Loading...
2009-02-10 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: Board: Members Present February 10, 2009 Conservation Commission David Lang, Tony Paluzzi, Ian Hayes, Mary Reilly, Bill Squibb, Dr. Mayo Johnson, and Gregg Cademartori Members Absent: None Others Present: Amy Maxner - Environmental Planner Recorder: Eileen Sacco Certificate of Compliance Cont: 150 Sam Fonzo Drive. DEP File #5-844 - Fonzo Realtv. LLC Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering is present on behalf of the applicant. Maxner explains that this Order and the Amended Order issued in 2005 governed the construction of an industrial manufacturing building with associated parking, access drive, utilities and stormwater management areas within 100-Foot Buffer Zone to BVW and within the 100-NDZ ofa vernal pool located within the IVW. Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering addresses the Commission and states that he was unaware of the Amended Order of Conditions. He notes that he has submitted two sets of as built plans. He also explains the dual sump pumps were installed on the site per the special condition in the Amended Order. Ogren also notes that the applicant never recorded the conservation easement and explains that he talked with Marshall Handley who will be working to finalize the language for approval by the Commission. Maxner recalls that she provided Atty. Handley with MACC boilerplate language for the conservation easement but never heard back. Maxner states that she visited the site with Libby Wallis but it was difficult to see anything because of the snow cover. She also notes that special condition # 14 requires that a planting plan for the area mentioned in Special Condition #12 be submitted to the Commission for review and approval but it was never submitted. She states that evergreens were planted that did not survive and replaced with 6 red oak trees along the path. Maxner also explains that Special Condition # 1 0 required that a gravel infiltration trench be installed along the southerly edge of the interior parking garage. She also notes that this trench may not be necessary, as it appears that the parking area is contained by curbing to direct stormwater flow to the metal grate drain. Discussion ensues regarding Special Condition #12, which requires that the area south of the far westerly parking lot and west of the detention basin be included within the area of the Conservation Easement and the as-built plan does not reflect this change. Maxner notes that there are two small Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 2 of 12 areas of encroachment in to the wetland as described in Mr. Ogren's letter that should be reviewed after the snow melts. Hayes notes that there is a potential vernal pool on the site and there was to be an investigation. Ogren explains that Maxner and Wallis looked at that and did not note any distinguishing characteristics but they indicated in their response to the Commission that they would look at it again in April or May. Maxner clarifies that the IVW does have a documented vernal pool and a special condition required post-construction monitoring of this pool, and that there was a separate small depression within the conservation easement to the north that the Commission wanted investigated for vernal pool function. Cademartori notes that the project was done in 2004, and the Commission at the time imposed the conditions because they felt that they were important and he feels that the conditions should be adhered to. Lang suggests that the Commission continue the matter to the end of April so that the area can be looked at again when the snow melts and the applicant's attorney can finalize the easement language for recording. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moved to continue the matter to the May 12, 2009 meeting. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Cont: Sam Fonzo Drive. DEP File #5-643 - Fonzo Realtv. LLC Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering is present on behalf of the applicant. Ogren addresses the Commission and states that this project is ten years old and the as built plans have been submitted. He states that there is a deficiency in the detention basin on the site because it has not been maintained and built smaller that originally proposed. He explains that they will be filing soon for a project on a parcel recently purchased at the Beverly Airport site immediately adjacent to the subject site as part of that expansion project of the existing building they will address the basin in that new NO!. Maxner states that there was 190 s.f. of wetland disturbance detailed in the engineers report but she was unable to view that because of the snow cover. She also notes that restorative plantings were required as a special condition along the bank that had experienced ATV traffic before the development, and they were never planted. Ogren states that the applicant needs to refinance to do the proposed expansion on the property and requested that the Commission issue an enforcement order to remove the material from the basin and complete the plantings, and issue the Certificate of Compliance tonight. Hayes states that it is important to the Commission to have the area restored. Cademartori states that is seemed important enough for the Commission to apply a special condition to this area and Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 3 of 12 believes that the Certificate should not be issued until the non-compliance is adequately addressed. Discussion ensues regarding these issues. Reilly states that she feels that the request if premature as they should have to comply with the Order of Conditions before the Commission issues a Certificate of Compliance. Members agree. Lang states that if the ground conditions allow between now and the next meeting he is inclined to have Maxner view the area and report back her findings. Members agree. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the matter to March 10, 2009. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. NOTICE OF INTENT Cont: 4 Fosters Point - Andrew St. Pierre - Demolition of Existin2 House/Construct New Sin2le Familv House and Construct Pier. Gan2Wav and Float Lang recused himself from discussion of this matter. Paluzzi assumes the Chair. David Ottenheimer is present for the applicant. The applicant Andrew St. Pierre is also present. Mary Rimmer is also present. Ottenheimer reviews the proposal to raze the existing house and replace it. He notes that the Commission had a favorable response to the last proposal to build on the site that was governed by an old Order of Conditions that had expired. He reports that they got information from the manufacturer on the fiberglass pilings as requested by the Commission. He explains that it is a durable material. He also notes that the plantings have been shown on the plan. Mary Rimmer addresses the Commission and explains the planting plan. She notes that they have chosen salt tolerant plantings, a coastal grass seed mix and sweet pepper bush and bay berry which will first involve removing the lawn and stripped and 3-4 inches of new topsoil will be brought in to mimic surrounding grades and amend the soil for plant propagation. Ottenheimer notes that once they receive the approval of the Commission they will apply for a Chapter 91 license. Ottenheimer explains that the deck will be mounted on the concrete wall. Reilly asks how high that will be. Ottenheimer states that it will be 2 1Iz feet. Reilly asks if they have made any decisions regarding the tree on the site that they are proposing to cut down, and the neighbors are opposed to and it is within the 25-Foot No Disturb Zone. Ottenheimer states that Mr. St. Pierre feels that the tree would be impacted by the project and poses a safety hazard to the newly built house. He explains that they have requested indemnification from the abutter for any damage that may occur but that they have not heard back. Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 4 of 12 Hayes notes that in a previous Order of Conditions issued for the property, the Commission specified that the tree remain and only be selectively trimmed and that he visited the site last week and thinks the tree looks healthy. He notes that the Commission has a history of protecting trees whenever possible. Cademartori agreed, noting that it is a Riverfront Area standard to protect trees and any naturally occurring vegetation to the greatest extent possible and does not think they meet this standard by removing it. Maxner reads a letter from abutters David and Eileen Lang of2 Fosters Point, Beverly, MA. Paluzzi questions if they have considered moving the location of the house on the site. Ottenheimer states that they have concerns about the tree potentially falling during a storm. Johnson notes that the Commission normally denies permits for further building in the NDZ and he would not be in favor of that. Ottenheimer explains the location of the house states that there are a number of benefits to having the deck in the proposed location. Squibb notes that the Commission denied the expansion of a deck on the river on South Terrace and agrees that the Commission needs to be consistent in this case. Squibb suggests that they move the house toward the street, which would minimize impact to the tree roots and take care of the deck issue at the same time. Reilly asks if there is any opportunity to improve the salt marsh. Rimmer shows photos of mud flats and states that it is an active tidal area and explains her observations that lead her to believe that planting salt marsh grass may not be effective. Ottenheimer states that Mr. St. Pierre is concerned with safety and requests that at the very least, the Commission allow him to do selective trimming of the tree. He also notes that the ZBA has approved the project and he is not sure if moving the location of the house is a viable option. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. David Lang of2 Fosters Point addresses the Commission and expressed his concern about the impact of the project on the tree. He requested that the Commission have the applicant move the house back in the direction of the street, 10 feet at a minimum, and notes that 15 feet of buffer from the tree base would be safe to protect the tree's roots. He explains that he has had an arborist inspect the tree as his letter details and the tree would need to be pruned by a professional to safeguard its viability. Paluzzi asks how far the house is from the edge of the street. Ottenheimer estimates that it is about 25 feet. Scott Houseman, former chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeal addresses the Commission and recalled that when the matter was before the ZBA they spent a fair amount of time on the tree and protecting it was part of the Board's decision in allowing the zoning variance approval. Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 5 of 12 Jane Brusca, current member of the Zoning Board of Appeals addresses the Commission noted that she was on the Board for both decisions on this property and she is of the opinion that the Board relied on the previous decision although the tree was not explicitly discussed and believes that previously recorded ZBA decisions carry with the land and agrees with Houseman that the tree was to be protected and it was assumed so in the most recent ZBA decision. Maxner notes that it appears that there is room to move the house forward toward the road if the front yard set back is only 10 feet and this would help remove activity outside the 25' NDZ. Reilly asks if there are any comments from DEP. Maxner notes that there is nothing specific. Johnson suggests that the matter be continued and allow the applicant to confer with his engineers to see if a solution can be found. Hayes agreed and notes that he would like further information on the zoning setbacks and ZBA decision. Ottenheimer asks for the Commission to allow him to confer with his client and they will return later in the meeting to discuss this further. The Commission agreed. Cont: 53 Lothrop Street - Lisa & Robert Hubbard - Construct Pier. Gan2wav. and Dock Bob Griffin is present for the applicant. Lisa and Robert Hubbard are also present. Griffin addresses the Commission and explains that the Commission held a site walk on January 24, 2009. He reviews the plans and the location of the deck and notes that they have revised the plans slightly involving the proposed stairway on the bank. He notes that a concern of the Commission was the dust and debris from the construction getting into the water. He explains that they looked at that and are proposing to vacuum up the cuttings which seems to be the most practical and workable solution. Griffin explains that the placement of the concrete will be done with a concrete pumping truck parked on the driveway with a hose leading down to the bank to pour the cement. Griffin noted that a concern of the Commission regarding the use of CCA treated piles and notes that a report by the EP A last year regarding the use of it says that there are no changes to the use of it in a marine environment. He also explains that there may be certain instances when it should not be used in fresh water, but this is not the case and explains the most recent report by the EP A. Cademartori states that he thinks that the Army Corps of Engineers requires two feet of water for a vessel resting next to the dock. Griffin states that the applicant does not intend to park his boat at this dock, explaining that they will use it for kayaks and smaller recreational water craft and he believes that the ACOE wishes to prevent floating docks from resting on the mud flats or sand at low tide. Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 6 of 12 Reilly asks if the deck material will be treated wood. Griffin explains that the pilings will be treated and the deck will be a different material, as dermal contact will necessitate non-treated materials, probably Trex or equivalent. Lang asks how they will remove the existing pilings within the bank. Griffin explains that all work on the bank will be manual and he suspects that break the piles apart and pull them out piece by pIece. Brief discussion ensues regarding the methods of pier installation and access for machinery to execute the borings. Griffin notes that a barge will be floated up and the piles will be vibrated in and suspects that it will only take a day to install the piles, noting that the barge will be jacked up on spuds to sit on the beach. He notes that a small rubber track tire machine will access the area from Quincy park to do the borings. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Resident of 52 Lothrop Street addresses the Commission and expresses her concern about the size of the pier noting that it will be125 feet in length and that only other pier in the area is much smaller at 40 feet. She asks the Commission if they know of any other piers so long in the harbor. Lang notes that he knows of no other piers in the Beverly harbor that area quite that long. She also questions how we can be sure that no powerboats will be used in the area, noting that she swims in the area and worries about safety. Lang states that other agencies will have to review that as well and they may have a mechanism to enforce that in the Order of Conditions. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to close the public hearing. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Cont: 4 Fosters Point - Andrew St. Pierre - Demolition of Existin2 House/Construct New Sin2le Familv House and Construct Pier. Gan2Wav and Float Lang recuses himself from discussion of this matter. Paluzzi assumes the Chair. Ottenheimer addresses the Commission and states that he had a discussion with his client and they would like to withdraw the request to remove the tree. He also stated that the house will be 10 feet away from the tree and will be further than what it is now. Paluzzi opens the hearing up again for public comment at this time. David Lang addresses the Commission and states that we are not at all sure of the dimensions of this and suggests that the Commission continue the matter and get the dimensions on paper. He notes that we need to make sure that they don't do any damage to the existing roots of the tree. He also suggests that the Commission condition approval that the equipment used for construction remain in the footprint of house. Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 7 of 12 Maxner recommends that the Commission keep the hearing open so that the new location of the house can be reflected on the plan. Ottenheimer states that they are not moving the house, but that the new proposed foundation will be farther away from the tree than the existing. Reilly states that she is confused as she thought they were offering to move the house further away towards the street. Discussion ensues regarding setbacks, which need to be verified. Paluzzi suggests that the Commission continue the matter to the next meeting to get a better handle on the setback requirements from the street for the location of the house. Ottenheimer agrees to look into this with his client. Reilly moves to continue the public hearing to March 10, 2009. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: Site Plan Review - Subsidized Elderly Housin2 Facility. 15 Conant Street - ReQuest for Comments from Plannin2 Board Maxner explains that this proposed project, a subsidized elderly housing complex, is a corner lot on Conant Street and Cherry Hill Drive and that the plans show construction is outside of the buffer zone, but the grading is up to the edge of the buffer zone. Cademartori states that it looks like the discharge point is in the buffer zone. He notes that is looks like roof runoff and the stormwater are being commingled which may not meet the current stormwater standards. He also notes that it looks like the system is a series of in-line catch basin with only one drain manhole and questions if they can meet the TSS removal requirement with this sort of design. Maxner suggests that the Commission request that the Planning Board send them to the Commission for at least a Request for Determination of Applicability. Cademartori suggests that they should start with an ANRAD, noting that the resource areas have not been verified for the site. Lang agrees that an ANRAD should be done. He notes that another site on Cherry Hill Drive experienced steep slope failure, which slumped right into the wetland. He notes that the proposed grading on site is significant by as much as 10 to 12 feet in some locations and he would be concerned about the stability of that slope even though it seems to be outside the buffer zone. Hayes agrees that an ANRAD is appropriate at the very least and wonders if it is appropriate for the Planning Board to conduct an independent drainage review for this project. Maxner agrees to write a letter to the Planning Board regarding the suggestions of the Commission. Lang requests that the letter be circulated to Commission members via email for comments to make sure it reflects this discussion accurately. New: ReQuest for Extension - 675 Hale Street. DEP File #5-838 -Vo2el Pond Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 8 of 12 Maxner explains that the Commission has received a request for a 2-year extension for the Vogel Pond aquatic nuisance vegetation management program. She notes that they requested a three-year extension but the Beverly Ordinance only allows a two year extension. Paluzzi moves to issue a two-year extension for 675 Hale Street, DEP File #5-838. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting held on September 30,2008 were presented for approval. Paluzzi moves to approve the minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting held on September 30,2008 as amended. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Johnson abstains. The minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting held on October 21,2008 were presented for approval. Johnson moves to approve the minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting held on October 21,2008. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Reilly and Cademartori abstain. The minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting held on November 18, 2008 were presented for approval. Paluzzi moves to approve the minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting held on November 18, 2008. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Reilly abstains. The minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting held on December 9,2008 were presented for approval. Paluzzi moves to approve the minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting held on December 9,2008 as amended. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7-0. The minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting held on January 13, 2009 were presented for approval. Paluzzi moves to approve the minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting held on January 13, 2008. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Cademartori and Johnson abstain. Hayes leaves the meeting at this time. OLD/NEW BUSINESS New: Discussion with Beverly Conservation Land Trust RE: Chapman's Corner CR Jane Brusca, President of the Beverly Conservation Land Trust, and Scott Houseman their counsel, are present at the meeting to discuss the mechanics of carrying out this Conservation Restriction for Chapman's Corner Subdivision. Jane Brusca addresses the Commission and explains that they would like to know what expectations the Commission has in terms of how the two parties holding the CR will work together to monitor Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 9 of 12 and enforce it. She explains the history of the Beverly Conservation Land Trust noting that it was established in 1999. She explains the mission of the BCL T and their accomplishments. Scott Houseman, Counsel for the BCL T addresses the Commission and reviews the mission statement. He explains that they have met twice on this matter and have considered the ambiguities of the CR. He states that there are four bottom line requirements that need to be established in order for the BCL T to accept this CR. He explains that they are concerned that the Land Trust not be liable for anything that happens on the property and they have consulted with Ed Becker of Essex County Greenbelt who has also provided guidance in this process. He notes that ECGB recommends that they get a baseline existing conditions inventory and Robert Griffin, the developer's engineer, has agreed to provide them with multiple sets of plans for the site. Houseman also explains that when ECGB accepts a CR they usually require an endowment to pay for ongoing process of monitoring and stewardship, and the BCL T is thinking that it may be appropriate for the developer to provide some sort of endowment, but are unsure of how much and if it would be a deal breaker if they weren't able to get one. Houseman reviews the main issues that they have outlined. He notes that they feel that the land should be subject to public access in the form of trails and that is of the utmost importance. He also states that it might be helpful to have some sort ofletter of understanding between the Land Trust and the Commission as to the mechanics of monitoring and enforcement. Johnson states that trails are nice but they may be too easy for bikes and motorized vehicles to access. Houseman agrees and they are not suggesting large fire roads for paths, just small footpaths. Houseman also states that a management plan would address the Conservation Restriction specifics regarding foot traffic. He stated that he would like an indication from the Commission if public access is appropriate. Lang stated that he felt that was the intention of the Commission. Members agree that they assumed public access would be an element of the CR. Houseman states that the management plan for the CR would provide for management of the Land Trust with the consultation of the Commission. He also stated that they would welcome the participation ofMaxner in developing the plan if she is available. Lang states that he feels that a management plan is in order. Houseman explains that enforcement of the Conservation Restriction would be spelled out and it would identify responsibility. Lang suggests that they review that matter with the City Solicitor. Houseman states that another issue is who would be responsible to monitor the conditions of the site. Houseman states that he feels that it would be the responsibility of the BCL T. Cademartori suggests that the Land Trust issue an annual report to the Conservation Commission as he assumed that the BCL T would be the primary entity for monitoring and enforcement. Brusca questions if the Land Trust would have to come to the Commission for the construction of the trails on the site. Houseman explains that he hopes that they could maintain them and not have to come to the Commission every time maintenance would need to be done. Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 10 of 12 Houseman states that the CR does not spell out the rights and limitations between the Land Trust and the Commission regarding the construction of the trails. Lang suggests that they come to the Commission for a Determination of Applicability. Houseman states that he does not think that this will be completed by March. He notes that they are very active on this and are doing their due diligence to be sure that it is done correctly but they need more time to iron out these issues and wonders if the Commission would be amenable to extending the deadline for CR execution. Maxner notes that the Order of Conditions specified that this should be done by February 1, 2009, but she thinks that was in order to keep this process moving along and for the developer to honor this obligation. Griffin states that his client is anxious to get this completed noting that there are cost factors but they are willing to work with the Land Trust on getting it right the first time. Houseman states that they a moving as quickly as they can and have scheduled weekly meetings on this. Lang states that he would like to entirely defer this to the Land Trust as the Commission is overwhelmed as it is. Discussion ensues regarding the possibility of the City of Beverly contributing funds on an annual basis for this. Lang notes that the Commission has funds and they could look into that. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Lang thanks Houseman and Brusca for attending the meeting and sharing this helpful information. Houseman states they will be in close contact with Maxner and the developer's team to get this completed as soon as possible. Cademartori leaves the meeting at this time. New: 90 & 92 Boyles Street. DEP File #5-972 & 5-974 - Loosestrife Mana2ement Plan- Discussion Brian Butler is present for the applicant. Carl and Susan Dumas are also present. Butler addresses the Commission and explains the process they intend to use for the Loosestrife Management. Maxner asks if they looked at the use of beetles as has been done in other areas. Butler noted that the permitting for that is problematic in that you have to have 1-2 acres minimum for that process, and this site is too small. He refers to the handout he supplied detailing the USDA's policy on this issue. He explains that there is a very large investment in the beetle release program and CZM and USDA wish to ensure long-term viability of sustained populations in any given location and the size of the area needs to be sufficient. He explains that they are proposing to us an herbicide Glycophosphate, or more commonly known as Round Up, and explains the application process. He notes that they will do two applications and spray during the dry season. Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 11 of 12 Discussion ensues regarding loosestrife management options. Lang asks if they will hire a licensed herbicide professional. Butler states that private property owners can apply Round Up without a license. Carl Dumas states that he will be doing the application but will have Butler present on site to provide guidance throughout the process. Members discuss this proposal and agree that this is an acceptable approach to managing the loosestrife but indicate that a formal protocol is needed for the file. Butler will submit a formal proposal for the next meeting and it will include a photo schedule of before, during and after photo documentation. Order of Conditions 53 Lothrop Street - Lisa and Robert Hubbard Discussion ensues as to potential conditions for the project. Paluzzi moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. Special Conditions as suggested and detailed in Griffin Engineering February 9, 2009 letter shall be adhered to as follows: a. That the manufacturer of the CCA-treated lumber provide written confirmation that their manufacturing process allowed EP A-recommended Best Management Practices regarding the use and fixation of CCA. b. That all the shavings and cuttings of CCA-treated lumber be collected, using vacuum means wherever possible, during construction of the pier and float. No lumber, cuttings or scrap shall be permitted to fall into the water, beach or coastal bank during construction. c. That the pier deck and float surfaces may not be constructed of CCA-treated lumber. 2. All work on the Coastal Bank shall be done manually, by hand and no heavy equipment shall be allowed on the bank at any time. 3. As described by the applicant's engineer during the February 10, 2009 hearing, the concrete for the stairway footings and concrete anchor block shall be pumped by way of a hose from the delivering truck that will be parked on the driveway. 4. The barge shall be floated in during high tide and may sit and be elevated on spuds on the beach at low tide and shall not be allowed to bottom out on the beach. 5. As described by the applicant's engineer, a small rubber-track vehicle may access the beach to perform the test borings and access may be from Quincy Park. Reilly seconds the motion. Motion carries 5-0. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening, Paluzzi moves to adjourn the meeting. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Beverly Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes - February 10, 2009 Page 12 of 12 The meeting adjourns at 10:30 p.m.