2008-01-08
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Date:
Board:
Members Present
January 8,2008
Conservation Commission
Tony Paluzzi - Vice Chair, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Mary
Reilly, and Bill Squibb
Members Absent:
Chair David Lang, Gregg Cademartori, Ian Hayes
Others Present:
Amy Maxner - Environmental Planner
Recorder:
Eileen Sacco
Paluzzi called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street
Beverly, MA.
Maxner informs those present that the matter of the North Beverly Brook Drainage
project for the City of Beverly will be continued to January 29, 2008, and there will be no
discussion of it this evening. She apologizes for the late notice and notes that she
received word late this afternoon of this change.
Dr. Johnson moves to continue the North Beverly Brook Drainage Project to January 29,
2008. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 4-0.
Maxner informs those present that the Commission will be taking the agenda out of order
this evening and will he hearing the matter of the Request for Determination of
Applicability for the end of Nelson Avenue first, followed by the request for an extension
for 76 Paine Avenue.
ReQuest for Determination of Applicability
Cont: End of Nelson Avenue - Construct Access Driveway Alolli!: Existin2
Driveway - Matthew Power
John Dick addresses the Commission and explains that he has submitted a new narrative
for the project and explains that the original narrative was written to accompany the
Notice of Intent submitted to the Wenham Conservation Commission. He explains that
most of the project is in Wenham and briefly reviews the work to be done on the
Wenham side.
Dick notes that the Beverly filing is fairly straight forward, noting that they are
maintaining the existing gravel roadway in the buffer zone to an Isolated Wetland. He
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 10
notes that the narrative elaborates discussion on the Riverfront area and there are two
potential vernal pools on the Wenham side.
Paluzzi asks if the driveway is going to be pervious. Dick explains that it will be gravel
and they plan to smooth it out and grade it.
Squibb asks if it is a driveway now. Dick explains that it is a driveway to the gravel pit
and notes it is an extensive system of dirt roads on the Wenham side.
Maxner asks if there are any erosion control measures on the plan. Dick states that there
is a silt fence noted on the plan. Maxner requests that they extend it all the way to the
edge of Nelson Avenue. Dick agrees that they would do that.
Maxner notes that she spoke with the Wenham Conservation Commission Agent and they
are ready to close their hearing and are in the process of drafting an Order of Conditions.
Dick notes that the new narrative has nothing to do with the Beverly filing but he
submitted it to the Commission for the file. He explains that the idea is to smooth the
driveway not re-grade it.
Paluzzi asks if there is a 25-Foot NDZ on the Beverly side. Dick notes that there is and
states that they are not doing anything in that area.
Maxner asks if there have been any revisions to the plan since the Commission last saw
it. Dick replies that there have been no changes to the plans on the Beverly side.
Paluzzi opens the up for public comment at this time.
Rene Mary of274 Hale Street addresses the Commission and expresses her concern
about this being near the Wenham Lake Watershed. Dick explains that it is the Miles
River drainage area, which runs the other way and explains the location on the plan.
Squibb asks if there were any comments about this project from DEP. Maxner states that
DEP doesn't comment on RDA's but she is not sure ifDEP had specific comments on the
Wenham NO!. She notes that she was unable to locate the flags to the IVW, as there was
very thick brush and green briar. Dick explains that the road and the wetland are
separated by the berm and runoff will not flow in that direction.
Mary suggests that the Commission should get a copy of the Wenham Order of
Conditions. Maxner notes that she will get a copy of it for the file.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to
issue a Negative 3 Determination for the End of Nelson Avenue with the following
Special Condition: Proposed erosion control shall extend to the edge of Nelson Avenue.
Erosion control shall be inspected by the Beverly Conservation Agent prior to
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 10
construction commencing to ensure proper installation. Reilly seconds the motion. The
motion carries 4-0.
76 Paine Avenue - DEP File #5-867 - ReQuest for Extension - Jack Swansbur2
John Dick addresses the Commission and reviews the project and notes the condition of
the seawall. He explains that the applicant has done the work that was permitted and he
is in the process of finishing plans for additional work that needs to be done on the site.
He requested that the applicant be granted a one-year extension of the Order of
Conditions. He also notes that they will be filing an amendment for changes to site work
and seawall construction.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to
grant a one-year extension for 76 Paine Avenue, DEP File #5-867. Reilly seconds the
motion. The motion carries 4-0.
Johnson moves to recess for public hearing. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion
carries 4-0.
Cont: Behind 235 Dod2e Street - Norwood Pond Dam Repair - DEP File # 5-970-
City of Beverly
Maxner notes that Mike Collins is not present tonight and recommends that the
Commission continue the hearing to the January 29th meeting. Johnson moves to
continue, seconded by Reilly. The motion carries 4-0.
Cont: 480-486 Rantoul Street - Force Realty. LLC - Maxner notes that the applicant's
engineer has not yet arrived and suggests this be tabled to later in the meeting. Members
agree.
Cont: 105-107 Preston Place / Pole Swamp Lane - John Soursourian
Maxner informs those present that the applicant has requested a continuance to the
January 29th meeting and there will be no discussion on the matter this evening.
Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to January 29, 2008. Reilly seconds the
motion. The motion carries 4-0.
New: 90 & 92 Boyles Street - (Map 45. Lot 50) and (Map 45. Lot 2) - Construct
Sin2le Family Houses and Wetland Crossin2 for Common Access Driveway - Carl
Dumas
Maxner reads legal notices for both Notices of Intent.
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 10
Brian Butler, Oxbow Associates, addresses the Commission and explains that there are
two separate house projects but there are several shared aspects between them on the
plan. Maxner suggests that he make a presentation on both projects together. Butler
agrees.
Butler explains that the two lots total an area of 10 acres. He notes that there is a certified
vernal pool that is shared by both lots along the frontage of Boyles Street. He explains
that the first conceptual plan for these lots involved the filling of the northerly edge of the
vernal pool to construct a driveway to access # 92, but that plan was abandoned in favor
of the plan now before the Commission which involves a common access off of Boyles
Street and then second crossing further into the site to reach # 92.
Butler explains the existing conditions of the land, noting that the drainage flows to a
manmade ditch exiting the site into three 12" culverts underneath Boyles Street. He also
notes that he reviewed the wetland line, (which was delineated by Mike DeRosa several
months prior), with Ms. Maxner on a site walk in November. He notes that the first
crossing will receive a 2'x4' concrete box culvert and the second crossing will receive
three 12" HDPE culverts and states that the driveways will be gravel. He explains the
utility and sewer connections.
Maxner notes that a 2: 1 replication is required. Butler explains that in the interest of
logistics and to maintain as much undisturbed upland, it is difficult for them to replicate
2: 1 and stated that they would ask the Commission to consider a 1: 1 replication.
Reilly notes that the narrative mentions a stream that was presumed to be perennial on the
site. Butler explains the plan and the location of the stream in question and notes that the
channel was dry in August.
Maxner refers to a wetland report submitted by Mike DeRosa and notes that it refers to an
unnamed stream that meets the definition of a perennial stream. Butler states that he will
check on that with DeRosa, noting that it might be a typo.
Maxner notes that DEP commented on the erosion control measures as well as the
potential for meeting Army Corps stream crossing standards.
Butler states that it may be a point well taken on the erosion control impact and they may
be using waddles or a filter sock for erosion control.
Maxner notes to the Commission that there is BVW on both sides of the stone wall and is
located on the Zarkades property but that plan does not reflect that.
Maxner notes that the plans call for a 12-inch pipe and questions if there is enough
communication hydraulically. Butler explains that Bradford Engineering designed it and
he can further evaluate that. Mr. Dumas explains that there are actually three pipes. B
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 10
Butler explains that there will be two wells for water and the sewer is being brought in
from the street with a pump chamber between the two houses so that some portions of the
sewer will be a force main and other sections will be a gravity system.
Maxner requests that they submit additional copies of plans and cross sections for the
crossings for the Commission members.
Reilly questions why they are requesting a smaller replication area. Butler explains the
location and the logistics of a small replication area versus a larger one. He notes there
would be less of an impact to upland habitat. He also notes that they feel that these are
oversized land parcels with respect to the impact that the houses will have.
Maxner suggests that the Commission visit the site. Paluzzi agrees.
Johnson questions how the Commission can justify allowing the proposed driveway as it
encroaches into the Vernal Pool No Disturb Zone and the 25-Foot No Disturb Zone.
Maxner reads a letter from Mr. Donald Winslow expressing his concerns about the
project and the impact it will have on his property due to increase impervious surfaces
and flooding.
Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Nick Zakardis of 88 Boyles Street addresses the Commission and expresses his concerns
about the level of the pond on the subject properties, noting that the water level does raise
significantly and inundates his driveway. He states he is concerned with the proposed
crossing, as it seems they may restrict water even further in this area. He asks if there
will be any blasting for this project. Butler states that it is their intention to use a rock
hammer. Zakardis also notes that the culvert under Boyles Street should be cleaned out,
noting that it backs up at certain times of the year.
Rene Mary of274 Hale Street addresses the Commission and notes that she lives on
Centerville Creek and notes that it is not a ditch and she feels that this site drains into
Centerville Creek. She also expressed her concern about large storm events.
Paluzzi requests that they stake out the roadway and the location of the crossings and
house footprints. Maxner also requests that they stake out the proposed replication area.
Maxner asks if there are any other amenities such as decks or walkways proposed for the
site. Butler states that there are no plans for landscaping but rather nestling these houses
within the existing wooded landscape.
Maxner asks about the infiltration of roof runoff. Butler he can examine this more
closely but it may not make too much of a difference considering how large the site is in
relation to the new impervious surfaces.
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 10
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to
continue the public hearing to January 29,2008 pending a site visit on January 19, 2008
at 8:30 a.m. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 4-0.
Old/N ew Business
New: 4 Birchwood Road - Enforcement Order - Stephen Edelstein
Maxner explains that she was informed that there might be wetlands violations at 4
Birchwood Drive. She explains that she visited the site and she observed cutting and the
removal of trees, excavation and stockpiling of soil within the 100- foot buffer zone to the
bank of a stream and bordering vegetated wetland and possibly within the resource area
itself. She issued an Enforcement Order directing the violator to secure the services of a
wetland scientist to evaluate the extent and scope of the violations, delineate the wetlands
on site and propose a restoration plan.
Brian Butler of Oxbow Associates addresses the Commission and explains that the
owners, Mr. & Mrs. Steven Edelstein, who are present tonight, have hired him to help
them through rectifying this violation. He states that he visited the site and explains that
the owner hired a contractor to remove some vegetation and fix several dangerous sink
holes on the site. He notes that an oak tree fell down on the site and they removed it,
spread some fill and filled the area without the approval of the Conservation
Commission. He states that they will propose to replant the tree and mulch the area.
Johnson asks if the real purpose of the removal of the tree was for safety reasons or for
aesthetics. Butler states that is was mainly safety reasons as they have small children.
Mr. Edelstein addresses the Commission and states that there are a lot of sink holes on
the site and thorny scrub and he feels that it is a safety issue. He also notes that he wants
to rectify this in fairly rapid order.
Reilly states that she would like to see this on a fully engineered plan.
Maxner states that she would like them to flag the former wetland line. Mr. Edelstein
states that he will do whatever needs to be done. He also states that he did not know that
he needed approval from the Commission to do the work.
Johnson questions if they should file a Notice ofIntent for this work. Maxner states that
she would be more comfortable if it is handled through an Enforcement Order.
Maxner suggests that the Commission visit the site. Paluzzi agrees.
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 10
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to
continue the matter to January 29, 2008, pending a site visit on January 19, 2008 at 9:30
a.m.
Johnson moves to ratify the Enforcement Order issued for 4 Birchwood Drive. Reilly
seconds the motion. The motion carries 4-0.
Maxner suggests that any photographs of the yard that the owner may have, would be
helpful to the Commission.
New: 29 Hathaway Avenue - Enforcement Order - R02er Tremblay
Maxner informs the Commission that she reviewed the file pursuant to a pool application
that was submitted. She also notes that she conducted a site inspection and observed
unauthorized structures within the buffer zone, bordering vegetated wetland and 100-year
floodplain. Maxner notes that a retaining wall was constructed as well as back fill and
grading along the driveway and wrapping around to the rear of the house near on old mill
foundation and at the edge of bordering vegetated wetland, within the 25 foot NDZ. She
also notes that she saw excavation and installation of an in ground pool behind the house
within the buffer zone. Maxner explains that upon closer review of the approved plans
for the house it appears that the backfill has been placed within the 100-year floodplain.
Maxner also notes that the stockpiled material on the property is within the buffer zone.
Maxner further notes that she sent the owner an enforcement letter and she got a reply
from his attorney noting that none of the directives in her letter could be accomplished
due to weather. Maxner explains that she disagreed with that noting that the approved
house plans could have been used to relocate the wetlands flags in the field and that is
why Mr. Tremblay was advised to hire a wetlands scientist.
Attorney James DeCoulos addresses the Commission on behalf of his client, Roger
Tremblay and explains the conditions that led to Mr. Tremblay's construction of the
retaining wall. He also notes that they have engaged the services of Rimmer
Environmental to delineate the wetlands. He submitted a copy of the engagement letter
to the Commission for the file. He also notes that he may file a Notice ofIntent to
complete this work.
DeCoulos notes that an erosion control fence has been installed on the property and
requested an extension of the Enforcement Order dated December 11, 2007 to the next
meeting of the Conservation Commission on January 29,2008.
Maxner states that she feels it would be helpful to the Commission if they visit the site
and requested that the applicant have the site flagged by January 19, 2008.
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 10
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to
continue the matter to January 29, 2008, pending a site visit to be held on January 19,
2008 at 10:00 a.m. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 4-0.
Johnson moves to ratify the enforcement order issue on December 11, 2007. Reilly
seconds the motion. The motion carries 4-0.
Maxner suggests to the applicant that if they have a restoration plan drafted for the site
visit the Commission could review it and give them some feedback. She also states that
the erosion control measures need to be entrenched.
Johnson moves to extend the Enforcement Order directives for 29 Hathaway Avenue to
January 29, 2008. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 4-0.
Cont: 480-486 Rantoul Street - Construct Parkin2 Lot - Force Realty. LLC ( c/o
Kelleher Construction
Peter Ogren addresses the Commission and explains that the Commission held a site visit
on December 4, 2007, and he presented a plan with an alternative wetland replication
configuration. He noted that it is a degraded area and this reconfiguration will enhance
current conditions. He notes that at the site visit the Commission commented on the
limitation as far as water budgeted to the area and proposes to provide roof runoff to the
wetland to supplement the budget.
Ogren explains that the configuration could be changed to avoid creating any new buffer
zone on the abutting property and that this would take away five parking spaces. Ogren
explains that the existing wetlands plants will come back noting that the roots were not
taken.
Paluzzi questions if the old wetland on the plan would stay. Ogren states that it will
except for the portion that will be filled to accommodate the parking lot.
Paluzzi opens the hearing to the public for questions.
Nancy Scialdone, the abutter to the property addresses the Commission and notes that the
reconfiguration has created a new 25-Foot NDZ that affects her property. She states that
she is opposed to the reconfiguration and she wants them to go back to the original
configuration. She states that conditions are creating a drainage problem on her property
and shows the Commission photos. She also states that she is concerned that the area has
been rearranged and reconfigured and it is a disaster. She also questioned where they are
going to recreate the wetland.
Ogren reviews the plans with the Commission and Ms. Scialdone. He explains that if the
25Foot NDZ were waived the fence could stay and if the project goes forward the water
could be redirected from the Scialdone property to the outlet pipe.
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 10
Mrs. Scialdone states that she will have her lawyer review this and noted that she has a
legal building permit for her fence.
Squibb explains that it is unfortunate that the building inspector does not always check
with the Commission before issuing building permits, because if he has she would have
been directed to come to the Commission for a permit.
Ogren states he is concerned over this apparent double standard noting that the
Commission cannot say that it is not a wetland for the Scialdone's but it is for his client.
He also noted that he argued hard that it was not a wetland. Maxner explains that the
area did not meet the requirements until the adoption of the Ordinance and clarifies that it
did not meet regulatory thresholds under the Mass. Wetlands Protection Act.
Scialcone states that she was assured that the drainage from this project would not create
a problem on her property during the Determination meetings in March of 2007.
Squibb notes that if Scialdone filled part of the area, there may have been a drainage
issue before and now that the area is filled it is showing up.
Ogren states that the grade did not change from the work that was done. Maxner agrees
explaining that the vegetation was cut but no grading was done in the buffer zone or the
wetland. Ogren states that he and Maxner observed debris, tires and other refuse in the
wetland just prior to the restoration work and both of them agreed to have this material
removed form the wetland, which probably should have improved flood storage in the
wetland.
Scialdone states that she does not agree that there is a wetland or buffer zone on her
property and does not think she should be subject to regulation for work on her property.
Ogren states that the Commission could provide a waiver for all work within the buffer
zone to this wetland. Maxner explains that the Commission determined that the area was
an isolated wetland in March of 2007 which is regulated under the Ordinance and that the
Scialdone's will need to file for any proposed work within the Commission's jurisdiction.
Maxner states that she does not want to put the Commission in a precedent setting
situation by waiving a NDZ for this site and suggests that she would like to see a separate
filing for any work the Scialdone's are proposing instead of providing a blanket waiver
for the entire wetland and buffer zone.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to
continue the public hearing to January 29, 2008. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion
carries 4-0.
Old / New Business Continued
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 10
11 Greenwood Avenue - Extension of Order of Conditions - Jane Brusca
Maxner explains that the Commission received a request from Ms. Brusca for an
extension of her Order of Conditions for 11 Greenwood Avenue. She explains that the
project involved the construction of a 24' X 24' garage, removal of an existing deck and
the installation of underground drainage and above ground pea stone drainage,
construction of stone retaining walls and repairs to existing bituminous concrete
driveway. She notes that the final grading and plantings remain to be installed and all
other work is completed at this time.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to
grant a one-year extension for 11 Greenwood Avenue. Reilly seconds the motion. The
motion carries 4-0.
Expenses
Maxner asks that the Commission consider approving the following expenditures:
'" $50.00 payable to Mary Reilly for her attendance at the December 8,2007 MACC
Coastal Training Workshop
'" $50.00 payable to me for my attendance at the December 8,2007 MACC Coastal
Training Workshop
Johnson moves to approve the reimbursement for Amy Maxner and Mary Reilly. Squibb
seconds the motion. Reilly abstains. The motion carries 3-0-1.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Beverly Conservation Commission meetings held on the following
dates were presented for approval:
July 31, 2007
August 21,2007
October 2, 2007
Johnson moves to approve the minutes of the BCC meetings as written. Reilly seconds
the motion. The motion carries 4-0.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening, Johnson
moves to adjourn the meeting. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 4-0.
The meeting adjourns at 11 :00 p.m.