Loading...
2007-01-30 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: Board: Members Present January 30, 2007 Conservation Commission Vice Chair, Tony Paluzzi, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Gregg Cademartori, Ian Hayes, Mary Reilly and Bill Squibb Members Absent: 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, Beverly, MA. Discussion with City En2ineer re2ardin2 Ravmond Farms Draina2e Proiect Maxner informs the Commission that Frank Killilea and Eric Barber from the Engineering Department are present this evening to update the Commission on the North Beverly/Raymond Farms drainage project for the City of Beverly. Killilea addresses the Commission and explains that they will be coming to the Commission in February with an NO!. He notes that he is concerned that while there is no snow on the ground now, by the time they open the hearing the Commission may not be able to observe the resource areas. He notes he provided the Commission a packet on the project and explains that the concern is the inlet to the 48" pipe and the discharge from the 60" pipe. He shows the Commission photos of the site that were taken last fall of the pipes. He also notes that the plans show the inlet in the area of Dartmouth, Andover, and Yale Boulevard and final outlet at 30-32 Colgate Road. Killilea explains that they are going to have a different discharge point and explains the location noting that they will create a new channel to the discharge point. He explains that the intent tonight is to give the location and see if the Commission would like to look at it before the snow flies. He also notes that the residents of30-32 Colgate have been gracious about this and are willing to have the Commission go out and look at this. Killilea also notes that this design has been complete for ten years and they are now able to go through with the plans. He states that the pipe is corrugated metal and it is collapsing in sections. He also notes that they will be back with additional information on February 20th. Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 Eric Barber suggests that the Commission notify him of a site visit so that he can inform the residents. Maxner clarifies that this plan represents only the portion of the project that involves the wetland resource areas and the rest is straight pipe through existing public ways and such. Killilea states that is correct. Maxner asks if the Commission wants to schedule a site inspection. Paluzzi states that he thinks it is a good idea. Maxner suggests Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. for a site inspection, members agree. Request for Determination Continuation: 480-486 Rantoul Street - Determination as to Presence of Resource Areas - Rantoul Street. LLC Peter Orgren of Hayes Engineering, Denart Serpa owner and applicant are present. Peter Ogren addresses the Commission and recalls that they presented the project at the last meeting. He notes that the finding of a previous Determination on the site was that it was not a resource area protected under the Act and they still feel that is the case. He notes that the land is isolated and not protected under State Regulations. He further notes that they feel that this is not a wetland under the Beverly Ordinance as well and explains that the ordinance states that the wetland should be over 1,000 s.f. with significant wetland plants and the state regulations differ on that and state that 50% should be wetland species and hydride soils should be present. He notes that a study was done in 1999 by Ensol that shows fine sand fill material is on the site and explains the report. He notes that they contend that it is not a wetland by State Regulations or the City of Beverly Ordinance. Ogren also notes that there may have been some recent filling on the adjoining land. He also notes that the site was permitted for a donut factory that was never built. Cademartori questions if there are soil evaluations or has this been determined by vegetation alone. Ogren states that he gave copies of the report to the Conservation Commission. Cademartori notes that the information provided shows that the channel connects this isolated wetland with another. He notes that he would agree except for the fact that it connects with a channel that feeds into the Bass River and he would want to protect that. Ogren explains that the lawn area has no woody vegetation. Cademartori notes that there are more phragmites than lawn and suggests that the Commission would benefit from seeing the site in the spring. Maxner notes that she thinks that she has the report but she is not sure that it involves the area now being looked at. She shows the Commission the report and explains the area Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 circled which is located farther north along the railroad tracks that seems to be the subject of the report Mr. Ogren is referring to. Cademartori noted that the plan submitted by Gail Smith shows two wetland areas that were delineated by DeRosa, and he is confident in DeRosa's delineation skills. Maxner clarifies that the area in question at 117 Elliot Street encircles the area that was investigated. Additionally part of the land was transferred to commercial condos. She also notes that she indicated in her staff report that the area is much different from what we area seeIng now. Ogren notes that the adjoining owner may have done some filling on his site and he also notes that the city put a pipe through there where a brook used to flow, but that was approved by the Commission in the 1980's. Maxner notes that she looked through the file and reviewed the chronology of the site and gave copies to the Commission. She reviews the records and notes that in January 9, 1976 the Commission was aware that a violation occurred on the site relative to the wetland area. She also notes that in 1983 the Commission issued an Order of Conditions to the City of Beverly Public Works Department to pipe the stream. Ogren states that it may well show that there was a BVW on the site in 1976 because the City of Beverly plan that was filed did not show any wetlands other than a shared stream and there were different definitions of wetlands in 1976. Cademartori notes that the fact that it fills up on their property does mean it's a stream in terms of its function and notes that there are criteria in the Regulations for that. Paluzzi asks what is the size of the wetland that is shown on the plan. Ogren states that it is estimated that it is 1,300-1,400. He notes that the argument is not that it is over 1,000 s.f or doesn't have plants, but that it doesn't have soil and the history of the site indicates that it was previously filled. Maxner suggests that it might be beneficial to the Commission if she were to provide the information from the previous Determination for their review before they make this Determination. Cademartori states that it looks like the depression is much more extensive, expanding further off site and could be more that what is depicted on this plan. Ogren states that the applicant wants to move forward with the approval process. Hayes questions how long it takes for hydric soils to develop on a site. Ogren states that it takes quite some time and that from 1999 to the present is too short a time. Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 Johnson states that if the site is Isolated Land Subject to Flooding it should not be affected by the development of the lot. Ogren states that they believe that it is not Isolated Land Subject to Flooding as there is no BVW and it is not a wetland because it does not have hydric soils. Paluzzi notes that Chairman Lang asked at the site visit if the owner would consider enhancing the wetland. Ogren states that he has had no conversation with the owner although he is aware that it was mentioned. He further notes that if the Commission determines that it is a wetland that is protected under the Beverly Ordinance, then they would take a look at that. Hayes notes that a neighbor attended the site visit and requested further information. Maxner reviews the regulations and notes that the area should be 1,000 s.f. in size and in addition should meet two of three criteria, 50% wetlands plants or the presence of hydric soils. She notes that two of the three is good enough to be protected under the Beverly Ordinance. Cademartori states that he is concerned about not knowing where the soil samples came from. Maxner suggests that the matter be continued to February 20, 2007 and she will provide the Commission with additional information from the previous Determination made on the site. She notes that the design will have to stay 25 feet away if it is determined that the site is protected by the Beverly ordinance. Hayes notes that if this is an isolated wetland we have to consider the value of it noting that the functions may be very compromised. Cademartori states that the only functions that remain deal with flood storage and water quality. Maxner notes that the Commission has to come to some consensus as to whether they feel this is an Isolated Wetland or a BVW. Hayes states that he would look at what the final outcome should be and he does think that this is an IVW that needs to be protected but there is probably a lot of ability to improve it with flexibility from the Commission in site design. Johnson suggests that the Commission issue a positive Determination on the application and if it is significant, they would file a Notice ofIntent to address that. Ogren states that the stream is a stream whether it is piped or not and suggests that they file under the local bylaw. He notes that BVW or not it still may be determined to be a stream that goes up gradient of Burger King and explains the rule. Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 Cademartori states that the piped stream is in a lowlying area offsite and the connection standpoint is its mechanism. He asks if there is a catch basin and if it is in a resource area. Ogren states that the stream is in the wetland and the catch basin is in another location. Paluzzi asks if there is any public comment at this time. Rene Mary addresses the Commission and recalls that there was a stream in the area that came down from Beverly Hospital. She requests that the Commission look at additional information and continue the matter for three weeks. Joan Murphy addresses the Commission and expresses her concern that this is a wetland and she is further concerned about purifying the water before it goes into the Bass River. Paluzzi suggests that the Commission should continue the matter to review additional information. Johnson moves to continue the matter to February 20, 2007. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries. Johnson moves to recess for Public Hearings. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Notice of Intent Continued: 412 Hale Street - DEP File #5-909 - Landmark School- Construction of Athletic Comolex with Parkin2 and Athletic Field Maxner informs the Commission that the applicant has requested that the matter be continued to February 20,2007. Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to February 20,2007. Hayes seconds the motion. Reilly abstains. The motion carries 5-0-1. Cont: 87 Lothroo Street - Add Revetment to Base of Existin2 Wall- Jefferv Filmore Bill Kelley is present to represent the applicant, but the applicant is not present. Mr. Bill Kelley addresses the Commission and recalls that at the previous meeting he explained the plan and notes that there were comments from DEP. He read the letter to the Commission. He also notes that he contacted Maxner who also sent a letter to DEP suggesting that they conduct a site inspection and requesting guidance on this matter. He notes that a response was received the next day which stated that the photos submitted do not indicate that the seawall needs repair and suggests that they contact Coastal Zone Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 Management. He states that they feel that this area is not beach as contended by DEP, but rather rocky inner tidal shore and he is not sure how to proceed. Paluzzi asks if he has contacted CZM. Kelly states that he has not done so yet. Johnson notes that if the resource area is perceived to be a beach then the impact would be a concern and thinks indeed it is beach. Paluzzi suggests that the Commission continue the matter to February 20, 2007 and the applicant should follow through with Coastal Zone Management. He notes that if the Commission were to approve this application DEP would appeal it. Hayes notes that he viewed the site at high tide from the rocks on the adjacent property and the waves turn over on the existing concrete landing and hit the beach. He states that he thinks that having rip-rap rock rather than poured concrete would be a better result. Paluzzi 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 continue the public hearing to February 20,2007. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Cont: 101 West Street - Construct Sin2le Family Residence and Detached Gara2e- 101 West Realty Trust Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering and Robert Hubbard, applicant are present at the meeting. Bob Griffin addresses the Commission and notes that they explained the project at the last meeting and a site visit was held last Saturday. He notes that the proposed drainage for the existing seawall drains towards the street and everything on the southern side of the ocean drains back towards the ocean. He notes that they are not directly affecting any resource area and they have respected the 25-Foot NDZ. He also notes that they do have an area within the beach resource area in which they will be constructing 24 linear feet of a post and rail fence and 150 feet of dune grass planting. He further explains that they feel that the reason that they do not have a lot of dune grass on the site is due to pedestrian foot traffic and the addition of the post and rail fence should help that. Griffin notes that the Chairman has requested a report on the drainage and runoff for the site and they have submitted that by way of a letter with the calculations attached as well as revised plans. Griffin notes that it was suggested by the Commission that dry wells be installed and they have included those on the plan and explained the locations. He notes that there is one on Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 the south side of the proposed structure and one behind the garage. He notes that the project will now produce less runoff both in volume and in rate. Griffin notes that at the last public hearing there were a number of people claiming that this property had been flooded from time to time. He states that the property owner signed a statement as well as the head master, facilities director, the grounds supervisor and the custodial supervisor of Landmark School attesting that there have never been flooding issues on the site. He states that they specifically point out that during the Mother's Day storm last May, there was no flooding on the property. He further notes that in the No Name storm of 1991, the rolling seas came in but did not overtop the seawall significantly at all. He notes that the property has withstood a number of severe storm events. Paluzzi suggests that it would be a better idea to plant all of the sea grass instead of waiting for it to migrate. Griffin states that he would look at that noting that it might speed up the re-vegetation process. Squibb asks for clarification on the location of the proposed drywells. Griffins reviews the plans. Paluzzi asks for a clarification on the buffer zone on the plan. Griffin reviews the area on the plan. Squibb asks how long Landmark has owned the property. Griffin notes that he has a septic plan from 1979 so it has been at least since then. Maxner notes that she received correspondence from Atty. Thomas Fallon representing the direct abutter Mr. Harrison, late this afternoon and gave copies to the Commission. Cademartori asks Griffin if they have received a response from FEMA on the Flood Plain determination. Griffin states that he has received a partial response and explains that the person he talked with stated that he thought that the request was reasonable and that they filled out the wrong form, and they are sending him the correct forms. He notes that when they receive the correct forms they will file them right away. Cademartori states that he does not see how the Commission can make a determination without knowing the nature of the resources on site or with a determination from FEMA. He notes that the Commission should make the determination on the current condition of the area or wait for the determination from FEMA. Griffin states that the Commission could approve what has been submitted and if the determination from FEMA is different from what they expect they could file an amendment. He also states that he thinks that some portion of the site is going to be considered Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and they have identified the resource area as part of the application. He notes that the question becomes the type of work to be Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 done, in this case driving piles or excavation for a foundation. He suggests that if the Commission wants to wait for more information they could do that or they could assume that there will be a pile foundation and they could come back with a modification if that changes. Cademartori asks what is proposed for the driveway. Griffin explains that it will be paved and graded towards the street. Squibb asks what area they are proposing to fill. Griffin explains that they are proposing to fill 18 inches in an area behind the deck and explains the plan. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Rene Mary addresses the Commission and recalled the various owners of the property over the years. She asked if they are tearing down the mansion on the site. Griffin states there is no dwelling located on the site. Mr. Jones of Beach Street addresses the Commission and expresses his concern about runoff from the site going out to West Street. He notes that the area was under 4 feet of water from the Mother's Day storm last year. He states that he feels that this will compound the problems that they already have. Atty. Thomas Fallon addresses the Commission and referred to the Notice ofIntent regarding the Mother's Day flood. He notes that all say that the area was flooded and West Street was closed. He notes that if West Street was closed there is no way that there could not have been water on this site. He also explains that there are legal issues regarding this plan stating that when the property was conveyed Mr. Harrison requested a Right of Declared Restoration on architectural approval noting that no structure can be put on the lot closer to the Atlantic Ocean than his house and explains that this plan violates that. He goes onto explain zoning constraints that make this lot unbuildable as well as an easement encumbering the property. Griffin states that the Realty Trust feels that this is a buildable lot. Mr. Gilmore, attorney for Landmark School, addresses the Commission and states that he feels that this is a zoning issue and a judge in land court should decide that and it is not the Commission's place to make that determination. Maxner responds that if any zoning relief is required the NOI is incomplete until such relief is either applied for or obtained. Maxner notes that she believes that the issue of the calculation of the lot area is a zoning issue that possibly could require a variance from the ZBA. Members of the Commission request that Maxner seek an opinion from the City Solicitor on that matter. Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 Mr. Harrison addresses the Commission and states that there is a huge leeching field on the site servicing the septic system for his house. Griffin notes that Landmark has pulled a permit to connect Mr. Harrison to the sewer system and they are in the process of developing those plans and the septic system will be abandoned. Squibb notes that they are building on a large leeching field and questions why they are not utilizing it. Griffin states that the foundation would interfere with the leeching field and they feel it is best to proceed as proposed. Robert Lockwood, 89 West Street, addresses the Commission and expresses his concern about the change in grade of the site. Griffin states that they are not looking at a significant grade change and explains the plan. James Nyce, 93 West Street, states he submitted a letter last meeting detailing his concerns about the flooding issues in this area. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to February 20,2007. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Cont: 14 Bay View Avenue - Construction of Addition. Gara2e. Pool Etc. - Elm Top Realty Trust Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering and Robert Hubbard, owner and applicant, are present at the meeting. Bob Griffin addresses the Commission and recalls that at the last meeting they reviewed the project, which calls for an addition to an existing single-family house and explains the revised plan that includes roof dry wells. He notes that they identified the Coastal Bank and the 25 Foot NDZ on the plan and there is no activity proposed in this area. He also notes that the Commission visited the site and the area was staked out for the house and the pool area. Griffin explains the locations of the proposed drywells and notes that one will be located in a low rocky area north of the proposed pool and one further back next to the garage to take the roof runoff from the existing house and explains the drainage pattern on the site. Paluzzi asks what the capacity of the dry wells will be. Griffin explains that they would be 500 gallons and explains that they will be surrounded by two feet of crushed pervious stone as well as a drip edge around the perimeter of the house. He states that they believe that they will adequate. Maxner asks if there is an existing municipal sewer. Griffin states that there is. Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 Cademartori asks if they are proposing surface dry wells and no roof runoff scepters are included. Griffin states no and explains the design. Paluzzi questions the trees that are slated for removal. Griffin explains that they are not sure they can save one of the trees noting that it will be difficult to remove once the house is constructed and noted that they did manage to save one Beech tree near the driveway. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Tom Harrington attorney for the Friends of Hospital Point addresses the Commission and expresses his concern that this is a massive buffer zone project and he does not feel that they have met the performance standards. He notes that the Planning Board denied a subdivision on this site and if that appeal is overturned there could be a lot more work in the buffer zone than what the Commission sees now. He requests that the Commission consider a condition that would require that a portion of the buffer zone be left undeveloped. He also suggests that the Commission consider imposing a bond or some type of surety on the project to insure that the work being done this close to the ocean is done properly. Joan Murphy addresses the Commission and notes that the Commission had suggested that they move the house westerly and reconfiguring the garage. Griffin explains that they looked at that but concluded that it would pose design and architectural challenges to the flow of the house. Griffin also notes that it is true that there may be future development on the site, but notes that they are providing reasonable mitigation for the work that they are doing at this time and they think that this project stands on its own. He also notes that there are no plans to join 14 and 16 Bay View at this time and notes that there is ongoing litigation. Griffin addresses the issue of the applicant providing surety for the project and states that the applicant has finished two other lots on Elm Top Lane and has received Certificates of Compliance for both of them. He states that he feels that the applicant has demonstrated the ability to comply with all of the standards imposed by the Commission. Maxner questions if the subdivision that was denied included this lot. Griffin explains that it was included and explained the location of it in relation to the previously proposed subdivision. He also notes how they would work around the lot lines should the subdivision be approved. Anne Green of 4 Lawnbank Road addresses the Commission and notes that the carriage house was deemed to be historically significant last May. She also questions the accuracy of the plan. She notes that it seems to her that there will be significant activity in an area where there is very little soil. She also questions how much blasting will be done next to the 25 foot NDZ, which is next to the bank and heavily used beach. She Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 also states that she is not sure it is proper for the Commission to be considering this at this time due to the ongoing litigation. Griffin states that the Realty Trust spent a lot of money to relocate the carriage house and notes that the soil conditions were found to be adequate. He notes that test percolations got good results. He also notes that there is ledge within the buffer zone and they believe that they can removed it without blasting, so they do not anticipate having to blast. Cademartori asks how much rock will be removed from the buffer zone. Griffin states that they do not have a handle on that as of yet, but it looks like it might be 40 x 30 feet in area. He notes that the proposed finish grade is about 6 feet above the top of the rock. Mrs. Green addresses the Commission and states that she looked at the USGS survey and that is where she got her information. She notes that it shows that there is what they call Cape Ann Bedrock on the site. Rene Mary addresses the Commission and asks what the opinion of the City Solicitor is regarding this project. Maxner states that she spoke to Roy Gelineau and he is of the opinion that this is a stand-alone project. Squibb states that he does not believe that this is a stand-alone project and he feels that the Commission will see more development on this site. Griffin states that this is a well thought out project that meets all of the performance standards and the City Solicitor is correct in his opinion that this is a stand-alone project. He also states that to say that the applicant should be further away than the required 25 foot NDZ is inconsistent with the regulations. Mr. Robert Hubbard addresses the Commission and states that this project has nothing to do with 16 Bay View and they have a potential buyer for this site. Joan Murphy addresses the Commission and suggests that they condition the project that there shall be no blasting on the site. Maxner questions how big the lot is. Griffin states that it is 40,197 s.f. Maxner notes that Note # 8 on the plan needs to be changed to reflect that as she thinks it is left over from the subdivision plan. Griffin states he will correct that. 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. Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 Cont: 305 Hale Street - Ebin2er Hall- Renovations to Existin2 Buildin2 - Endicott Colle2e Joe Orzel of Gulf of Maine, Bill Vitkosky of Endicott College and Frank Holmes of Geller Devellis are present at the meeting. Orzel addresses the Commission and notes that since the last meeting DEP has issued a file number for the project which is 5-945. He also notes that DEP made comments on the plan and reviewed them with the Commission. Holmes addresses the Commission and explains the comments that DEP made. He notes that they are proposing deep sumps and catch basins, which are required by DEP and they are compliant with their guidelines. He also states that they think this is appropriate and they have submitted an operation and maintenance plan that requires inspection of them quarterly. He also notes that the second comment is that they provide monitoring wells and they are providing infiltration beds, which provide the same function as a monitoring well. He explains that they will have a cover that can be removed for the inspection of the infiltration beds and the removal of any sediment if needed. He also notes that the third comment is about the operation and maintenance plan and notes that they have prepared the plan, which did not make it into the NOI inadvertently. He also notes that it includes the maintenance of the deep sumps and the vegetated swale that they are proposing on the east side. Orzel notes that they have submitted the vegetation specifications for the swale as requested by the Commission. Maxner questions what percentage of the pavement sweeping is being attributed to TSS removal. Holmes notes that it is about 10%, and would be conducted twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall. Squibb notes that the Commission asked them to clean up the wetlands and are they planning to do that. Vitkosky states that the maintenance crew has already cleaned up the wetlands and this area will be monitored for trash and removed as necessary. Squibb asks about the pipe end closest to the wetlands. Orzel explains that the water level would be the same and explains the plan. He also notes that there is an addition of a 6" perforated perimeter drain that has been added to the plan and will be discharging at the existing retaining wall near the annex building. He notes that this will keep the water discharging outside of the buffer zone. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 Johnson moves to close the public hearing. Hayes seconds the motion. Reilly abstains. The motion carries 5-0-1. Old / New Business New: 37 Haskell Street - Enforcement Order - Russell HU2hey and Sydney Shriver Maxner explains that she responded to a telephone complaint about a possible wetlands violation at 37 Haskell Street about two weeks ago. She notes that she visited the site and sent a letter with the enforcement order that detailed her findings. She notes that the owners and their consultant Rich Kirby are present this evening to address the enforcement order. She also notes that she visited the site this morning with Mr. Kirby and they discussed possible solutions to the violations. Rich Kirby, LEC Environmental, addresses the Commission and explains that his clients installed a foundation drain and a perforated PVC pipe which has an outlet pipe at the embankment of the brook. He notes that their intent was to relieve some of the flooding in their basement by directing it to a sub surface infiltration system. He also explains that the contractor, who hit ledge and noticed the ground water was very high, redirected the drainage to the stream without consulting with the homeowners installed the filtration system in this manner. He states that it was not their intent to direct the water into the stream and they wish to remedy the situation as soon as possible. He explains that they feel if they remove a ten-foot section of the perforated pipe so that it is not draining directly into the stream it would avoid direct impacts to the stream and allow slow sub surface infiltration. He also notes that there has been some discussion of re- vegetation and they have talked about providing plantings along the edge of the stream to provide separation and buffer zone enhancement. He also notes that the Commission has an as- built plan on file and they have requested a copy of that and they will work with that to prepare the plans. He also notes that they will stabilize the small portion of the embankment to see that it stays in place. He requested that the Commission amend the EO to reflect what their intentions are. Cademartori asks if there is any work proposed within the intermittent stream. Kirby states they are not, all they wish to do is remove the section of pipe draining directly into the stream and stabilize and re-vegetate the bank. Paluzzi asks what they would put on the end of the pipe before it flows to the stream. Kirby explains that they would like to have the pipe end about 10 feet from the stream and leave the gravel to allow for infiltration. He also states that he fears that in a high storm event the water would not make its way to the stream quickly enough and back up into the cellar and explains how this would help. Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 Paluzzi asks if the water would be gravity fed into the system or would it be pumped. Kirby states that they are not pumping water from the basement they are diverting water around the foundation drain and it is gravity driven. Squibb asks what the pitch of the drainage system is. Kirby states that it is gradual. Maxner asks if the Commission would like to visit the site. Johnson states that he does not think that is necessary. Maxner notes that the whole house is pretty much is in the buffer zone and they now know that they have to come to the Commission for any work that they want to do. She also notes that the work involving the perimeter drain would not have been a problem per say, but noted that the drain going directly into the stream would never have been approved. She further noted that if they plan to install a pool, shed, addition or any other structure in the future they must come to the Commission for approval. Maxner asks that the Commission to ratify and amend the order to allow for the submission of a sketch plan showing the wetland resource area and the buffer zones and also showing what work was done and proposed mitigation. Johnson moves to amend and ratify the Enforcement Order for 37 Haskell Street, Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: 17 Cole Street - DEP File # 5-809 - Extension Permit - Andrew Neumann Maxner notes that the applicant has requested an extension for six months so that the City of Beverly can finish the drainage work. Hayes notes that he has driven by there and he thought it was finished. Maxner states that they wanted to make sure that it was all set and that proper stabilization can be achieved. Johnson moves to grant a six-month extension for 17 Cole Street. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Orders of Conditions 305 Hale Street - Endicott Colle2e Discussion ensues regarding potential conditions. Johnson moves to issue the following conditions: '" Standard Conditions '" The following Special Conditions: 1. The Water Quality Swale shall be constructed within the first year of the project commencmg. Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 2. Parking lot and driveway pavement sweeping shall be conducted quarterly coincident with catch basin maintenance and clean out. 3. Records of character and quantity of material removed from the catch basins shall be provided to the Conservation Commission for a minimum of two (2) years post construction. 4. Infiltration trench clean out monitoring reports shall be provided to the Commission for a minimum of two (2) years post construction. 5. The Operations and Maintenance Plan shall include trash and debris monitoring and clean out of wetland resource areas in perpetuity, to be performed at least on a yearly basis. 6. No salt shall be used on site for winter deicing, and shall be wholly substituted by calcium magnesium acetate. Hayes seconds the motion. Reilly abstains. The motion carries 5-0-1. 14 Bay View Avenue Discussion ensues regarding potential conditions. Johnson moves to issue the following conditions: '" Standard Conditions '" The following Special Conditions: 1. Blasting shall not be conducted within the 100-Foot Buffer Zone. 2. The pool terrace shall consist of porous pavers or other similar material to allow for infiltration. 3. A Beech tree shall be planted in the area just outside of the buffer zone to replace the tree that is being removed. Reilly seconds the motion. Hayes abstains. The motion carries 5-0-1. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the December 12, 2006 Conservation Commission meeting were presented for approval. Johnson moves to approve the minutes of December 12, 2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. The minutes of the January 2, 2007 Executive Session held by the Conservation Commission were presented for approval. Johnson moves to approve the minutes of Executive Session held on January 2, 2007. Reilly seconds the motion. Hayes abstains. The motion carries 6-0. Beverly Conservation Commission January 30, 2007 Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 Other Business The Commission held a brief discussion on possible changes to the regulations. Maxner asks them to think about changes they would like to propose and the Commission will schedule a special meeting at a later date to discuss this. Maxner informs the Commission that DEP will be conducting a site visit on the appeal at 18 Meadow Road tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. Maxner informs the Commission that the latest invoice from George Hall is $22.00. Maxner informs the Commission that the comment period for the NPDES permit process for the LNG projects are due no later than February 23,2007. Adiournment There being no further business to come before the Beverly Conservation Commission this evening. Johnson moves to adjourn the meeting. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :06 p.m.