Loading...
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.