Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant revises 195 Central Avenue plan to protect wetlands, adds subsurface stormwater chambers
Summary
At a June 11 meeting, the applicant for 195 Central Ave (Habad Center) presented revised plans that shrink the building footprint, keep a strict 25-foot no‑disturb buffer and propose native wetland restoration; engineers described switching open basins to subsurface chambers and adding a retaining wall to meet updated stormwater standards. Commissioners asked for more stormwater and dewatering detail and continued the hearing to June 25.
Devin Taber of Lucas Environmental told the Needham Conservation Commission on June 11 that the revised 195 Central Avenue plan reduces the building footprint, maintains the commission’s 25-foot no-disturb buffer and includes native wetland restoration "as an ecological net benefit." Taber said the landscaping and mitigation plans were revised to align with town tree‑replacement policy and that a red maple and a black gum were added as high‑value canopy trees.
The project engineer described a substantial redesign of the stormwater system: open surface basins were replaced with subsurface chambers (R150 XL HDPE chambers and concrete detention chambers) so that stormwater treatment, infiltration and detention occur below grade. The engineer said grades behind the building were raised to provide two feet of separation above estimated seasonal high groundwater and that a short retaining wall with a guardrail would mark the edge of the wetland buffer while still preserving the 25‑ft no‑disturb zone.
Commissioners pressed the project team on construction methods immediately adjacent to the buffer. Commissioner Clary asked how contractors would avoid bringing machinery into the 25‑ft zone given that footings and foundation work are required; the project engineer said the limit of work had been pulled back and contractors would be required to clearly delineate the no‑disturb edge and use experienced crews for tight urban construction. Commissioner Clary and others also raised concerns about a proposed low‑impact stairway through the buffer, arguing the walk access could invite trampling of newly restored vegetation. Several commissioners urged relocating snow‑storage away from the wetland edge and requested signage or permanent markers for the buffer.
Brian Nelson of Metro West Engineering, retained by abutters, said the revised submittal shows improvement but identified outstanding technical items: mounding calculations for irregular‑shaped infiltration systems need additional review; one outlet‑control/manhole structure appears so shallow that its weir nearly coincides with the concrete ceiling, which could complicate maintenance; and the proximity of subsurface infiltration to the adjacent residence’s foundation warrants clarification and detail on basement waterproofing or dewatering needs. Nelson said a written letter with comments will be submitted.
Because several departmental reviews (planning, fire and town engineering) and abutter concerns remain outstanding, the commission voted to continue the hearing to its June 25 meeting and asked the applicant to provide the requested test‑pit, dewatering and final stormwater details before that session.
