Loading...
2006-10-03 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: October 3, 2006 Board: Conservation Commission Members Present David Lang (Chair), Tony Paluzzi (Vice-Chair), Dr. Mayo Johnson, Gregg Cademartori, Ian Hayes, Mary Reilly, and Bill Squibb Members Absent: None Others Present: Amy Maxner – Environmental Planner Recorder: Eileen Sacco Chair Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA. Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries. Public Hearing on Former Vitale Site Maxner reads legal notice. Maxner explains that the general purpose of this hearing is to provide the Conservation Commission and the general public an opportunity to consider the use of the former Vitale site as ball fields for active recreation and construction of associated storage/restroom facilities. She notes that the Commission will also review the draft language of the Activities and Use Limitation Opinion (AUL Opinion) as well as review and approval of the field maintenance plan. Hayes addresses the Commission and notes that this is an opportunity to go firmly on the record as to what the Conservation Commission intended for this site. Lang explains that this has been discussed for years noting that the first public hearing was four or five years ago and the understanding going forward was if environmental studies showed that the site is safe for recreation on the parcel it should be considered. He notes that the parcel has been under the jurisdiction of the Commission since 1985 or 1986 and at this point the Commission is trying to decide if they want to change the use to allow recreation. He notes that since then a large remediation and New England Power has completed restoration project on the site. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 15 Lang opens the hearing up for comments from the members of the Conservation Commission at this time. Hayes notes that because of the history of the site, it probably never should have been turned over to the Conservation Commission. He states that if the Commission looks at the conservation values of the site, that there are only a couple of values that still exist. He explains that it is part of the public watershed and the wildlife habitat on the site is limited for passive recreation so there is no particular great use there at this time. He states that active recreation on the site is worth considering. Lang notes that the Commission talked with the Mayor about compensation for the site if th they convert the use. Hayes referred to a Mayor’s memo dated December 14. He states that he believes that the right thing to do is to turn this over for ball fields and accept one of the other pieces of land that has been offered by the Mayor. He notes that the land on Pole Swamp Lane is the one he would recommend accepting as it had been encouraged by the Open Space & Recreation Committee. Hayes explains that details of Article 97 which highlights the process by which the Conservation Commission would turn over the land if a full disposition was ever proposed. He states that this is a fairly arduous process because the state would be involved in the decision, and the final stewards can be a third party such as a state agency like the DEP. He also notes that the approval of the Beverly City Council is required as well as a unanimous vote by the Conservation Commission. He also notes that there is no guarantee that it would be approved. Maxner asks Mike Lotti to provide a brief summary of the AUL. Mike Lotti addresses the Commission and explains the Activities and Use Limitation plan and notes that the AUL is necessary due to the discovery of lead on the site. He notes that the Massachusetts Contingency Plan restricts certain uses of the site. He notes that the AUL will protect the area as long as the rules of the AUL are adhered to. He also notes that the maintenance of the cap that is over the fly ash should provide all the protection that is needed. Reilly asks how the AUL will protect the public and children playing on the fields. Lotti explains that current conditions of the site are perfectly safe for anyone to go out there and perform recreational activities and explained the construction of the cap. Cademartori referred to section 6 in the AUL on the last page and asks if it is boiler plate language or if it could be incorporated in the deed to the property and notes that he would like to see it spelled out in the document so everything is clear. He goes on to ask if all construction is completed on the site. Lotti explains that all they have left to do is to remove the chain link fence and install the storage/restroom facilities. He notes that all of the work that NEPCO needs to do is completed for the actual restoration project aside from long term monitoring as required by state, federal and local permits. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 15 Lang notes that the maintenance plan for the site was just received today and the Commission has not had a chance to review it. He explains that the Commission will take that up at the next meeting. Hayes requested a report on the condition of the property on a yearly basis. Lang asks the members if they have any thoughts as to who should maintain the site. Johnson states that he feels that the Parks and Recreation Department should maintain the site. Paluzzi agreed. Maxner asks Bruce Doig who would be the entity to actually carry out the work involved in maintaining the site. Bruce Doig states that Department of Public Services would actually do the physical maintenance on the site. He noted that his department does not have the means to do the maintenance themselves and explained that the Department of Public Services would do that. He further notes that adding two fields to the park inventory would go a long way to improving all of the fields and prevent over use of all them. He also notes that his department issues all permits for all fields in the city and coordinates activity schedules with the various sports leagues and organizations. Maxner clarified that if the Commission has questions about the site they could contact either Bruce Doig or Mike Collins. Lang opened the hearing up for public comment at this time. Pam Kampersal, 241 Dodge Street, addresses the Commission and expressed her concerns about the proposal. She expressed her concerns about the dredged fly ash on the site and questions if the Commission has a health and safety plan. Lotti stated that the site is stable and explains the process that was used to cap the site and how the AUL addresses public safety. Mary Rodrick, 14 Peabody Avenue, addresses the Commission and notes that Wenham Lake is 500 feet to the east and is a class A water body. She notes that the area is part of the watershed and the Commission should protect the overlay district. She also questions the use of pesticides on the site. Maxner states that the Commission required that the Salem Beverly Water Supply Board approve the field maintenance plan, and that the plan indeed incorporates the Board’s recommendations for water quality monitoring. Rosemary Maglio, 3 Pleasant Street, addresses the Commission and states that she is opposed to this plan and would like to see it retained for passive recreation. She notes that it is in the watershed area and Airport Brook abuts the site and goes directly to Wenham Lake and is a tributary to the drinking water supply. Cademartori states that he would like more information on the potential lighting for the site and the hours of operation. He also suggested that the Commission think about a Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 15 license agreement for the use of the site with a term renewal. He suggested that the City Solicitor look into that noting that he would like a license that can be revoked if the terms of the conditions are not met. Maxner reads the following potential special conditions that the Commission may wish to incorporate into its final decision: ?? The Commission may wish to establish that installation of any utilities across any portion of the site, other than that proposed for the storage/bathroom facility or that directly related to the use of the site for ball fields, shall in the Commission’s opinion, trigger Article 97 disposition procedures. ?? The Commission may wish to establish that any proposed use of the temporary access road, traversing the site up to the abutting private property to the north, for any reason other than activities related to the Vitale Fly Ash Consolidation and Habitat Restoration Project, shall in the Commission’s opinion, trigger Article 97 disposition procedures. ?? The Commission may wish to establish that if the City decides to include concession/commercial activities on site, that it shall in the Commission’s opinion, trigger Article 97 disposition procedures. ?? The Commission may wish to establish that if Article 97 disposition procedures are pursued by any entity in the future, and the Commission votes to allow such disposition, a Grant of Environmental Restriction shall be placed on the site and placed under the jurisdiction of the appropriate agency of the State of Massachusetts. ?? The Commission may wish to place a permanent/perpetual prohibition on any further wetland filling/alteration on the site for any reason by any entity, regardless of whether compensatory wetland replication can be accomplished. This should not include the removal of the culvert crossing (if it is decided to remove it), as the area of the crossing shall be restored to bank and BVW if it removed. Lang states that these conditions along with the field maintenance plan can be further discussed at the next meeting and notes notes that it is 7:15 and the Commission has a busy agenda this evening. He suggested that the Commission continue the Public Hearing to October 24, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. Hayes moved to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2006. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 15 Certificate of Compliance 8 Beaver Pond Road – DEP File # 5-795 – Michael Reichert Maxner recommends to the Commission that the matter be continued to October 24, 2006 as more information is required. Paluzzi moves to continue the matter to October 24, 2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. 13 Landers Drive – DEP File # 5-825 – Ken DeMarco Maxner explains that the applicant has finished the construction of the barn and she performed a site inspection. She shows the Commission photos of the site. Maxner reviews the special conditions for the project and notes that gravel was placed by the bank of the pond without the approval of the Commission and the vast majority of it has been removed, the little that remains is showing signs of naturalizing with algae grown and some aquatic vegetation. She also notes that plantings along the edge of the pond have been planted noting that the Commission requested red maples and birch trees were planted instead, which she approved in the field. She states that a 15-foot strip along the edge of the pond was to be left and not mowed, but this has yet to be completed. Hayes agreed noting that rather than mowing to the edge of the pond he would like to see it grow wild. Maxner notes that the property has been sold and she would like the Commission to request a letter from the new owner as a written acknowledgement that the swath will be left as it is aside from a 2-foot path to the edge of the pond to allow for access. Hayes questions if the barn is to be used for the storage of vehicles and if there is a system in the floor of the barn to maintain spills. Mr. DeMarco explains that a self- contained depression in the barn floor has been installed. He also agreed to get a letter from the new owner regarding the maintenance of the edge of the pond. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance pending receipt of the letter from the new owner regarding the maintenance of the edge of the pond. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Amendment to Order of Conditions Continuation: 17 Cole Street – DEP File # 5-809 – Andrew Neumann Maxner recalls that the Commission visited the site last Saturday. She explains that the applicant is proposing to install a catch basin at the low point to the driveway and road Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 15 which will drain to the back of the property. She also notes that Mr. Neumann is doing the permitting for the work but the City of Beverly will actually be doing the work and it will be a City structure to be maintained by the City. Hayes states that he would like to see the least amount of impact involved in the work, noting that there is not a lot of water at issue, and it is only in the very large storm events that there is overflow, so the puddle formed in smaller storms is what will be conveyed. Atty. Nicholas DeCoulas addresses the Commission and notes that he is representing the abutters to the site, the McKenna family. He explained the history of the site and notes that the McKenna’s purchased their home in 1969. He shows the Commission photos of the site that depict water collecting at the bottom of the hill. He requests that the applicant be required to produce a survey that shows where the swale is located. DeCoulas expresses concern about the location of the proposed catch basin and reviewed the elevations of the site. He notes that his concern is to keep the water off his client’s property and recommends that they be required to channel the water to their side of the property away from his client. Cademartori questions who is the abutter to the south. DeCoulas notes that it is Mediplex. Paluzzi recommends that they pipe the water in the other direction. Ken Knowles, Meridian Engineering, states that they looked at that option but they do not have the dedicated area to discharge on that side without traversing on the cemetery and explained the site plan. He also explained that the water would be directed to the catch basin and explained the benefits of installing the catch basin in terms of water quality and prevention of bank erosion. DeCoulas states that he would like to see a detailed survey of the area with two-foot contours on the plan. Lang notes that the Commission visited the site and notes that the area in the road has had flooding issues for years. He suggests that maybe there is something downstream that is plugging up the pipe. Jeanne McKenna addresses the Commission and shows them pictures of recent flooding on her property. John McKenna addresses the Commission and explained the history of the site. He notes that when they purchased their home there was no swale and no intermittent stream and no pipe and there is a high volume of water there now. He states that the work that has been done on the Neumann’s property has caused his flooding problems. Lang asks what the wish of the Commission is regarding this matter. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 15 Johnson notes that the abutter has made a point that they have flooding problems. He suggests that they reconsider the alternative Plan “B” and have the applicant install the pipe through their property to carry the water away to the very rear of the property and bypassing the abutter’s property. Hayes states that he doesn’t think that it will make much difference because that is where the water will end up regardless, but would be amenable to voting for Plan “B” is that is what makes everyone satisfied. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to issue an Amendment to the Order of Conditions to allow the installation of the catch basin, pipe and outlet in accordance with Plan “B”. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Hayes and Cademartori leave the meeting at this time. Continued: 7 Margaret Avenue – DEP File #5-861 – Dennis Britton, Wayne Realty Trust Lang recuses himself from this portion of the meeting and leaves the room. John Dick, Hancock Associates, states that the Commission conducted a site inspection this past Saturday and would be happy to answer any questions. Johnson states that now that he has had time to think about this project and look at conditions in the field he is inclined to approve the wall as it was built. Squibb states that he recalls the Commission requiring that the first two tiers of the wall be taken down to match the elevation of the neighbor’s wall immediately adjacent. Paluzzi agrees. Reilly asks what difference lowering the wall would make from a resource area perspective. Dick states that in his opinion keeping the wall the present height or lowering it would make no difference. He explains that pre-existing conditions were such that the bank was very susceptible to erosion and in fact the footprint of the new wall is more landward than what was there before and as a result additional beach/tidal flat area has been gained and salt marsh growth is much more vigorous in this area than he remembers ever seeing. Paluzzi asks if there are any further questions from the Commission. Squibb states that he wants to make sure that the top decorative stone blocks are removed and the applicant understands that there is to be no further structures placed on top of the wall from here on out. Paluzzi asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 15 There being no further questions or comments from the Commission, Johnson moves to close the hearing. Seconded by Squibb. All in favor, motion carries 4-0. Lang returns to the meeting. Notice of Intent Continued: 412 Hale Street – DEP File #5-909 – Landmark School – Construction of Athletic Complex with Parking and Athletic Field Maxner explains that the applicant’s consultant has requested that the matter be continued to October 24, 2006. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2006. Squibb seconds motion. The motion carries 5-0. Continuation: 44 Prince Street – Reconstruct Single Family House and Guest House - David Carnevale Maxner notes that she received a request from the applicant’s engineer requesting that the matter be continued to the October 24, 2006 meeting. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2006. Johnson seconds motion. The motion carries 5-0. Continuation: Massachusetts Bay – Neptune LNG, LLC – Deep Water LNG Port in Beverly Harbor Maxner notes that she received a request from the applicant requesting that the matter be continued to the October 24, 2006 meeting. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2006. Johnson seconds motion. The motion carries 5-0. Continuation: 27 Ober Street – DEP File # 5-922 – Rehab Seawall with Alterations to Stairs/Ramp Access – Christopher Dick Maxner notes that she received a request from the applicant’s engineer requesting that the matter be continued to the October 24, 2006 meeting. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2006. Johnson seconds motion. The motion carries 5-0. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 15 Continuation: 76 Paine Avenue – DEP File # 5-930 – Installation of Basketball Court and Planting Strip – Jonathan Bangs, Trustee, Everett Street Realty Trust Jack Swansburg, the applicant, and John Smolak, attorney for the applicant are both present at the meeting. Maxner explains that the applicant has withdrawn the application for the installation of the basketball court and planting strip and has removed the basketball court that was th constructed without the approval of the Commission on September 18. She explains that they are planning on restoring and reseeding the area and have removed the remaining lynpak in accordance with the enforcement order. Paluzzi questions if they are removing the electrical outlet that was installed next to the court. Swansburg states that it will be removed this week. Maxner notes that there is the issue of fines that the Commission imposed, noting that they are $100 per day for the period of July 11, 2006 – September 18, 2006, which total over $6,000. She states that the issue of the fines is the remaining item of business relative to this enforcement order and asks the Commission if it wishes to discuss it. Smolak recalls that at the site visit he was under the impression that members of the Commission did not think that this was a flagrant violation and there would be a recommendation to reduce the penalty to zero. Maxner explains that the applicant stated at the site inspection that he was not aware that the basketball court was on land subject to coastal storm flowage, but that it was just in the Buffer Zone. Lang states that if the Commission is going to fine people then it needs to follow through with that. He notes that the applicant was notified in June and states that the Commission did not meet in August so there may be some special considerations in this regard. Maxner explains that she sent the enforcement order by certified mail to Mr. Swansburg on July 13, 2006 and it was returned to her unclaimed by the post office sometime th between August 7 and the 9 while she was out on vacation. She notes that she reissued th the enforcement order to Mr. Swansburg on August 10 by regular mail. Johnson suggests that the Commission assess the fine for 30 days, which would be $3,000. Paluzzi states that he feels that $3,000 is high and suggests $1,000. Maxner suggested that she should prepare a chronology for the Commission to review and recommended that the Commission continue the matter to the next meeting on October 24, 2006. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 15 Smolak asks if the Commission will form a sub-committee to discuss this issue as he and his client would like to be informed of the meeting time in that regard. Discussion ensues regarding a sub-committee, and the Commission agrees that the entire th Commission will deliberate this at the October 24 meeting. Johnson moves to continue the matter to October 24, 2006. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Continuation: 23 Linden Avenue – DEP File #5-928 – Repair Eroded Stone Wall on Bass River – Lou Ellen Viel Maxner notes that she received a request from the applicant’s engineer requesting that the matter be continued to the October 24, 2006 meeting. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2006. Johnson seconds motion. The motion carries 5-0. Cont: Massachusetts Bay DEP File # 5-929 – Construct Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline – Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC Jon Bonsall addresses the Commission and explains the project what they are proposing. He notes that there are declining supplies of natural gas from traditional sources and that the gas supply is required as soon as 2007. He reviewed the project overview and the permitting status for the project. Bonsall reviewed the survey area for the project and the environmental criteria as well as the engineering criteria as follows: Environmental Criteria ?? Minimize crossing of hard substrates ?? Minimize conflicts with other marine users ?? Minimize extent of sea floor disturbance/construction duration ?? Avoid cultural resource site ?? Minimize potential to affect rare species Engineering and Construction Criteria ?? Minimize complexity of design and pipeline installation methods ?? Minimize crossing of hard substrates and glacial till ?? Avoid navigation features such as federal channels and designated anchoring areas ?? Maximize routing in fine-granular sediments ?? Minimize constriction duration Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 15 Bonsall reviewed the resource areas that would be impacted by the project as follows: ?? Land Under Ocean – LUO is defined in 310 CMR 10.25 (2) as the land extending from the mean low water line seaward to the boundary of the municipalities jurisdiction and includes land under estuaries. Bonsall reviewed the construction methods and equipment for the project. He noted that they would utilize lay barges and burying vessels and explained the support equipment. Lang asked if the previous Hubline project that was done went according to plan. Bonsall notes that the post construction monitoring is in its third year. George McLachlan, Environmental Manager for the project, notes that the work in Beverly is under a mile in length and explained that they will lay the pipe and plow it in and back fill. He notes that they have had very good success with this technology as it was used in part for the Hubline project. He estimates that they will probably be working in Beverly for a couple of weeks. He also notes that they expect to be doing this during the months of May – November. Maxner notes that the pipe is coated with epoxy and questions how long it takes to dry. McLachlan explains that the pipe comes in 40 foot segments and is pre-coated with epoxy and explains the process, and believes that the fusion bonded epoxy is cooled with water on board the barge. Bonsall states that they will obtain further information with regard to this process and provide it to the Commission for the next meeting. Lang opened the hearing up for public comment at this time. Rene Mary, 274 Hale Street, addresses the Commission and notes that she has been attending public meetings regarding this and requested a copy of their presentation minutes. It was noted that there are whales on the North Shore. McLachlan explained the monitoring initiatives that they are exploring. He also notes that there will be speed restrictions and a new route that will reduce the potential for whale strike. Heidi Roberts of 14 Putnam Street addresses the Commission and questioned if the Commission is in touch with the other communities involved in this project. Maxner explains that a joint review by all of the communities involved in this had been suggested but noted that Marblehead has already opened and closed their process and issued an Order of Conditions. She also notes that Salem has been having quorum problems and they are in the process of reviewing this also. She states that Manchester has already secured its own independent consultant and is moving forward with that process independent of any other community. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 15 Bonsall states that he expects a draft Order of Conditions from Manchester this week. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road addressed the Commission and questioned if the seawater would cool off the epoxy. Bonsall will get more information on that process. Murphy suggested that the Commission team up with the City of Salem and review the Environmental Impact Statement. Lang states that he would prefer to team up with Manchester if the Commission decides to do that. Maxner suggested that she would get a copy of the draft Order of Conditions issued by Marblehead Rene Mary questioned how the municipal boundaries were determined. Bonsall explained that it was determined by Massachusetts GIS. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moved to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2006. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Continuation: 7 Deer Haven Road – Fill Approximately 305 s.f. of Isolated Vegetated Wetland – Christopher and Kandis Cloutman Bob Griffin addresses the Commission and notes that he made a presentation to the Commission on September 12, 2006 and suggested a 2-1 replication to compensate for the filling of the subject isolated wetland. He explained that DEP has no jurisdiction on this, only the Beverly bylaw comes into question. He reviewed the history of the Wellington Hills subdivision noting that the area was mapped in 1985 as a depression noting that it does not hold any water at present. He also noted that it is quite possible that that the subdivision significantly altered the hydrology of the depression and it shows very little function as a wetland. He suggested that they be allowed to withdraw the application. Reilly suggested that the Commission have an independent wetland consultant take a look at this area to determine if is functions as a wetland. Maxner states that there is doubt as to the present function of the wetland, but would suggest that the Commission obtain further information before making a determination that would remove this area from its jurisdiction. Lang notes that he visited the site and lived near there for quite some time. He notes that for years he never thought that it was a wetland. Griffin notes that it was a Commission member who suggested that they could be allowed to withdraw the application. Maxner suggests that the Commission should review additional information with regard to the topography survey and a watershed analysis as well as some additional soil samples. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 15 Griffin explains that the stonewall addition with a railing to demark the vegetated area from the lawn area is planned. He also explains that they will be extending the 12” drain pipe as requested by the Engineering office, and removing a pine tree and some saplings. Griffin notes that he has a revised plan prepared and suggests that he review it with the Commission. Squibb states that he will not be able to approve this and suggested that the applicant should have to prove that it is not a wetland. Griffin notes that this is a very difficult topography and the Cloutman’s want to stay in the neighborhood. He notes that they are proposing a significant replication area of 2-1 and that speaks volumes for this project. Maxner states that if they wish to pursue this project without investigating the wetland function, she suggests that they look at alternatives to filling wetland to gain lawn area and states that it looks like there could be about 30 feet of lawn captured from the edge of the driveway to the edge of the wetland so only buffer zone will be filled. Lang suggested that the Commission continue this to the next meeting and recommended that Mr. Griffin discuss options with his clients. Reilly suggests that the best way to go would be for the Commission to find out if it is a wetland or not. Griffin states that we know that the site does not hold water except in extreme storm events so he is not sure what a study will show. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2006. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. New : 171 West Street – Raze Existing House and Construct a Single Family House and Pool – Preston Bradford Maxner reads legal notice. Bill Manual addresses the Commission and explains that this is a sensitive site and explains the plans to raze the existing house and construct a new home and pool. He notes that his client has the option to buy this property and would like to work out the potential permitting issues now before actual prurchase. He explains the location of the property at the end of West Street. He notes that this is a conceptual plan and there is a lot of resource areas on the site. He notes that his clients have a lot of opportunities to meet with the Commission before they exercise their options and they would like as much input from the Commission as possible. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 15 Manual explains that they will come back at a later date with a more formalize footprint of the site but would like to make his presentation brief so that the Commission can schedule a site inspection. He reviews the resource areas on the site. Manual explains that they will bring the utilities and sewer from up the street as was recently approved in the area. He also notes that they have appropriate erosion controls on the plan as well. Lang suggests that the Commission visit the site. Maxner recommends that they visit the site on Saturday, October 21, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There was no one present who wished to comment on the matter. Maxner notes that they need the elevations for the seawall and notes that the Notice of Intent states it is within land subject to coastal storm flowage and wondered what the impact will be. Manual states that it will be finalized when they finalize the footprint for the site, noting that they hope to have a more defined plan when they come back in three weeks. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to October 24, 2006. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Mass Highway – Culvert on Hale Street Robert Boone, Mass Highway Department, addresses the Commission and explains that they have to repair the culvert at 274 Hale Street at Centerville Creek. He explains that they have to repair the inland side of the headwall and explains the damage downstream. He notes that the work will need heavy equipment to move the errant granite slabs that have collapsed out of the headwall of the culvert. He also notes that on the upstream side the entire face of the headwall has to be rebuilt and explains that they will remove the extension to the culvert and bring the brook down 2-2 ½ feet. He requests an Emergency Certification for this work as the winter weather is fast approaching and he needs to work within this short window of time. Discussion ensues regarding the level of the duck pond. Members of the Commission indicated that once the work is completed, the pond should be monitored and if there is a need for a lintel or damning structure then Mass Highway would need to come back and perform that work. Boone states that his department is willing to work with the Commission in this regard. Beverly Conservation Commission October 3, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 15 Paluzzi moves to approve emergency certification to perform the work on culvert repair. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. 71 Brimbal Avenue – Enforcement Order – Anthony Lanzillo Maxner explains that she was asked by Mayor Scanlon to investigate a wetlands violation on the property at 71 Brimbal Avenue. She explains that she visited the site and issued a cease and desist order. She explains that Mr. Lanzillo bought the property last summer and did some filling in his yard with dirt and brush. Mr. Lanzillo addresses the Commission and explains that he did not know that there was a stream that is protected by regulations and would not have done any work if he knew this, he thought it was just a drainage ditch receiving runoff from the parking lot from the nursing home at Blueberry Hill. Lang suggests that the Commission visit the site to get a better idea of what is going on. Maxner suggests that the Commission visit the site on Saturday, October 21, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the matter to October 24, 2006. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Paluzzi moves to ratify the enforcement order issued for 71 Brimbal Avenue. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. 16 Fosters Point – McDougall – Request for Extension of Order of Conditions – DEP File #5-819 – Carroll McDougall Maxner explains the Commission has received a request for a one year extension, and that part of the Order of Conditions was to replant 1,500 s.f. of salt marsh and that work still needs to be done. Paluzzi moves to grant an extension. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries with Lang abstaining. Motion carries 4-0-1. Continuation: 4 Cavendish Square, DEP File #5-849 – wetland monitoring update Maxner states the applicant’s wetland consultant is preparing a monitoring report and will be submitting it for the next meeting. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Beverly Conservation Commission this evening, Paluzzi moves to adjourn the meeting. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carried (7-0). The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.