Loading...
2006-11-14 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: November 14, 2006 Board: Conservation Commission Members Present Chair David Lang, Vice Chair Tony Paluzzi, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Gregg Cademartori, Ian Hayes, Mary Reilly, and Bill Squibb Members Absent: None Others Present: Amy Maxner – Environmental Planner Recorder: Eileen Sacco Chairman Lang calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, Beverly, MA. Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Cont: Massachusetts Bay DEP File # 5-929 – Construct Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline – Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC – Order of Conditions Maxner notes that the Commission received draft special conditions prepared from the previous Order for the Hubline project to review and approval. John Bonsall addresses the Commission and explains that the conditions are a combination of the order that was issued for the Hubline and includes four conditions from the Manchester Order of Conditions. He notes that there is no need to adopt the conditions regarding shellfish as that resource has not been found in Beverly’s jurisdiction. Cademartori notes that condition 17 regarding post construction restoration of the bottom contour is noted but nothing beyond that. Mike Terrell explains the process and notes that there is a monitoring program that will be in place. Cademartori questions that if the end points are not met what the follow up will be for that. Bonsall explains that they are building the conditions off of the Hubline language and if it does not meet the criteria there will be more monitoring and mitigation done at that time. He also notes that the rationale for this has been approved by state agencies. Maxner asks if the post construction mitigation and monitoring will be different from the Hubline project. Bonsall explains that for the Hubline project the impact on areas in the Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 17 construction corridor were greater. He notes that this time there will be a lesser impact and most likely a quicker recovery in the area. Cademartori states that the mitigation is negligible compared with the potential package being worked on with EOEA. Bonsall states that this package with EOEA should take ten days to two weeks to complete. Cademartori asks if there is a document that the Commission can get that has the conditions and the details of the mitigation package in it. Bonsall offers to submit a letter with the details when they are available. Cademartori states that he is hesitant to issue an Order of Conditions without the details of the mitigation package. He states that he feels that should be in place before an Order of Conditions is issued, noting that the Commission should have an opportunity to review it before approving it. Bonsall states that he feels that could be handled with a condition relative to the mitigation package being acceptable. He also notes that it will be released in a couple of weeks. He further notes that he feels that the City will be happy with the mitigation that is proposed. Squibb asks if holding off on the approval of the Order of Conditions would affect the entire permitting process and their timeline. Bonsall explains the timeline for their permitting process and notes that the Commission can reserve the right to reopen the public hearing if they so choose. Cademartori states that he feels that it would be valuable to see what they are proposing for mitigation. He states baring any direction from DEP that Commissions are prohibited from requiring mitigation, the Commission is not permitted to issue an Order approving a project that results in direct impact to the resource area without requiring mitigation. Bonsall notes that he is not at liberty to discuss the proposed mitigation package that is in negotiation and asks what makes the Commission think there will be impacts. Cademartori responds that the Notice of Intent itself states that there will be impacts. Lang states that he is somewhat skeptical about mitigation noting that the last mitigation package for the Hubline was $15 million dollars and all of it was spent in Boston. Bonsall notes that they offered to have a conversation with the City of Beverly months ago and the Solicitors office never got back to them. Squibb notes that if the mitigation package is to be released in two weeks he does not see why waiting two weeks to approve this would make a difference. Lang notes that the Commission has the opportunity to reopen the public hearing if the proposed mitigation package is inadequate. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to issue the Order of Conditions to Massachusetts Bay DEP File # 5-929 – Construct Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline – Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, and adds a Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 17 special condition that allows the Commission the right to reopen the public hearing if the proposed mitigation package is inadequate. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries (5-0-2) with Squibb and Cademartori opposed. Certificate of Compliance 3 Iverson Road – DEP File #5-827 – Peter Trowt Maxner explains that the applicant is requesting a Certificate of Compliance for the construction of 38’ x 18’ addition off the rear of the house with a full basement and bulkhead. She also notes that the applicant is requesting a waiver from the as built plans as the Commission accepted a sketch plan prepared by the applicant for the addition. She notes that she conducted a site inspection on the property and she recommends approval of the Certificate of Compliance. Johnson moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 3 Iverson Road with Perpetual Conditions ‘s 39, 40, 41 and 49. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. 35R Prince Street – DEP File #5-823 – Mark and Janet Ward Maxner explains that the applicant is requesting a Certificate of Compliance for the installation of a 1 ¼” water main. She notes that the applicant is requesting a waiver from the as built plans as the Commission accepted a sketch plan prepared by the applicant for the location of the water main. She states that the work was completed about two years ago and was installed within the buffer zone to the bank of an intermittent stream and BVW. Maxner states that she conducted a site inspection and the area is stable and vegetation in the work area has re-established. She further notes that she sees no apparent problems or outstanding issues and recommends approval of the Certificate of Compliance. Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 35R Prince Street with conditions 46, 47, 48 and 49 as standard perpetual conditions. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. 171 Common Lane – DEP File #5-436 – Leonard Bertaux Maxner explains that the Commission issued an Order of Conditions in February of 1993 for the construction of a single-family house within the buffer zone to a BVW and stream bank. She notes that the proposed garage was never built and the applicant has submitted a NOI for the construction of the garage, which will be heard later in this meeting. She notes that she visited the site and took pictures and recommends approval of the Certificate of Compliance for the house. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 17 Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 171 Common Lane. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. 49 Grover Street – DEP File #5-900 – Jack Hyland Maxner explains that the Commission issued an Order of Conditions for the construction of a single-family house within the buffer zone to a BVW and pond with the following Special Conditions: 1. The entire limit of the 25-foot NDZ shall be demarcated with 2 foot boulders placed at an interval of every 20 feet. 2. The trees slated for removal shall be marked or flagged conspicuously in time for the preconstruction meeting with the Conservation Administrator. 3. The southern limit of the hale bale erosion control line shall only be moved to allow for construction vehicles to access that side of the house for foundation backfill purposes only, and once the back filling of the foundation is complete, the hay bales shall be returned to their original position at the limit of the 25-foot NDZ. 4. If during backfilling activities the area within the 25-foot NDZ is disturbed, said area shall be returned to its original condition. 5. Along the southerly edge of the driveway, there shall be a 2’ x 2’ clean crushed stone drainage trench to allow for runoff infiltration. Maxner notes that the applicant met all of the preconstruction requirements and several minor changes were discussed which she approved in the field, the retaining wall being one of them, which further separates the house from the wetland and intercepts the driveway runoff from entering the wetland. She notes that she conducted a site inspection and took photos and passed them around to the members for their review. She recommends approval of the Certificate of Compliance with standard conditions 39-42 in perpetuity. Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 49 Grover Street with conditions 39, 40, 41, and 42 as standard perpetual conditions. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Request for Determination of Applicability New: 9 Otis Road – Redgate Realty Inc. – Jeff Lawler – Install Electrical Transformer – Expand Parking Lot Maxner reads legal notice. Jesse Blanchette of Griffin Associates addresses the Commission and explains the plans. He notes that they need to extend the driveway an additional 20 feet into the Buffer Zone, and work in the Buffer Zone to accommodate the installation of the transformer. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 17 Maxner notes that DEP has inquired as to how this project complies with the stormwater management policy. Cademartori recalls that at the last meeting all that was discussed was the transformer pad and no mention was made regarding the parking lot; he thinks that some information should be provided regarding DEP’s concerns. He asked if the increased parking was included in the original submittal to the Commission. Blancehtte explains that the construction of the building was almost complete and when New England Power came out to plan for the installation of the transformer, the location they selected caused the changes to the plans. Lang suggests that the Commission approve the location of the pad at this time and address the stormwater management issues when the applicant comes back for the next phase of his project, which will entail an NOI for the construction of an additional building. Squibb agrees and does not see how the stormwater volume could be handled by the very small detention swale pictured on the plan. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on this matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to issue a negative 3 determination for the pad for the transformer only, and stipulates that the extension of the parking lot is not approved under this Determination. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. New: 305 Hale Street – Excavation for Addition and Machinery Access – Endicott College Maxner reads legal notice. Joe Orzel, Gulf of Maine Research, explains that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition to Ebinger Hall and notes that the original plan has been replaced by a revised th plan that was submitted on November 9. He notes that the revised plan shows a larger area of work that the original, but still keeps the work out of the first 50 feet from the wetland. He further notes that the two proposed area drains will connect to the existing 6” clay pipe that drains discharge at Wetland Flag WF1BA41. Orzel explains that most of the work for the proposed addition is outside of the buffer zone but a portion of the erosion control program is within the outer 50-feet of the buffer zone. He notes that the wetlands delineation was done in August of 2002 and was done in preparation for a previous application for work at this part of the campus. He also notes that he field verified from the previous plan and the delineation is still accurate. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 17 Orzel reviews the erosion control plan and the sedimentation plan for the site. He notes that the access and realignment of the driveway will be done in another filing for the site work. He explains that they are doing two filings because of a tight construction schedule and they want to start in January or February for the addition. Frank Holmes, Geller Devellis, addresses the Commission and explains that the existing drainage has been modified and notes the location of the catch basins on the plan. He also notes the roof drain locations and a new area drain to handle the runoff from the parking area. He also notes that they have plans to construct a berm to control runoff from entering the wetlands down gradient of site work as well as a swale to divert runoff to a dry well. Holmes explains that soil testing done on the site indicates that the soil is sandy and the runoff will integrate into the ground. Paluzzi asks for clarification on the location of the roof drains. Holmes explains the locations of the roof drains on the plan and notes the direction of the drainage. Lang asks what the construction sequence for the project will be. Orzel explains that they will establish the berm and the hay bales, install the new area drain, strip and remove the paving and excavate for the foundation. Cademartori notes that this is a lot of information and the plan is difficult to read, and suggests that a site visit is appropriate. Lang agrees and suggests that the Commission visit the site on Saturday, December 2, 2006 at a time to be determined. Lang asks if there is public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on this matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Johnson moves to continue the discussion to the December 12, 2006 meeting pending a site inspection nd scheduled for Saturday, December 2. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation New: Sam Fonzo Drive – Map 65 – Lot 4 – Resource Area Delineation – Kelleher Construction Maxner reads legal notice. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 17 Elizabeth Wallis, Hayes Engineering, addresses the Commission and explains the wetland delineation. She explains that the applicant is requesting that 9,413 linear feet of BVW be affirmed and notes that the Commission visited the site on November 11, 2006. She explains that a portion of the wetland was determined under a previous ANRAD when Sam Fonzo Drive was constructed. She explains that the plan is for two lots off Sam Fonzo Drive for Kelleher Construction who is developing the site. She goes on to review the changes to the flagging that she made as the result of the site visit held on Saturday and reviewed the revised plans. Lang notes that the Commission did a very thorough walk of the site. Cademartori requests additional data sheets on the area adjacent to B-9 – A20 and soil testing done at A20-A12 as he feels that the grade and vegetation change is negligible in these areas. Wallis explains that the BVW was subject to a Superseding ORAD that was issued in 2000. Squibb questions what happens on the site in a large storm as he recalls that the area behaves like a swamp in area 97. Wallis explains that the stormwater flows out to the adjacent stream and further offsite. Lang suggests that the Commission approve the delineation of the wetland and in another filing we can deal with the stormwater. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to December 12, 2006 pending submission of additional BVW data sheets. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. New: Trask Street/Sam Fonzo Drive – Map 78 Lot 2, C. Roland Vitale Maxner reads legal notice. Elizabeth Wallis, Hayes Engineering, addresses the Commission and explains that this ANRAD is for another area of Sam Fonzo Drive and explains that the applicant is requesting that 591 linear feet of BVW be affirmed. She assumes that the Commission will scheduled a visit site. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 17 There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to December 12, 2006, pending a site inspection scheduled for Saturday, December 2, 2006. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Notice of Intent Continued: 412 Hale Street – DEP File #5-909 – Landmark School – Construction of Athletic Complex with Parking and Athletic Field Maxner explains that the applicant has requested that the matter be continued to December 12, 2006 meeting. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to December 12, 2006. Hayes seconds motion. The motion carries 7-0. Continuation: Massachusetts Bay – Neptune LNG, LLC – Deep Water LNG Port in Beverly Harbor Doug Jones addresses the Commission and explains that the FEIS has been issued and a copy of it has been sent to the Commission. He also notes that at the last meeting more information was requested on the Beverly jurisdiction. He explains that 3,500 feet of pipeline will be installed. He also notes that the information package includes letters with responses, which have been incorporated into the FEIS. He also notes that he has only briefly reviewed the suggested conditions following the previously issued Hubline Order of Conditions and they look appropriate to him. Hayes questions the information provided on shellfish and notes that they do not account for anything but scallops. Jones explains that the sediment profile is 6-12” below the surface and they didn’t find anything. He notes that the area looks like it has been dragged considerably. He also notes that they will do a pre and post construction survey of the area. Hayes questions how they performed the survey. Jones explains that they will video the area. Hayes asks if they can support the lack of diversity that they found. Jones states that it is soft bottom habitat. Reilly questions what they look for when they do soil samples. Jones explains the process that they used and what the results were. Maxner asks how wide the cross section was. Jones explains that they videotaped 50 feet on either side of the centerline of the proposed pipeline. Hayes asks if they did a specific core sample from B. Jones refers to page N9 and explained their findings. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 17 Cademartori notes that the AC of E document talks of the potential alteration of shared lateral and asks if that is still being discussed. Jones explains that the projects are on different timelines and it may be a condition of the Governor’s approval. He notes that they met with a member of the Governors cabinet on that very subject recently. He also explains that they are hoping to have approval from Governor Romney and he is scheduled to start reviewing this tomorrow. He explained the location of the lines and how they will tie in. Cademartori asks if a mitigation package is being negotiated for this project. Jones explains that a compensatory package is being developed to fund state programs as well as provide mitigation funds directly to the affected communities. Squibb states that he would like to review the mitigation package. Jones explains that the window for review for their project is January 2007 and the other project is two weeks before that. He states that he anticipates that the Governor will make a decision on both projects. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Continuation: 27 Ober Street – DEP File # 5-922 – Rehab Seawall with Alterations to Stairs/Ramp Access – Christopher Dick Maxner states the Commission will recall that the applicant is proposing to repair portions of the seawall, steps to the beach, and raise the height of the wall by about 18” and backfill with loam and seed for lawn conditions as exist now. She notes that the Commission requested that she contact Jill Provencal at DEP to schedule a site inspection. Maxner explains that she talked with Ms. Provencal, and she indicated that she is not in favor of visiting the site, and that she and Rebecca Haney of CZM are not in agreement with David Smith’s most recent correspondence and her position has not changed on this project. She also notes that Ms. Provencal is not inclined to visit the site until she hears from Coastal Zone Management. Maxner states that the applicant would like to continue the public hearing to the December 12, 2006 meeting to consider his options at this point. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to December 12, 2006. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 17 Continuation: 171 West Street – Raze Existing House and Construct Single Family House and Pool – Preston Bradford Bill Manuell explains that the applicant is proposing to raze an existing house and construct a new single family house, abandonment of septic system and construction of a pool within the buffer zone to a coastal bank and BVW, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and 200-Foot Riverfront area. He explains that the architect has designed what they want to build to be compliant with state building code in velocity zones and flood plain. He explains that they are proposing to bury overhead utilities and construct a new garage with a turn around driveway that will encroach slightly into the Riverfront Area. He explains the plans and the setbacks they propose. He also noted areas on the plan that they plan for restoration and mitigation for incursion into the No Disturb Zone, which essentially results in a 15:1 mitigation ratio. He also notes that they filed a formal waiver request from the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone. Manuell explains the Riverfront regulations in relation to their plans and notes that they are well below the 5,000 square foot threshold. He also explains that they are mitigating for the roof runoff and will be installing four 4’x 8’ leeching pits on the site. He states that with these final touches to the plan, they are looking for input from the Commission and are hoping to close the public hearing this evening. Johnson asks if the garage will be elevated. Manual explains that the garage will be at grade level. Squibb asks if any trees will be removed. Manuell points out the trees that will interfere and have been marked for removal. Squibb asks if pavers have been considered for the driveway. Manuell explains that they could consider that but pavers are tight and may not prove to be very functional in the long run. Cademartori asks if there is any compelling reason why the area in front has to be maintained as lawn. Manuell consults with his client and states that there is no compelling reason and suggests that they could offer additional mitigation plantings in that area. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to close the public hearing. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries (6-0-1) with Hayes abstaining. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 17 New: 171 Common Lane – Len Berteaux – Abbreviated Notice of Intent Maxner reads legal notice. Maxner explains that the applicant is proposing to construct a two car detached garage within the buffer zone to BVW and stream. Berteaux explains the revisions he has made to the plans as requested by Maxner. He explains that he built his house in 1993 and a good portion of the property is in the jurisdiction of the Commission. He notes that he originally planned to build the garage when he built the house and the location of the 880 s.f garage is within the buffer zone but beyond the 25 NDZ. He also notes that the northeast corner of the garage is fairly close to the NDZ and he is asking for permission to infringe on that temporarily to get the garage built and he will restore it to its original condition up completion of the garage. Maxner explains that she conducted a site inspection and took a few soil samples and questions the delineation in the area closest to the garage and would like the Commission’s opinion on the accuracy of the flagging. Lang suggests that the Commission visit the site on December 2, 2006 at a time to be determined. He also requested that the applicant do some soil samples and stake out the four corners of the garage prior to the site visit. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on this matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to December 12, 2006 pending a site visit scheduled for nd Saturday, December 2. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. New: 18 Meadow Road – Peter Hallisey Maxner reads legal notice. Al Gala, Gala & Associates, addresses the Commission and explains that the applicant is proposing to re-grade the backyard to address flooding issues they have during small and large storms. He explains that the property has serious flooding issues in part because the elevation of the house and portions of the driveway and yard are below or at the wetland elevation. He explains that the applicant is proposing to raise the grade of the back yard, as well as work with existing drainage to improve the situation for the more frequent rain events. He recalls that some of the Commission members visited the site on September th 30 and met with the engineers, at which time the general site conditions and the drainage catch basin located within the wetland were observed and the design team requested suggestions from the Commission on the work that needs to be done. He Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 17 explains that they are proposing a retaining wall and re-grading the patio, and direct the drainage away from the house. He reviewed the elevations and the location of the pond. Gala notes that there is an 8” pipe on the neighboring property that is undersized and causes water to back up on the site. He explains that they are proposing to install a 12” PVC pipe that will run to a structure with a backflow prevention valve within the intermittent stream channel. Gala also explains that they are proposing to replicate 749 s.f. of wetland in a variety of areas on site and reviews the landscaping plan for the site. Lang notes that he visited the site and there are sever flooding issues out there. Reilly questions if they are removing any invasive species from the site where they are filling the wetlands. Gala notes the area on the plan and explains the replication areas, noting that the replication will be 1-1, as they do not have the room on site to provide the 2:1 ratio that is required by the local Ordinance. Johnson suggests that the Commission visit the site. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Rich Kavanaugh of 16 Yankee Way addresses the Commission and expresses his concern about the berm on the eastern border of the property that abuts his property and he is also concerned about the steep slope. He states that he is concerned that channeling the water will erode the berm up to the wall and water will go on his property. He notes that part of the problem in larger storms is that someone along Essex Street plugs up the drain pipe/culvert and causes major back up into Willow Pond and exacerbates the situation for his neighborhood and questions how that could be regulated. Lang suggests that the DPW should monitor it, as they are most able to get to a situation at any given time. Lang suggests that the Commission visit the site on December 2, 2006 at a time to be determined. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to December 12, 2006 pending a site inspection for Saturday, December 2, 2006. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. New: 1 Sherwood Lane – Michael Tremblay Maxner reads legal notice. Elizabeth Wallis of Hayes Engineering addresses the Commission and explains that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition and decking within the buffer zone to BVW and that they are proposing to construct a 20’ x 30’ addition on the northerly side Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 17 of the house and a deck in the rear of the house. She explains the plans and the wetland delineations. Maxner notes that she emailed some concerns and comments to Ms. Wallis noting that the original subdivision plan showed 100-year flood elevation as 73.4 and noted the existence of a conservation restriction on the plan that coincides with that elevation. Wallis explains that they are asking for a waiver to construct a portion of the deck in the 25-Foot NDZ. Maxner asks if they are removing any trees for the addition. Wallis notes that they positioned the addition to avoid trees. Hayes asks if they are offering any mitigation in exchange for the waiver in the 25-Foot NDZ. Wallis suggests that they could offer some plantings and explained a potential planting location on the plan. Lang suggests a site visit be held on December 2, 2006 at a time to be determined. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on this matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to December 12, 2006 pending a site inspection for Saturday, December 2, 2006. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. New: 38 Lexington Drive – Magee Construction Company Maxner reads legal notice. John Dick addresses the Commission and distributes supplemental pages to the application. He explains that the applicant is proposing to rebuild a house, which experienced a fire a few months ago. He explains that they will be using the same footprint as the original house within the Buffer Zone to BVW and stream bank which is intermittent in his opinion. He also explains the location on the plans for the hay bale line and silt fence. He also notes that they are requesting to use 15 feet of the NDZ for a staging area and construction access. Dick notes that this is a simple and straight-forward plan with temporary activity in the NDZ. He also notes that they will restore the area of the NDZ that is disturbed during construction. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 17 June Martin addresses the Commission and expresses concern about the landscaping in the rear of the house. Paluzzi asks where they will be putting the dirt from the excavation of the house and how will demolition debris be handled. Dick states that extra soil will be taken offsite and a dumpster will be placed on the front lawn on the street side of the house. Maxner notes that the 25-Foot NDZ abuts the house and if the Commission were to enforce the usual standard requirement to plant 25 feet, there would be no usable yard on the site. Discussion ensues regarding reclaiming the wetland from mowing and allowing the 25’ NDZ to remain as lawn. Maxner asks Dick how the BVW line was determined. Dick states it was delineated entirely based on soils. Dick goes on to explain that the driveway will be widened somewhat to allow an additional parking space for one vehicle and it will be pitched toward the street. He explains that the roof runoff will be handled by a 1’ x 1’ crushed stone drip edge around the perimeter of the house rather than a drywell due to the high groundwater table. He states that the floor elevation will be raised in order to avoid any potential flooding damage. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Pam Kampersal – Airport Site Remediation & Groundwater Reclassification Kampersal states that she would like to inform the Commission as to the status of the Airport/Nike Site clean up. She states that the DEP has reclassified the Airport Brook and the tributaries that feed it as Class A water bodies as they drain directly into Wenham Lake, the City’s drinking water supply. She states that this designation imposes much more strict land use regulations within 200 feet of the stream banks, and would like the Commission to investigate the drainage that discharges from the runway into the tributary that feeds Airport Brook to see if the Commission can now regulate that outfall. Lang asks if the designation is published as he could not find it on the DEP’s website anywhere. Kampersal states that it has indeed been reclassified and she anticipates that the written documentation will be released shortly. Lang asks if she has any written correspondence from DEP to that effect. Kampersal states she does not, she has only received verbal confirmation. Lang states the Commission should wait to have written confirmation of the reclassification before it gets involved in attempting to regulate the areas in question. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 17 Kampersal states that she will inquire with DEP as to when the documentation will be released and keep the Commission informed of such. She thanks the Commission for its time and consideration. Continuation: 76 Paine Avenue – Enforcement Order – Jack Swansburg Maxner explains that she is waiting for an opinion from the City Solicitor and suggests that the matter be continued to December 12, 2006 meeting. New: Glen Urquhart School – DEP File #5-916 – Peer Review by Horsley & Witten Discussion The Commission reviewed the peer review from Horsley Witten, which suggested a few changes to the plan. Maxner notes that the applicant has revised the plan to include the suggested changes and reads letter dated November 13, 2006 from H&W. Maxner notes that these changes satisfy the concerns of the Commission’s consultant and asks if there are any comments or concerns on behalf of the Commission. Members indicate that they are satisfied that the Special Conditions have been met and the school can move forward with the project based on H&W’s final approval. Paluzzi moves to release the Order of Conditions for the Glen Urquhart School – DEP File #5-916. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carried (6-0-1) with Lang abstaining. Maxner will send a letter notifying the applicant of the release of the Order of Conditions. Orders of Conditions Massachusetts Bay – Neptune LNG, LLC – Deep Water LNG Port in Beverly Harbor Lang suggests that the Commission issue the same conditions as were issued to Algonquin with the added condition that the Commission reserves the right to reopen the public hearing if the mitigation package is inadequate. Paluzzi moves to issue the Order of Conditions to Massachusetts Bay – Neptune LNG, LLC – Deep Water LNG Port in Beverly Harbor, with the condition that the Commission reserves the right to reopen the public hearing if the mitigation package is inadequate. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-1-0, with Hayes abstaining. 171 West Street Johnson moves to issue Standard Conditions, with the following Special Conditions: Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 17 1. The area between the limit of the Isolated Vegetated Wetland and the limit of the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone along the West Street shall be planted with the proposed restorative plantings to increase the overall quantity of restoration plantings by at least 25%. 2. Invasive species within the wooded and restoration areas shall be managed to control and eliminate infestation. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries (6-0-1) with Hayes abstaining. 38 Lexington Road Lang suggests Standard Conditions and that tall trees be planted on the other side of the brook, as well as clean up the brook. Maxner notes that the wetlands line should be respected. Reilly agrees and states that anytime wetland restoration presents itself the Commission should require it, but thinks that use of the 25’NDZ as lawn is the only fair approach as elimination of that area would render the back of the property unusable. Cademartori suggests that the planting should be done before the sale of the property to the permanent owner. Paluzzi moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. Prior to construction commencing, a re-planting plan shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent for review and approval and shall adhere to the following specifications: ??The wetland area between the westerly bank of the stream and wetland line, flag #’s A1 through A4, shall be re-vegetated with not less than twelve (12) conservation grade native wetland shrubs consisting of at least 3 different species for diversity; ??The wetland area between the easterly bank of the stream and the rear property boundary shall be planted with no less than five (5) conservation grade flood-tolerant native trees of the largest caliper available, consisting of at least 2 different native species for diversity. Prior 2. to the sale of the property to a permanent homeowner, the above-referenced plantings shall be installed and inspected by the Conservation Commission or its Agent. 3. The Conservation Commission has voted to allow the continued use of the 25- Foot No Disturbance Zone as lawn and has ordered that mowing within the wetland areas on the easterly and westerly sides of the brook shall cease. Beverly Conservation Commission November 14, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 17 Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the October 3, 2006 Conservation Commission meeting were presented for approval. Paluzzi moves to approve the minutes of October 3, 2006 as submitted. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Site Visits Maxner will schedule site visits and inform the Commission members of the date and time. Payment of Invoices Maxner presented an invoice in the amount of $90.00 for a reimbursement to Mary Reilly for attendance at MACC training units held on October 21, 2006. Paluzzi moves to approve. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries (6-0-1) with Reilly abstaining. Maxner presented an invoice in the amount of $13.90 to Owl Stamp Company for a new Notary Public Signature Book. Paluzzi moves to approve. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Beverly Conservation Commission this evening. Paluzzi moves to adjourn the meeting. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.