Conservation commission orders peer review after developer leaves riprap instead of planned meadow

The Woburn Conservation Commission on Jan. 25 voted to send an application from LCS Woven LLC (DP 348‑826) to an external peer reviewer after commissioners said the developer’s as‑built treatment — large riprap on a steep slope — appears materially different from the approved plan calling for loam, seed and a meadow.

The commission’s chair opened the discussion noting that the submission was labeled a "minor modification," but that he "personally doesn't think it's a minor change," citing concerns about altered runoff, water quality and habitat loss. Several commissioners asked for stormwater calculations and for the peer review to evaluate whether the current slope treatment changes the site’s stormwater behavior compared with the approved design.

George Ryan, a representative from Stantec speaking on behalf of the applicant, told the commission the grades on the slope "match the plans" and that the riprap was placed from on‑site blasted rock. He said the riprap’s voids make the surface relatively porous and that loam‑and‑seed over the material would be largely aesthetic; he also said the applicant proposes adding four or five trees at the top of the slope for screening.

Commissioners pressed on timing and means‑and‑methods, noting that landscape work is typically one of the last project steps and that the contractor expressed concern about the ability to place topsoil and seed over the rock without causing erosion. The chair said the as‑built conditions differ from the approved plan and recommended tabling the request until peer review can report back.

A motion to seek peer review — preferably the same peer reviewer used initially — was moved, seconded and approved. Commissioners and staff asked the applicant to submit any supporting stormwater calculations, alternative options, or revised materials to the reviewer so the reviewer can evaluate runoff, water‑quality and habitat implications.

The commission did not approve a change at the meeting; the matter will return to the commission after the peer‑review report and any requested additional information are received.