of conservation commissions, commissioners, and agents, she has had numerous conversations with others on related issues. She believes these organizations have resources relating to these questions, which she will consult and report on. She noted that the job description for the position also references independent action. Mr. Doyle asked about ConCom staff within the city reporting structure. The staff is under the Planning Department umbrella and reports to Robert Waters for HR functions (time sheets, vacation approvals, etc.). The commission is responsible for routine direction and day-to-day function. Mr. Moser moved to provide blanket authority to the conservation agent to make site visits and inspections as the need arises, based on information received. Mr. Doyle seconded. Discussion. In favor: Sbordone, Doyle, Moser, Donovan, Dufromont. Motion passed. Mr. Sbordone will follow up with Ms. Sullivan for documentation of normal practices. Mr. Doyle stated that an autonomous agent is what the commission needs to fulfill its responsibilities, and that is why Ms. Sullivan, with her experience and expertise, was hired. Mr. Moser noted that the commissioners and staff bring different expertise and that in the past the lack of expertise on issues has caused problems. Mr. Dufromont noted that the agent provides reports to the commission that they want and expect to receive. Mr. Doyle wondered if the mayor is concerned that the agent might be making important decisions without commission input, which is not the case; the agent acts on the commission’s behalf and reports to them, and the commission decides which actions to take. Mr. Sbordone noted as an example the issue of expense reports for mileage; the mayor has questioned every itemized visit, although he already reviews and approves these reports. • Mr. Donovan asked if the mayor has expressed concern about the ConCom currently being short two members. Mr. Sbordone said she has. Mr. Donovan anticipates missing one or two meetings this summer, and other commissioners might also miss meetings, so quorum could become an issue. Ms. Sullivan added that she has reached out to the city’s social media coordinator about the possibility of advertising the openings. Mr. Daly asked the commissioners to provide advance notice of vacations, if possible, so that if meetings must be cancelled this can be planned for. Ms. Sullivan also noted that the agenda for the 22 May meeting could be lengthy, as the office has received several expected and unexpected projects. [Mr. Dufromont lost connection and left the call during this item, approximately 8:35. He did not reconnect before the meeting adjourned.] Site Visit Reports • Committee Reports  • CPC: Next meeting is scheduled for May 13 (annual public input hearing). Mr. Doyle noted multiple applications have been received and the agenda posted, but he has not yet reviewed. New Business • Motion to adjourn by Mr. Donovan, seconded by Mr. Doyle. All present in favor. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:39 PM.