Loading...
2006-09-12 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: Board: Members Present September 12, 2006 Conservation Commission Vice Chair, Tony Paluzzi (Vice-Chair), Dr. Mayo Johnson, Gregg Cademartori, Ian Hayes, Mary Reilly, and Bill Squibb Members Absent: Chair David Lang Others Present: Amy Maxner - Environmental Planner Recorder: Eileen Sacco Vice Chair Paluzzi calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA. Discussion with Mavor William Scanlon - Former Vitale Site Maxner recalls that at the last meeting in July, the Commission voted to approve, in concept, the location of the bathroom/storage building. She notes that that since the city is not pursuing full disposition of the site, the Commission should hold a separate hearing to formally consider the Activities Use Limitation (AUL), field maintenance plan and discuss the two other parcels offered by the Mayor and finally take a formal vote to license the use of the site for active recreation. She states that the Commission should schedule a public hearing and provide at least two weeks for the public to come in and review the AUL. Hayes agrees and notes that the Commission should take a formal vote after the public gets to review the AUL. He suggested that it could be done at a regular meeting depending on the comments that are received. Paluzzi asks if Maxner has a date in mind. Cademartori notes that a special meeting was suggested because the Commission is not meeting in August and it could be done at a regular meeting. He also suggests they are still waiting for information from Parks and Recreation. Hayes states that he thinks it would better if it were done at a special meeting. He also questions if the Commission's timeline is holding up New England Power Company in any way. Maxner states that she is not aware of any issues with that. She also states that if the Commission schedules a meeting people will have to provide the information by a date certain and that may help expedite the process. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 23 Squibb notes that the Commission is still waiting for information from the City Solicitor as well. Maxner reviews the calendar to set a date and suggests October 3,2006 at 6:00 p.m. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Cademartori moves to continue the matter to October 3, 2006, seconded by Johnson. The motion carries 6-0. Certificate of Compliance Continuation: 8 Beaver Pond Road - DEP File #5-795 - Michel Reichert Maxner recalls that the Commission issued an Order of Conditions for the construction of a single-family house, driveway, and septic system within Buffer Zone to BVW and IVW. She notes that the Commission tabled the matter to allow the applicant to inquire with the Board of Health as to whether the discharge from the driveway drainpipe is allowable directly over the leaching field of the septic system. Maxner explains that she still has reviewed no new information and requests that the Commission continue the matter to October 3,2006. Johnson moves to continue the matter to October 3,2006. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. New: 5 Elm Top Lane - DEP File # 5-795 - Elm Top Realtv Trust Maxner recalls that the Commission issued an Order of Conditions to the applicant for the construction of a single-family house and associated appurtenances within the buffer zone to the top of a coastal bank. She notes that the remaining buffer zone plantings, per the coastal bank replanting plan have been installed notes that she conducted a site inspection of the property and reviewed the site and the plans and it looks to be in substantial compliance. She also notes that the Commission requested that six of the sweet fern plantings on the coastal bank be replaced. She notes that six bayberry plants have been planted in their place and she did not see any outstanding issues. She also notes that there were a couple of changes to the plan one being that the driveway configuration and subsurface drainage chamber for roof runoff was installed rather than a dry well. Maxner recommends that perpetual conditions be attached to the Certificate including Special Condition #2 regarding no construction below elevation 28 being allowed, and Standard Perpetual Conditions #'s 45,46,47, and 49. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moved to approve the Certificate of Compliance with perpetual conditions for 5 Elm Top Lane. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 23 ReQuest for Determination Cont: 3 Piper Drive - Grade Rear Yard. Install Retainin2 Wall. and Landscape - Richard and Delores Alpern Maxner informs the Commission that she received correspondence from the applicant this afternoon and he wishes to withdraw this application at this time. She states that no further action is required by the Commission on this matter. New: 13 Arbella Drive - Install Above Ground Pool- Robert Burns Maxner reads the legal notice. Maxner explains that the applicant is proposing to install an above ground pool within the buffer zone to BVW. Mr. Burns addresses the Commission and explains his plans. He explains the location of the pool which is located within lawn area and is about 40 feet from the wetland. Maxner recommends that the pool not be drained within two weeks of chlorination and that it be directed over a grassy area to encourage infiltration and avoid direct discharge into the wetland. Burns agrees and notes that he only has to drain three inches of water from the pool. Paluzzi asks for public comment at this time. There was no one present who wished to comment on the matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to issue a Negative Determination # 3 with the conditions that the pool not be drained within two weeks of chlorination and that it be directed over a grassy area to encourage infiltration and avoid direct discharge into the wetland. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: 73 Lothrop Street - Replace Porch and Extend Deck - Jeffery and Janet Clements Maxner reads the legal notice. Maxner explains that the applicant is proposing to remove the existing rear porch and construct a deck with footings about 37 feet from the top of the coastal bank. She notes that the applicants are here this evening to present their plans. Mrs. Clements addresses the Commission and explains that there was a site visit held a few weeks ago by Chairman Lang. She explains the project and notes that the deck on Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 23 the back of the house has been removed because it was unsafe and they are proposing to replace what is there and extend it a little bit. She explains the process they will use to construct the deck. Maxner notes that the footing for the deck is roughly 37 feet and is out of the No Disturb Zone. Paluzzi asks how far the bump out will be. Mrs. Clements states that it will be 12 feet from the original porch. She explains the site and the location. Squibb asks if they are measuring 37 feet from the edge of the grass or the new porch. Maxner explains that the 37 feet is from the footings to the top of the coastal bank. Paluzzi asks for public comment at this time. There was no one present who wished to comment on the matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to issue a Negative Determination # 3. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Recess for Public Hearin2s Johnson moves to recess for public hearings. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Amendment to Order of Conditions New: 17 Cole Street - DEP File #5-809 - Andrew Neumann Maxner reads the legal notice. Maxner recalls that the Commission issued an Order of Conditions for the construction of a single-family house and associated appurtenances within the Buffer Zone to BVW. She reports that there has been a long standing drainage problem on that section of Cole Street and the applicant is proposing to install a catch basin to alleviate the flooding in the street which she feels has been worsened by the construction of the house at 17 Cole Street and a new house directly across the street. She notes that she has plans and drainage calculations. Ken Knowles, Meridian Engineering, addresses the Commission and explains the plans to install a deep sump catch basin and drain pipe. He notes that Mr. Neumann has taken it upon himself to solve this problem even though it is a City street, and explains the plan. He states that they have talked to Mike Collins, DPW Director, and explains that the city will install and maintain the catch basin and Mr. Neumann is paying for Meridian's design services to get this project permitted. He also notes that this is a safety hazard and Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 23 notes that when the area ponds cars go around it and there is a blind curve on Cole Street and explains the traffic pattern when that happens. Knowles refers to sketch A, which he revised with Maxner at a site visit held on Friday. He explains the plan and notes that a berm will be installed. He also explains the catch basin and the function of it. He also notes a second Sketch B that is similar except that the discharge point would be behind the existing dwelling. He also notes the existing hay bale line will have to be removed and reinstalled in another location. He also notes that they have provided drainage calculations that show that the runoff was reduced by the construction of the house and the roof runoff is recharged into the ground. He notes that their preference would be to install the easies most logical configuration, which is sketch A. Reilly asks where 15 Cole Street is located, noting that the McKenna's at 15 Cole Street have a concern that the water will be going on their property. Knowles explains that location on the plan. Knowles states that there is no additional volume of water that will go to that swale and explains route of the drainage. He notes that the rip-rap will prevent erosIOn. Hayes asks if the swale ever fills with standing water. Knowles states that he has walked the back of it and it is soggy but he is not sure if there is standing water. Hayes notes that he is very familiar with that area and after almost every rainstorm that street floods and it stays there for awhile. He also notes that it is particularly dangerous in the winter when it freezes and he thinks this project is beneficial. Knowles agrees and states that their intent is to have it installed before the winter. Johnson asks if there is any chance that additional water will go to the neighbor's property. Knowles notes that the water went there before the construction of this house and this will result in reverting back to pre-development conditions. Cademartori asks if the city needs a drainage easement noting he is concerned about discharging water from the public street onto private property and if it impacting neighboring property an easement may be needed. Maxner notes that all of the structures are either in the public way or on Mr. Neumann's property. Cademartori notes that he wants to protect the city should a claim come in the future on this project. He notes that this is a city project and the city should be the applicant rather than an amendment to Mr. Neumann's Order of Conditions. Squibb agrees and notes that it should be an easy thing to get an easement. Hayes agrees and notes that it is in the applicant's interest to provide that. Cademartori requests that Maxner get a statement from the DPW concurring that this is the best solution for the site. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 23 Paluzzi agrees and notes he is in favor of the project, however he would like to get that cleared up and suggests that the hearing be continued to obtain that information. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Mr. McKenna of 15 Cole Street addresses the Commission and expresses his concern about the project. He notes that the house was built in the winter of2003-2004 states that the house layout was changed and the driveway is closer to his property, he feels this is the crux of the problem. He also notes that he has been documenting the water and shows the Commission pictures of the area showing water on the site at various times over the last few years. He also explains the location of the site in relation to his property and some of the problems he has had over the years. He also shows pictures of the Mothers Day flood this year. Maxner notes that the drainage calculations show a decrease in volume as presented by Meridian. She notes that both neighbors probably share ownership of the swale. Knowles notes that the location of the pipe and the rip-rap is on Mr. Neumann's property and the swale is on the property line. Mrs. McKenna notes that if they own half of the swale then it will discharge on their property. Knowles explains that water will be discharged in a more controlled manner with much better water quality treatment as well. Mrs. McKenna expresses her concern that the swale is going to be wet all the time and suggests another location for the pipe as shown on Sketch B. Maxner asks if the drainage calculation that show that the house footprint is being recharge if it would take the place of the puddle in terms of the volume. Knowles reviews the calculations and notes that he could do the calculations on the road but they are probably fairly equivalent. Maxner suggests that if you take the roof calculations out and exchange it for the puddle it would show what it is. Hayes suggests that if they use an approximate volume for the puddle and compare it to the swale and what it can hold he thinks that it would probably barely fill the swale. Paluzzi suggests that the Commission visit the site and requests that the property line be staked out. Patricia Grimes, Ward Six Councillor addresses the Commission and states that she is happy that they are moving ahead with this but she is also concerned about the impact if any it would have on the McKenna's. A site visit will be held on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at a time to be determined. Maxner will notify all parties of the time. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to October 3,2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 23 New: 7 Mar2aret Avenue - DEP File # 5-861- Dennis Britton - Wayne Realty Trust Maxner reads the legal notice. Maxner explains that the Commission issued an Order of Conditions for the construction of three retaining walls on the Coastal Bank, a pile supported pier, and floats. She notes that the Commission will recall issuing an enforcement order for a discrepancy in the seawall construction. She explains that the approved plan called for the top of the wall to come to elevation 10, and the as-built height is 7 feet to elevation 13.5. John Dick of Hancock Environmental addresses the Commission and explains that the applicant is requesting a modification of the original plan that has been amended twice. He explains the amendments for a parking area at the top of the hill and a retaining wall to the bottom of the coastal bank. Dick explains the approved elevations for the top of the bottom retaining wall was called out on the plan as elevation 10 but the applicant misinterpreted it as ten feet in height. Therefore the wall was built to elevation 13.5 as the applicant had intended for ease of access to the pier and protection for the corner of the house foundation. He notes that there are a couple of related issues: one is coastal access for the Chapter 91 licnese and this elevation increases the clearance between the pier and the foreshore. He notes that the second consideration is what this has done to the coastal bank and the impervious cover on the site, which in his opinion results in no negative impact. He notes that the transition wall between this wall and the neighboring wall is such that they have reduced the potential for upland erosion from the site. Johnson notes that the Commission has visited the site and he was struck by the difference in elevation between the two neighboring walls. He explains that he feels that it does make a difference noting the potential for filling and the owner should be held to the original specifications. Dick notes that there already was fill on the bank in the form of lose boulders and rip-rap, and explains that when the new wall was built they removed several feet of fill from the beach and pulled the footprint more landward resulting in more beach surface area. He notes that they have made a return to the westerly side of the site and the wall is indeed higher and the adjacent wall is above the 100 year flood elevation. He explains that this is not a situation where the wall on this site causes erosion on the next site. Hayes questions if the Commission requested that the wall be made even with the neighbors existing wall when they visited the site. Maxner agreed and notes that at the time the Commission felt that they would be agreeable to the change provided that two tiers be taken off the top. Paluzzi agrees noting that he recalls the Commission agreeing the removal of the top to tiers of the wall. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 23 Dick explains that Mr. Britton's dilemma that removing two tiers would require a lot of earth moving and disturbance on the bank and he would have to rebuild the steps from his porch and leading to the rear patio. Hayes suggests that the matter be continued to the next meeting so that the Commission can look at their records regarding this. He notes that he is bothered that the Commission issued an enforcement order and a set of directions as to what they wanted done with the site and they are coming back and saying that they are not doing that. Dick notes that they are not saying no, and they responded immediately to the enforcement order with the argument that there is no deleterious effect from this change and the applicant intended that this would be the condition all along, noting that this is simply a change in the elevation of the top of the wall so that the applicant can get out of his house, down to a level area so that he can access his pier. Squibb notes that the pier goes to the top of the wall. Paluzzi notes that it is not what the applicant proposed to the Commission when the Order of Conditions was issued. Hayes suggests that Maxner contact the DEP and see what they think since they have been commenting about these kinds of structures lately. Squibb agrees and suggests that the Commission visit the site again now that the pier is built. Paluzzi agrees. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. Squibb moves to continue the public hearing to October 3,2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. The Commission will visit the site on Saturday, September 30, 2006 at a time to be determined. Maxner will notify all parties of the time of the site visit. Notice of Intent Continued: 74 Hart Street - Construct 15.300 S.F. and 11.900 S.F. Buildin2s- Glen UrQuhart School Maxner recalls that the applicant is proposing to construct a new classroom facility, upgrade parking and other site work within the Buffer Zone to BVW, Riverfront Area and Flood Plain. She notes that the Commission has required a peer review by CDM as well as an additional test pit be dug within the proposed under ground flood storage area. Both of which have been completed and CDM has provided its approval of the plan. David Nyman, ENSR, addresses the Commission and explains that there was a concern as to the seasonal high ground water on the site adversely affecting the performance of the stormwater management system. He explains that the Commission requested that they do a test pit at a location of the subsurface system and they did that in July with Commission representatives in attendance. He explains that the result was a minor Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 23 change in the system and the relocation of it so that the bottom of the storage system is above seasonal high ground water on the site. He notes that Haley & Aldridge performed the test pit. Nyman explains that they have amended their drainage calculations and submitted them to CDM for review. He also notes that the Commission should have the report on the test pit. He also notes CDM has issued a letter that states that they have satisfactorily addressed their concerns regarding this project. Paluzzi asks if this system includes the proposed phase II of the project that will be coming up. Nyman states that it has been designed to address the current addition and the ultimate build out of the site. Paluzzi asks if the current chamber is going to reduce the volume going out into the brook. Nyman states that it reduces the peak rate of flow going into the wetland and notes that they are proposing some additional onsite storage. Paluzzi asks if in a 100-year storm this would keep the water from going over the road. Nyman states that the water goes over the road for reasons other than the school site and they cannot correct that. He further notes that they are not contributing to the worsening of that condition. He also notes that CDM reviewed that in detail and they concur with their analysis. Cademartori asks Maxner if she has a copy of the letter from CDM. Nyman provides a copy of the letter and Maxner reads it into the record. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. A gentleman from 24 Goodwin Road addresses the Commission and asks if the underground chamber is going to be sealed. Nyman explains there will be a very small outlet, about 2", and explains the process of draining the chamber. Tom Henry of 15 Goodwin Road addresses the Commission and expresses his concern about the flooding issues at Chubbs Brook. He shows the Commission pictures of the last storm and the location of the school in relation to Goodwin Road. He states that he is concerned that his property is 150 feet from the school. He recalls the May 2006 storm and the condition of the neighborhood. He states that he is concerned that the school is adding so much to their site and suggests that the city do an independent study to see what the effect of the proposed drainage from the school will have on the neighborhood. Maryanne Henry addresses the Commission and explains the pictures they took of the neighborhood during and after the storm last May and the locations depicted in them. Ward Six Councillor Patricia Grimes addresses the Commission and notes that the Mayor spoke at the last Council meeting regarding Chubbs Brook and he wants more time to look at this and has proposed having a public meeting in December or January on this. She also notes that she is meeting with him tomorrow on this and she will make sure that Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of23 he follows up on that. She also notes that she wants the failure of the drainage project to be addressed as well. Susan 0 'Brien of 16 Goodwin Road addresses the Commission and expresses her concern about the flooding in the area during heavy storms. Guy Rossi, Linden Avenue, addresses the Commission and expresses his support for the neighbors in this area. He states that he is tired of the non-profits in Beverly leaning on the infrastructure that the citizens of Beverly are paying for. Renee Mary of274 Hale Street addresses the Commission and expresses her concern that because of global warming this area of the Northeast is predicted to have more frequent large storm events. She also notes that the stilling basin is inadequate and asks if there are any plans to make it larger. She also suggests that they expand their academic center on the playing field on the site. George Tremblay of 81 Hart Street addresses the Commission and notes that he is on the Board of Trustees at Glen Urquhart. He notes that he is familiar with the flooding problem of the area and explains that the proposed project does not add any extra water to the system and CDM has concluded that as well. He suggests that everyone work together to see why the larger system failed. He also notes that they would welcome participating in that and notes that the school has donated land to the city in the past to address flooding issues. David Miller, Olsen and Associates, addresses the Commission and notes that additional grading is being done on the site to address compensatory flooding levels. He also notes that the detailed review by CDM over the last few months was extensive and the city has received information regarding all of their concerns as indicated this evening in the letter from CDM. Squibb asks which areas flood at present. Miller explains that the building does not flood at present and notes that it is above flood level. Maryanne Henry addresses the Commission and requests that the Commission continue this matter until they can make sure that the infrastructure of the neighborhood can sustain this project. Ellen Wadsworth of Prides Crossing addresses the Commission and expresses her concerns about the flooding in the area. She suggests that the Mayor come to the area and view it himself. Philip Lake, Glovsky & Glovsky, addresses the Commission and notes that the size of the Mothers Day storm was somewhat of an extraordinary circumstance and is not something that was created by Glen Urquhart and notes that the school has been a significant contributor to the city's effort to resolve the problems in the area. He notes that during Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of23 that storm one of the drainage swales that the city built gave way prior to the storm and contributed to the problems that resulted. He states that he is concerned that this project is going to be blamed for something that it has not caused. He notes that CDM has concluded that this project will not contribute to existing conditions. He notes that the project has been designed to anticipate the worst case scenario and the project should not be held up because of larger issues that have been out there for twenty years and the city has been unable to satisfactorily address them. He requests that the Commission move this forward as there are issues with the financing and delaying it any longer will make it more costly. A resident of230 Greenwood Avenue addresses the Commission and states that the major complaint of the neighborhood is that they are building in the floodplain. He notes that the engineers have said that it won't affect the floodplain, but the issue of the neighbors is that they have flooding issues year after year and they are sticking a building in there and suggesting that the problem be fixed later. He states that the building will be sitting in water and it will affect the neighborhood. Renee Mary of274 Hale Street addresses the Commission and again suggests that they build the building on the soccer field. Miller addresses the Commission and states that the land is not available for development due to Riverfront Area issues and other resources. Squibb suggests that this might be an opportunity where the Commission might need an engineer of their own and he would at least like to hear back from Councillor Grimes after she meets with the Mayor tomorrow to see if anything is going to be done for this area before going forward with a vote on the project. He suggests that the matter be continued to the next meeting so the Commission can get that information. He also suggests that the Commission consult an engineer. Lake addresses the Commission and notes that this is a major political issue that the school has been cooperative in the matter. He notes that they have taken a lot of their developable land and converted it to stormwater drainage areas. He states that it is unfortunate that what used to be a positive relationship with the neighbors is turning into a negative one. He notes that the Mothers Day storm is not to be blamed on the Urquhart School. He also notes that whatever Mayor Scanlon has to say is not going to resolve the water issues at this time. Reilly states that she does not think that there is any doubt that they have tried to do the right thing the issue is this will impact an already terrible situation and the Commission has to really understand what is going to happen here. Lake notes that CDM are the experts and they have reviewed the project for the Commission as its independent consultant and concluded that there would be no adverse affect on the existing conditions. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 12 of23 Maxner notes that the Mothers Day storm was at or beyond the intensity of the 100-year storm and there was no way the city could design or fund a project to address that magnitude of storm event. Maxner further states that she would not recommend that the city get the opinion of another engineer because she feels it was already reviewed by CDM who designed the Chubbs Brook system and they know the area well. Cademartori asks what the finish slope is for the compensatory storage area between the 38 and 29 contour and questions if there is any reason why they could not provide some additional storage capacity in that area. Miller states its about 1 and 2.5 to 3 slope in terms of one foot of vertical change. Cademartori states that it looks like there is a kind of broad area and asks if there is any reason that area could not be regarded to provide more storage capacity and suggests that they bring it back a few more feet. Miller states they looked at this and believe this will cause too much disruption to existing mature trees and vegetation. Johnson states that this has been a very interesting discussion and he is sympathetic to the residents of Goodwin Road and the surrounding area of the school. He thinks that in order to be absolutely certain about a decision and if he were a Goodwin Road resident and he had been told that the engineer that designed the failed Chubbs Brook flood control project had now approved this as acceptable he would be a little skeptical too. He suggests that the Commission should hire an independent engineer to review the project. He recommends continuing the public hearing. Paluzzi states that he would entertain a motion at this time. Johnson moves to continue the public hearing pending a review by an independent consultant. Maxner notes that the applicant traditionally pays for independent reviews for the Commission and this applicant has already paid for CDM to review the project. Johnson states that the school should go that extra step and be willing to do fund the study. Lake addresses the Commission and states that the references to failure, potentially in the design, noting there was a mechanical failure as a large berm placed on the school site eroded and there was a significant amount of water released suddenly into the neighborhood and to their knowledge that is the only aspect that did not perform to expectations. He also noted that this project was not designed to prevent all storm events and there will be storm events that will exceed the capacity of the system that was designed and built and installed by the city. He notes that has to be part of the basic understanding of these discussions. He notes that an independent review of the project will not change the fact that the system was not built to stop flooding. Miller states he objects to the proposal of the school paying for an independent engineer to review the Chubbs Brook drainage design as it would be extremely costly and very time consuming. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 13 of23 Squibb states that is not is what is intended he is only suggesting that an independent engineer review the school project. He notes that the underlying issue is maybe that the 100-year storm needs to be redefined. He notes that we are looking for someone to independently look at the project and see if there are any suggestions that could be made that will benefit you and help benefit the situation, noting that there may be something that their engineers overlooked. Paluzzi states that he feels it is time to make a decision on the matter, and approve or deny the project. Johnson moves to continue the hearing pending another independent review not of the whole history of the flooding in Beverly Farms but on the effect of this project on the flooding in Beverly Farms. Squibb seconds the motion. Paluzzi declares the vote a tie with Johnson, Reilly and Squibb voting in favor and Hayes, Cademartori and Paluzzi opposed. Miller suggest that the Commission approve the project subject to a further independent review otherwise this is going to go on forever, noting that the complaints are not going away. Maxner asks what concerns CDM has not addressed for the Commission and asks if it is because it is CDM. Johnson states that he would like a second opinion. Squibb agrees. Reilly states that she would be a little more comfortable with a little more time looking at the history of this, noting that it is nothing against the school and she feels that they have done everything they should but that a second review may find additional ways to improe the project or find flaws not yet detected. Hayes states that there are two very distinct issues one being the question of the school and whether the school is meeting the standards and the other being the entire Chubbs Brook watershed drainage situation. He notes that people think that the Conservation Commission has jurisdiction over everything but in reality it is very prescribed as to what it can and cannot do. He notes that if the Commission denies the project the applicant can appeal that decision to DEP. He notes that the responsibility of the Commission is whether they believe if this project should go forward and out of fairness to the applicant it is appropriate to ask for a vote and if members are strongly opposed they can deny. Paluzzi notes that if the Commission approves the project the neighbors can appeal that to DEP. Maxner states that this might not be a project that the Commission likes very much but that is very separate from whether or not it meets the standards. She states that she wants to make sure that if Commission is going to deny the project they need to identify their findings and what standards the applicant failed to meet. She notes that we have a failed motion right now to continue and obtain an independent review. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 14 of23 Hayes moves to close the public hearing. Cademartori seconds the motion. The vote is tied with Paluzzi, Cademartori, and Hayes in favor and Reilly, Squibb and Johnson opposed. Maxner notes that the Commission has two failed motions that failed: one to continue the hearing, and one to close the public hearing. Paluzzi suggests that the members take a vote to approve or deny the proj ect. Johnson moves, pending a review and approval by an independent engineer, the Commission conditionally approve the project and close the hearing. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries unanimously 6-0. Lake questions what the time frame will be and what independent consultant the Commission will use. Maxner explains that they will choose a consultant and estimates that she could have a review by October 3,2006. She also notes that the hearing is closed so the report will be presented at a public meeting but public comment will not be accepted. It was mentioned that two and a half weeks might not be sufficient time for the report to be done. Hayes suggests that we select a consultant and ask them what they think is a reasonable time frame to get the report to the Commission. Maxner suggests that it could probably be done by October 24,2006. Miller suggests that they could give the peer reviewer a packet of information to review and that could speed up the process. Continued: 412 Hale Street - DEP File #5-909 - Landmark School- Construction of Athletic Complex with Parkin2 and Athletic Field Maxner explains that the applicant has requested that the matter be continued to October 3,2006 noting that they need time to respond to the comments from the peer review. Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to October 3,2006. Squibb seconds motion. The motion carries 6-0. Cont: Massachusetts Bay - DEP File #5-925 Construct Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline - Neptune LNG LLC R. 1. Lyman, counsel for Neptune LNG addresses the Commission and suggests that since the Chairman is not present this evening they would like to continue the matter to the next meeting October 3,2006. A discussion was held on continuing the matter as well as the possibility of a joint peer review with surrounding communities. Maxner notes that Marblehead has closed their hearing and Salem will probably do so on Thursday evening. Lyman states that there Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 15 of23 may not be much value in a joint peer review as there are different issues in each community. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to October 3,2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Continuation: 27 Ober Street - DEP File # 5-922 - Rehab Seawall with Alterations to StairsIRamp Access Maxner informs the Commission that the applicant has requested that the matter be continued to the October 3,2006 meeting. Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to October 3, 2006. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Continuation: 44 Prince Street - Reconstruct Sin2le Family House and Guest House - David Carnevale Maxner informs the Commission that the applicant has requested that the matter be continued to the October 3,2006 meeting. Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to October 3, 2006. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: 76 Paine Avenue - Install Basketball Court and Plantin2 Strip - Jonathan Ban2s. Trustee Maxner reads the legal notice. Bob Griffin addresses the Commission and explains that they are requesting an Order of Conditions for two pieces of work on the site. He explains that the Commission issued an Order of Conditions in July of 2005 and has amended that order twice for grading on the site and the reconstruction of the seawall. He notes that the work is not complete and they are also proposing to construct a basketball court downhill of the single-family residence. He notes that the closest point of the basketball court to the BVW is 40 feet and is within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. He also explains that they are proposing a planting strip and explained the location on the plan. Hayes notes that he feels that the types of plants are important and they have not identified what they are planting. He suggests that they choose shrubs and trees that will benefit the area. He also recommends that they make sure that whatever they plant will not grow over the property line. Griffin states that if they grow over the property line at some point there will have to be a discussion about trimming them, noting that it would be no different than trees that cross over property lines all the time. He also states that he assumes they would choose a mix of trees and shrubs. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 16 of23 Maxner reminds the Commission that it issued an Enforcement Order for the unauthorized installation of the asphalt basketball court and that the applicant has chosen to respond with an NOI application. Paluzzi asks if they have prepared a planting plan. Griffin states that they do not have one at this time. Hayes states that he would also like to see a planting plan and notes that he would like to see native plants and nothing close to invasive. Paluzzi asks if there are going to be elevation changes in the area where they propose the basketball court. Griffin states that the basketball court has already been constructed and there were no significant grading changes on the site. He notes that there is some work left such as smoothing out the edges of the paving and re-seeding the area. Johnson states that he sees no justification for paving in the flood zone and it bothers him that this was done. He states that he feels that the basketball court should be removed, noting that he could not vote in favor of it. Griffin states that the basketball court is 40X40 and there has been no significant affect in the runoff on the site or the recharge. Maxner asks if any other alternative locations on the property have been looked at for the location of the basketball court. Griffin states that the applicant chose that location because it is flat and in an area where other recreational activities take place so that the parents can watch the kids. He also states that it would have been wise of them to file before they constructed the basketball court, but notes that there are no performance standards for LSCSF. Maxner asks if there is a drainage system on the site. Griffin explains that there is a catch basin and pipe on the site but he has not looked at it. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Oliver Wadsworth of77 Paine Avenue addresses the Commission and expresses his concerns about the effect the planting strip will have on his right of way. He notes that he sent a letter to the Commission. Maxner confirms that she received it and included it in the members' packets. Wadsworth explains the location of his property and the right of way. He notes that he would like the planting strip set back 12 feet so Mr. Swansburg can maintain it and remain off of his property. He also reviewed the history of the site and notes that plans for the seawall called for the placement of 1 1Iz -2 ton stones and much smaller ones were installed. He states that he is concerned that the wall will collapse and the planting strip will not do any good. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 17 of23 Griffin notes that the portion of the planting strip that Mr. Wadsworth is referring to is outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission. He also states that the owner can plant assuming he will not interfere with the right of way. He states that they will look at the area in more detail while preparing the requested planting plan. Paluzzi suggests that they move the planting strip in response to Mr. Wadsworth's request to move it 12 feet. Griffin will talk to the owners about that. He notes that there are trees that grow taller and narrow and they may be preferable and he will take a look at that. Paluzzi asks if the Wadsworth uses the 20-foot right of way for foot traffic. Wadsworth explains that they don't use it and it is right of way in name only. He states that when he bought the property 39 years ago he was told he has access to that. He also notes that he thinks that Mr. Swansburg is going to build another house on the site and he does not want to lose the value of the right of way by the planting strip or anything else Mr. Swansburg might do on his property. Hayes informs Wadsworth that unfortunately the Commission cannot help him with the issue of the right of way if it is outside of the buffer zone. Wadsworth states that he understands that and offers a copy of a legal opinion that he received for the City Solicitor to review. Hayes states that he sees the plantings as a positive thing depending on the kinds of plants they put there. Reilly asks about the basketball court that was installed. Maxner notes that the Commission started issuing fines on the EO and she is reluctant to close the public hearing before the fines are paid. She notes that she is afraid that the fines will be ignored. Mr. Hutchins of 60 Paine Avenue addresses the Commission and expresses his concern about flooding in the area. He also notes that any plantings should be salt tolerant. He also questions why they paved the basketball court but not the driveway on the property. Joseph Haley of75 Paine Avenue addresses the Commission and expresses his concerns about construction of the seawall on the property. He asks if a Certificate of Compliance has been issued for that. Cademartori states that he would request that an engineer take a look at that before a certificate of compliance is issued because he does not feel that the wall was built according to the design that was approved by the Commission. Haley states that he is concerned that the applicant is requesting approval for more work to be done on the site when there is unfinished work and if the seawall fails all of the property will flood. He also notes that there has been some re-grading done on the site since the Commission last visited the site. He further notes that he is afraid that the work will affect his property as well. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 18 of23 Paluzzi suggests that the matter be continued to the next meeting on October 3, 2006. Maxner states that she feels that there is a viable alternative location for the basketball court on the site and notes an area on pebble drive that could be paved and a hoop set up. She states that she would rather see that than paving impervious surface in a coastal zone. Squibb suggests that the Commission visit the site. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Squibb moves to continue the public hearing to October 3,2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. The Commission will visit the site on September 29, 2006 at a time to be determined. New: 7 Deer Haven Road - Fill Approximately 205 S.F. of Isolated Ve2etated Wetland - Christopher and Kandis Cloutman Maxner reads the legal notice. Bob Griffin addresses the Commission and explains that the project is only being reviewed under the Beverly bylaw and not the state Wetlands Protection Act because there is no BVW. He notes that IVW is shown on the plan and explains that the pipe is dry at all times. Griffin explains that there is a limited area for the applicant's children to play and they would like to create a lawn west of the existing driveway using 300 s.f. of the IVW. He explains that they are proposing to replicate 500 s.f. in one location and 100 s.f. in another area, double what is there now. Griffin reviews a detailed planting plan for the site. He states that the topography will mimic the existing topography and they will plant shrubs and trees noting red maples, arrowwood and silky dogwood as well as a wetland seed mix in both areas. He states that they are confident that they will get good growth and obtain 75% growth after two planting seasons. Paluzzi recalls that the Commission denied a previous plan for the site. Maxner explains that the Cloutman's informally met with the Commission to ask about filling the site and did not get positive feedback from the Commission. Paluzzi asks if they consulted with the City Engineer regarding the drainpipe. Griffin states that he talked to Mike Collins and he said to cap and plug it because they don't need it. Paluzzi asks if they are filling in the area where the pipe is. Griffin states yes they are and notes the location on the plan. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 19 of23 Paluzzi suggests a site visit. Hayes and Johnson agree. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on this matter. Cademartori states that he would like verification that the City Engineer is in favor of abandoning the pipe on the site. He also notes that the applicant has done what the Commission requested when they came before them two years ago in getting a professional engineer to guide that plans. Hayes states that he feels that this is a fair thing to take a look at. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to October 3, 2006 pending a site inspection scheduled for Saturday, September 29,2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: 23 Linden Street - Repair Eroded Stone Wall on the Bass River - Lou Ellen Viel Maxner reads the legal notice. John Dick of Hancock Environmental addresses the Commission and explains that the applicant is proposing to reinforce and repair eroded stone embankment coastal bank. Dick also notes that the Commission has issued an Enforcement Order previously. He explains that they are proposing to repair a stone retaining wall and stabilize it. He notes that there are gaps in the wall and they want to replace the stones, and the work is to be done manually. He reviews the resource areas on site which include 200-Foot Riverfront Area, coastal bank, buffer zone and the mean high water at elevation 10. Maxner notes that DEP has commented that the bank appears to serve as a sediment source and therefore the project does not meet the performance standards and has requested that at least two cross sections be submitted to the Commission and the DEP. She recommends that the Commission continue the hearing and hold a site visit. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There was no one present who wished to comment on this matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Johnson moves to continue the hearing to October 3,2006 pending a site inspection on Saturday, September 29,2006. Hayes seconds that motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: 43 Water Street - Pave Existin2 Parkin2 Lot - Install Stormwater Mana2ement System - Beverly Port Marina Maxner reads the legal notice. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 23 Jon Silver, engineer for the applicant, explains that the applicant is proposing to pave an existing gravel parking lot and install stormwater treatment devices within the buffer zone to coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage. He also notes that he has provided the operations and maintenance plan for the site. He goes on to explain that the project will include striping for more organized parking on site, better dust control and explains that there is erosion developing through gaps in the seawall. Cademartori questions the discharge on the site. Silver notes that currently runoff sheet flows untreated into the ocean, and a lot of sediment from the gravel surface is carried with it. Paluzzi asks how they will breach the wall for discharge pipe outlets. Silver states the portions of the rock rip-rap will be removed for pipe installation and mortared back in place. Johnson asks how many times will the catch basins be cleaned out. Silver states once a year. Cademartori asks the extent of grading on site. Silver states they will pave to a grade about 1Iz above existing grade to encourage drainage into the catch basins. Cademartori asks the inverts of the pipe relative to high tide. Silver states the pipes will be designed with tide gates to stop rising tide water from entering the system. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Resident of 57 Front Street states his concern over the derelict boats being moved and possible fuel leakage from these. Silver states that the boats are stationary almost all the time and will obviously need to be moved for paving. He states that the site has been investigated for fuel and oil issues and soil borings have revealed no problems. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to close the public hearing. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: Massachusetts Bay- Construct Gas Transmission Pipeline - Al20nQuin Gas Transmission. LLC Maxner reads the legal notice. Maxner informs the Commission that the applicant has requested to continue this matter to the October 3,2006 meeting. Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to October 3,2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 23 OLD/NEW BUSINESS Continuation: 43 Breckenburv Lane - Morse. Purtell. Leonard - EO Discussion Maxner recalls that an Enforcement Order was issued to the violating parties for removal of sand from the beach at the end of Bra ken berry Lane. On August 7, 2006 the parties restored the beach and she monitored the restoration effort for most of the day. She also notes that Peter Williams of Vine Associates was also present on the site that day for the initial deliveries of the replacement sand. She notes that she, David Lang and Anthony Paluzzi observed the restoration area at the end of the day, which consisted of approximately 121 cubic yards (170 tons) of sand brought in by five 18 wheeler trucks and spread per Peter Williams and her directions and they were in agreement that the final results were satisfactory. She also notes that she contacted Karen Adams of ACOE and informed her that the Commission is satisfied with the methods and the final result. She states that she believes that the parties have fulfilled their obligations directed by the Enforcement Order and more than likely replaced more material than what was removed from the site. She recommends that the Enforcement Order be lifted at this time. Cademartori states that he had been to the site a couple weeks ago and thinks the restoration is satisfactory and the natural system will take it from here and thinks this issue should be put to rest. Hayes agrees and states that he too visited the site recently and finds no objectionable conditions and is confident in the Chairman's, Vice Chairman's and Administrator's assessment of the results. Johnson moves to lift the Enforcement Order for 43 Brackenberry Lane. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. 41R Williams Street - Enforcement Order - Frederick Smuckler - Dana DeStafano Maxner notes that the members will recall that she inspected this property and observed wetlands violations of grass clippings and yard waste being dumped directly into the resource area, which borders the property. She questions whether the Commission wants to issue a formal Enforcement Order explaining that the tenant removed most of the material from the site and indicated that he would remove what ever the Commission requests. Hayes asks Maxner if she feels that the EO will help accomplish the clean up. Cademartori states that he feels that the tenant has cooperated and suggests that the Commission visit the site and explain what they want done to the tenant. He suggests that if the work is not done then fines should be imposed. He states that he would like the end of the driveway cleaned up. Paluzzi states that he would like all of it cleaned up. Squibb agrees. The Commission will visit the site at a time to be determined. Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 23 New: 4 Cavendish SQuare - DEP File # 5-849 - Wetland Restoration Monitorin2 Update Maxner informs the Commission that the applicant has requested that the matter be continued to the October 3,2006 meeting. Johnson moves to continue this item to October 3, 2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Conservation Land Behind Sweeney's Greenhouse Maxner informed the Commission that she has gathered information regarding the right of way behind Sweeney's. She notes that she pulled the deed and outlined the assessor's map and found that the right of way is between the two Sweeney properties and the deed calls out the right of way as access. Councilor Cou2hlin's ReQuest to Rename the Vitale Site Maxner informs the Commission that at the last City Council meeting, Councilor Coughlin submitted an Order on behalf of the Wenham Lake Watershed Association to rename the Vitale site - "Wenham Lake Watershed Park". She notes that the Commission being the custodians of the property may want to provide some comment on this proposal. She explains that right now the proposal is in the Finance and Property Subcommittee of the Council and they have not taken any action on it in favor of waiting for recommendation from the Park and Recreation Commission. She also notes that she is not sure why the Conservation Commission was left out of this. Hayes notes that the property technically belongs to the Conservation Commission and questions how someone else can decide to rename it. Maxner notes that Councilor Coughlin may have thought that the Commission had transferred the property to the city. Members request that Maxner write to the Council and inform them that the Commission wishes to be approached on this issue as the custodian of the property. Orders of Conditions Glen UrQuhart School Discussion ensues regarding potential conditions on the project. Cademartori states that he would like to see additional compensatory flood storage. Johnson moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. This approval is contingent upon an independent consultant's determination that the final revised proposed drainage plans and calculations are compliant with the Beverly Conservation Commission September 12, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 23 Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Management Policy, MGL Chapter 131 Section 40, 310 CMR 10.00 (the Wetlands Protection Act and accompanying Regulations) and the Beverly Wetlands Protection Regulations, thereby concurring with findings made by Virginia Roach, P.E. of Camp Dresser & McKee. 2. Every attempt shall be made to create additional flood storage compensation to try to achieve a 1: 1.5 ratio. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. 43 Water Street Cademartori states that he would like to wait for comments from DEP on this noting that he does not see why the design is set up for infiltration and is not able to discharge. Discussion ensues regarding DEP' s stance on coastal discharges. Maxner notes that DEP would likely appeal an approval if it had objections, as they have been more active in appealing decisions. Johnson moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. Erosion control shall be placed on top of seawall and maintained in good condition throughout the project. 2. Derelict boats shall be shall be stored as far away from the water-side of the site as possible. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Beverly Conservation Commission meeting held on June 13,2006 were presented for approval. Johnson moves approval of the minutes of June 13,2006 as amended. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Site Visits Maxner will schedule site visits and inform the Commission members of the scheduled times. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Beverly Conservation Commission this evening. Hayes moves to adjourn the meeting. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m.