2005-05-03
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
DATE:
May 3, 2005
BOARD:
Conservation Commission
SUBCOMMITTEE:
MEMBERS PRESENT
: David Lang – Chairman; Anthony Paluzzi – Vice
Chairman; Linda Goodenough; Ian Hayes; Dr.
Mayo Johnson; Gregg Cademartori; William
Squibb (arrives 7:10 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT
:
OTHERS PRESENT
: Amy Maxner – Environmental Planner
MINUTES SECRETARY:
Robin Levesque
Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Request for Determination of Applicability
New: 8 East Street
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Megan Taormina, applicant, states she would like to install an above ground pool in her
back yard within the 100-foot buffer zone.
Maxner states that there is a fence that runs along the rear portion of the yard which has
an intermittent stream running along its edge, and the pool will measure 18 feet round,
and when measured it was 48 feet from the fence.
Lang asks if they do any excavating.
Taormina states yes, she believes the top layer of sod will need to be removed and
replaced with stone dust or sand to receive the pool.
Paluzzi asks what will be done with the soil.
Taormina states it will be placed around in her flower beds.
Lang asks if there are any further questions from members. There are none.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 11
Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none.
Paluzzi motions to issue a Negative # 3 Determination. Seconded by Johnson. All in
favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Squibb arrives.
New: 240 – 242 Elliott Street
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Luke Fabri, Geological Field Services, Inc., representative for the applicant, states the
owners of the property where asked to investigate this site as it was a historic disposal
site as the property was a former gas station. Further investigation of the site for the
extent of contamination needs to be done in order to remove restrictions for use under the
AUL. He explains that this project is exempt from filing a NOI under provisions of 310
CMR 10.58(6)(b).
Lang asks how long work will take to be completed and what will be done with boring
spoils. Fabri states that they will be doing 15 soil borings and install up to 5 ground
water monitoring wells, and spoils that are not returned to the boring holes will be
disposed offsite. He states the work will be complete in 1 – 2 days, and will be
conducted entirely within existing paved surface.
Lang asks if there are any further questions from members. There are none.
Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative # 3 Determination, seconded by Johnson. All in favor.
Motion carries 7-0.
Minor Modification
Cont: 76 Paine Avenue – DEP #5-867 – Jack Swansburg
Maxner states the applicant submitted a request for Minor Modification to extend grading
past elevation 9 into the A2 Coastal Zone but she has not received any new information.
She reminds the Commission that is requested additional information and a plan that
shows compensatory flood storage for encroachment into the A2 zone.
Lang asks Maxner to follow up with the applicant to get the status on this request.
Paluzzi motions to continue to the May 24, 2005 meeting. Seconded by Goodenough
All in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 11
RECESS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Seconded by Goodenough. All members
are in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
Notices of Intent
Cont: 2 Boyles Street – DEP # 5-862 –Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC
Hayes recuses himself from the meeting and leaves the room.
Robert Griffin, from Griffin Engineering Group,reviews information regarding
stormwater volume runoff for the 2, 10, and 25-year storms. In a letter received April 12,
2005 from the Conservation Commission’s consultant, Dr Edward T.T. Chiang suggested
modifications. Griffin states he responded to Dr. Chiang in a letter dated April 28, 2005.
Dr. Chiang recommended changing the bottom grades to Ponds 1A and 1B, as well as
lowering the outlet pipe by 12 inches. He states there will be a decrease in volume flows
to Wetland C and to lower Wetland A, but is confident that this decrease will not
negatively effect the wetlands as there is a great effort to maintain groundwater recharge
on site which will keep wetlands viable. He turns the discussion over the Bill Manuell
for review of the wildlife habitat evaluation.
William Manuel, from Wetlands & Land Management, Inc,states that in April 2004
spotted wood frog and spotted salamander eggs were observed in the McAuliffe vernal
pool. He conducted a wildlife habitat evaluation as requested by the Commission at the
last meeting, and submitted it in time for review at this meeting. He is not surprised that
this area provides excellent habitat for wood frogs and salamanders, which consists of
mixed deciduous upland forest. He states that with regard to the State Wetlands
Protection Act, they are in clear compliance with the State Regulations 310 CMR 10.00.
He believes that they are in clear compliance with the Beverly Regulations and refers to
Section II 5.b. as well as Section IV and he wishes to emphasize that the 100-Foot No-
Disturbance Zone is the limit of the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Maxner reminds the Commission that its independent wildlife biologist, Dr. Bryan
Windmiller, has not yet submitted comments on Manuell’s wildlife habitat evaluation and
cautions the Commission on making any decisions before Dr. Windmiller gets a chance
to advise the Commission.
Lang states that the intent of the Beverly Regulations was to provide protection where it
is needed, where there is prime wildlife habitat, and each project and each vernal pool
needs to be assessed on their own unique characteristics.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 11
Manuell states that the Ordinance aims at protecting wildlife habitat, not one or two
specific species. Maxner states that specific species can be considered wildlife habitat in
and of themselves if they are food for other species that utilize the area, and that the
Commission recognizes there is an interconnectedness of all species that use a particular
area.
Attorney Thomas Alexander states the 100-foot buffer is the usual rule of construction,
and thinks the Commission will be pushing its jurisdiction beyond its legal limits if the
buffer around the vernal pool is extended past the customary 100 feet.
Maxner states that Section II defines wildlife habitat as areas subject to the Ordinance
which, due to their plant community composition and structure, hydrologic regime or
other characteristics, provide food, shelter, migratory or over-wintering areas or breeding
areas for wildlife. She also reads from Section II 5. b. to emphasize that the Regulations
give the Commission flexibility in determining the extent and location of the100-Foot
No-Disturbance Zone if the situation warrants it.
Squibb states all the wildlife around the vernal pool will die as it has no place to go due
to the development that now surrounds the pool and the little remaining habitat that will
be destroyed from the proposed project.
Goodenough states she thinks there may be situations in the field where the No-Disturb
Zone might be 25 ft one area and 150 ft in the other, she states that the Regulations
contained language to allow for flexibility in protecting the resource area and important
wildlife habitat characteristics as every situation is different.
Thomas Harrington, Attorney for Friends of Chapman’s Corner, agrees that the
Commission should decide on case-by-case basis, as each situation is unique. He states
that the Regulations provide a minimum of 100 feet and reads from Section II 5 b, stating
the location and extent of the 100 ft. No Disturb Zone is subject to change. He states that
the applicant has not shown the Commission that this area is not significant to wildlife
habitat and therefore the Commission has discretion on protecting it. He reads from
Section V- Waivers and Mitigation that the Commission may grant a partial waiver from
this performance standard for the alteration of the 100 ft No Disturbance Zone in
situations where there are no practicable alternatives that provide for less impacts to the
resource area values; he contends there are alternatives, but they have not been explored
by the applicant. He goes onto explain that the Planning Board reached a decision,
approving this plan subject to plans and calculations being submitted that show pre and
post construction runoff volumes are the same. He states that this information will
change the plan and the Commission is dealing with an unknown and should not make
any decisions until this new information is available.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 11
Michael DeRosa, DeRosa Environmental Consulting, Inc. representing the Friends of
Chapman’s Corner,passes handouts to the Commission members that depict the “life
zone” of vernal pool breeding species. He explains that studies have shown that the
important habitat “life zone” for vernal pool wildlife extends approximately 525 feet
from the pool, within which 95% of the population can be found. He suggests that this is
valuable habitat and the Regulations clearly provide the Commission the ability to protect
valuable habitat. He states that the Commission should exercise this ability to protect the
entire 100-Foot Buffer Zone that extends from the edge of the BVW for the Wetland C
system, as these areas would be contained with the 525-foot life zone. He states he
would also like to emphasize that Mr. Manuell’s wildlife habitat evaluation is essentially
devoid of any quantitative data on actual habitat utilization, no information is provided
regarding migratory pathways, overwintering or other usage; it simply states that habitat
exists, which every one here could state with no argument. He explains that there is no
substantive information provided in the evaluation, and argues that the Regulations
require an evaluation that qualifies and quantifies utilization of important habitat
characteristics.
Langstates that the handout is very helpful and asks if the tan zone is the habitat area.
DeRosa states it represents the 525-foot life zone, which provides habitat for 95 % of the
vernal pool specie populations.
Joan Murphy, 36 Longmeadow Road, asks if the developer plans to build a walkway
from Eisenhower, would that fall under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Griffin states the
walkway is between Lots 6, 7 and 8 and that it will be a 5 ft walkway.
Squibbasks if the walkway will impact the wetland. Griffin states the Open Space parcel
has a 5 – 10 foot connection that they will be provide to get around it the resource area, it
will be in the buffer zone but no clearing will be necessary for its establishment.
There being no further questions from the members or the public, Lang asks members
how they would like to proceed; close the hearing or wait to hear from Dr. Windmiller
regarding the habitat evaluation. Members agree that they would like to hear from Dr.
Windmiller.
Paluzzi motions to continue to the May 24, 2005 meeting, until the Commission receives
comments from its independent wildlife biologist, Dr. Windmiller, seconded by
Goodenough. Lang opposed. Motion carries 5-1.
Hayes returns to the meeting.
Cont. – 43 Paine Avenue – DEP #5-857- Barn Hill, LLC
Maxner states she has not received any new information and has received a request for a
th
continuance to the May 24 meeting.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 11
Paluzzi motions to continue the hearing until the May 24, 2005 meeting, seconded by
Johnson. Cademartori abstains. Motion carries 6-0-1.
Cont. – 34 Fosters Point – DEP #5-874 – Martin Plecinoga
Langrecuses himself from this portion of the meeting and leaves the room.
Martin Plecinoga, the applicant, is present and explains the application is to reconstruct
wooden walkway over the marsh, install fence, construct swing set/play area, garden
shed, and lawn repairs.
Maxner states that she asked Mr. Plecinoga to provide additional more detailed
information regarding the height of the walkway and other dimensions of the other
proposed structures.
Plecinoga states the walkway is an average of 3 feet above the marsh which he
determined by taking seven measurements at ten foot intervals; it 3 feet wide.
Johnson states that would be sufficient for the requirement of the walkway to be as high
as it is wide.
Hayes states that he wants to make sure that the marsh grass is getting sufficient light.
Paluzzi states that he would like to see the float stored in the lawn area and not within the
marsh.
Paluzziasks if there was a pier there before. Plecinoga states yes, that just before he
bought the property the former owner began to rebuild it and when he bought the
property, he finished reconstruction. He adds that he thinks that the height of the
walkway now is higher than before and the grass does seem to be doing better underneath
it.
Maxner asks the distance between decking planks.Plecinoga states 1 1/8 to 1 ¼ inches.
Paluzzi asks if he plans to cut the tops off of the pilings. Plecinoga states his wife wants
railings for safety issues.
Maxner asks how high off the ground will the shed be.Plecinoga states a foot, that it will
be resting on concrete blocks so that it can be easily moved due to the SESD water main
easement that runs through that portion of the property.
Paluzzi asks about the water main and easement. Plecinoga states that there is a 36”
water main and a 10-foot easement.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 11
Paluzzi asks if there are any further questions from the members or the public. There are
none.
, s
Johnson moves to close hearingeconded by Hayes. Goodenough abstains. Motion
carries 5-0-1(one abstention).
Lang returns to the meeting.
New: - 7 Rezza Road – David Bucci
Maxner reads the legal notice.
David Bucci, applicant,states he would like to construct a 16 x 30 in ground pool with
associated pool patio measuring about 10 feet, but still out of the 25-Foot No-Disturbance
Zone, in the Buffer Zone to a bank of an intermittent stream and bordering vegetated
wetland, he shows pictures of his lawn and the area of the proposed pool to the members.
Maxner states the Bucci’s have an intermittent stream that runs the rear of the property
and then along the side yard running along the access road, portions of the stream are
within a stone channel and she has confirmed they are out of the 25-Foot No-Disturbance
Zone.
Paluzzi asks what the depth of the pool will be.Bucci replies 6 ½ feet at its deepest.
Paluzzi asks Mr. Bucci if he expects groundwater during excavation. Bucci replies that
he is unsure.Lang states that if there is groundwater, the Commission needs to know
where and how it will be treated to ensure it is not discharged to the resource area prior to
treatment. Mr. Bucci’s pool contractor states that any groundwater will be captured and
used for filling the pool. He explains that he employs a treatment system to capture any
sediment and place it in the pool.
Lang asks if they will be taking the water out of the pool. Contractor states no water will
be taken out of the pool and that they will drain water out with a skimmer.
Lang asks where the water from the skimmer goes to. Contractor states it will go out of
the pool into the ground.
David Abbott, attorney for AMG, an abutter, states the plot plan is from 8 years ago, and
it doesn’t comply with the Commissions requirements, it doesn’t show buffer zone, patio
or where the pool is going to go. Abbott states that the Board of Health said it’s not
connected to the sewer. Abbott asks where the pool in connection with the cesspool and
leaching field is. Abbott states there are drainage issues in the area.
Lang states that the process should be accessible to the average homeowner for projects
of small scale, and the Commission wants to be accommodating in that respect. He states
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 11
that the presence of a pool should not impact the drainage situation in this area
substantially. Maxner adds that any Board of Health issues will be addressed when the
building permit is pulled for the construction of the pool as the Health Department
reviews it.
Lang asks if there are any questions from the public.
Joan Murphy, 36 Longmeadow Road, asks about the chlorine. Lang states it dissipates
quickly and as long pool water is discharged onto the ground and not directly into the
resource area there should be no danger in contaminating the resource.
Lang asks if there are any further questions from the Commission or the public. There are
none.
Johnson moves to close the hearing, seconded by Paluzzi. All members are in favor.
Motion carries 7-0.
New: - 23 Oak Street – Ledyard McFadden
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Stacy Carpenter from Hancock Associates, representing the applicant explains the
proposal to install an in-ground pool and construct two additions within 100 Year
Floodplain, Riverfront Area of Chubb Brook and Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated
Wetland. The 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone is being respected, and a 5-foot wide native
landscaping area is proposed along the edge of the BVW.
Carpenter states that there will be a 143 square foot proposed cut, in order to compensate
for flood storage capacity. Carpenter goes through the Notice of Intent and all proposed
activities and explains the pictures submitted with it.
Lang states he would like a site visit, members agree. A site visit is scheduled for
Saturday, May 21, 2005 at 8:00 a.m.
Cademartori asks about the City Sewer and where the 8’ pipe comes from under the
proposed addition. Carpenter states she doesn’t know at this point.
Lang asks what the 100-year flood elevation is. Carpenter states elevation 14.
th
Paluzzi motions to continue the hearing to the May 24 meeting pending the site
inspection. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
New: - Beverly Harbor – Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries
Maxner reads the legal notice
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 11
Julie Barber from Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries presents to the Commission, and
explains MA Division of Marine Fisheries is proposing to do some habitat enhancement
for the hard bottom habitat for crustaceans, finfish and benthic communities in the
Massachusetts Bay along the route of the Algonquin Hub Line, which involves the
construction of a cobble and boulder reef. She provides a power point presentation,
which goes into great detail on the life cycle of the target species and their associated
habitat requirements. Barber states there is a 29-mile pipeline, portions of which have
mounded trench spoils on each side and the Algonquin project was unable to return all
portions of the ocean floor to their original elevations and hard bottom habitat was
disrupted in some portions. Barber states they will create a hard bottom habitat, and the
area will not be closed to commercial fishing conditions. Barber states they plan on
targeting the project next winter.
Cademartori asks what other permitting processes they need to go through. Barber
responds MEPA, Water Quality and FEMA, but they need the Orders of Conditions first.
Lang asks if they have a sample Order of Conditions from any other towns that may host
this project. Barber states the she can forward a sample from the Boston Commission
and the Conditions they set forth.
Goodenough states that some conditions that were applied to the Algonquin Hubline
project could be appropriate for this project and suggests that Maxner draft an Order and
forward it to the Commission members and Barber for review and comment. Members
agree to this approach.
Lang asks if there are any further questions from the members or the public. There are
none.
Paluzzi moves to close hearing, seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion
carries 7-0.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
BevCam Discussion with Rob McCausland
Rob McCausland starts by asking Julie Barber from Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries
that he would like the opportunity to interview her and her colleague and maybe develop
a piece about the habitat restoration project to be aired on BevCam. Barber states that
she would be willing to meet with him and further explain the project.
McCausland addresses the Commission and states that BevCam is interested in airing
more meetings of various governmental boards in Beverly and would like to get a feeling
from the Commission about this proposal.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 11
Goodenough states it keeps people in touch with the Community and would help with
providing more exposure for the Commission and its role in protecting wetlands in the
community.
Lang states that he is supportive of an open forum, but is concerned that people may feel
awkward about speaking on certain issues if they know they are being taped.
A brief discussion ensues regarding how BevCam tapes meetings, and when they would
possibly be aired. McCausland states that it would not be a live taping but edited, or not,
and then aired at a later date.
McCausland states that BevCam cannot sustain the cost of airing all the Commissions
and Boards, so he will be seeking business’s to sponsor. He states Beverly has two
channels, Channel 10 for BevCam and Channel 12 for the High School. McCausland
states the City may establish a demand for a third channel if this endeavor works out and
is received well. He states that he would like to start taping the next meeting if he is able.
Mileage Reimbursement – Maxner
Maxner requests approval for expenditure from the wetlands Ordinance account for
reimbursement on mileage she accumulated conducting Conservation Commission
related business for the months of January through April of 2005. She explains she
accumulated a total of 268 miles at .20 cents a mile for a total of $53.60.
Hayes motions to approve the expenditure of $53.60 to Maxner. Seconded by
Goodenough. All in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
49 Sonning Road
Maxner states the hay bales have been installed and staked. She explains that the
engineer is asking if conducting activities for the 21 E assessment would be permissible
at this time prior to the Notice of Intent submission. Lang states that he would have no
problem with them doing the assessment as long as the Commission is notified prior to
their starting testing.
Paluzzi asks where the testing will be done in relation to the brook. Maxner states that
most of the testing will be done within the outer 100’ of the riparian zone as explained by
the engineer.
Members agree to allow 21E testing activities to be conducted on site prior to NOI
submission.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 3, 2005 Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 11
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
34 Foster Point – DEP #5-874
Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions:
?? Standard Conditions
Hayes motions to issue the following the following Special Conditions:
1. The decking of the wooden walkway shall be raised 18 inches from its existing
level.
2. Storage of the float shall be confined to the existing lawn within the proposed
picket fence area, not in the salt marsh.
Seconded by Goodenough. Lang abstains. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0-
1.
7 Rezza Road
Paluzzi motions to issue the following conditions:
?? Standards Conditions
Lang motions to issue the following Special Conditions:
1. The erosion control (silt fence and haybales) shall be placed along the limit of the
25-Foot No-Disturb Zone from the edge of the bank of the stream. No work shall
be conducted beyond the limit of the erosion control.
2. No excavated material shall be stockpiled on site and shall be removed from the
site immediately.
3. The Board of Health shall be contacted before the septic tank is removed to
ensure that all Board of Health rules and regulations are adhered to for its
removal.
4. If dewatered groundwater is not recycled and used for pool water, a filter bag
shall be used to remove sediment from dewatered groundwater. The
Conservation Administrator shall determine the placement/position of the filter
bag in the field.
Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
Adjournment
Goodenough motions to adjourn. Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor.
Motion carries 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 10:45 p.m.