2010-01-26
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Date:
Board:
Members Present
January 26,2010
Conservation Commission
Chairman David Lang, Tony Paluzzi, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Kate
Glidden, Mary Reilly
Members Absent:
Bill Squibb, Gregg Cademartori
Others Present:
Amy Maxner - Environmental Planner
Recorder:
Eileen Sacco
Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Beverly Public Library, 32 Essex Street,
Beverly, Ma.
Certificate of Compliance
Cont: Sam Fonzo Drive. DEP File #5-844 - Fonzo Realtv. LLC
Maxner explains that she expects a plan to be filed soon to depict the correct limits of the
easement so that the balance of the undisturbed land is protected. She recommends that the
matter be continued to the February 23,2010 meeting.
Paluzzi moves to continue the matter to the next meeting. Reilly seconds the motion. The
motion carries 5-0.
Recess for Public Hearim!:s
Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings at this time. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion
carries 5-0.
Notice of Intent
Cont: 114 Hart Street - Jeff Lawler
Maxner informs the Commission voted that the matter be continued to the February 23,2010
meeting at the last meeting, and no discussion of the matter will be held this evening.
New: 875 Hale Street - OSRD Site Plan Review & Preliminary Subdivision Plan Review-
Plannim!: Board ReQuest for Comments
Maxner reads the memo from Assistant Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi. She explains that
the Planning Board is requesting that the Commission review these concept plans and make
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 26, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of5
comments as appropriate during this "Initial Review" of the application. She explains that the
Commission will recall recently issuing an ORAD that affirmed Bordering Vegetated Wetland to
an Intermittent Stream and a small sliver of Riverfront on the property. She explains that based
on comments received from the Commission, other boards and departments within the City and
abutters, the Planning Board will choose a Preferred Plan that may incorporate changes as
recommended by all of the parties. Maxner notes that she prepared draft comments for the
Commission to review and help facilitate discussion. She provides members of the public in
attendance copies of the OSRD site plans for them to follow along with.
The Commission reviews the draft comment letter and proposed plans. Maxner notes that a
conceptual yield plan has been provided that shows the potential number of lots that the
developer can build by right under the existing zoning which is RIO. She notes that plan shows
six lots. The Commission reviews the plan. Reilly notes that there was no narrative submitted
with the plan so it is difficult to interpret the applicant's rationale in some instances. Members
agree that a narrative would have been helpful.
Maxner reviews the OSRD ordinance with the Commission. Lang notes that the yield plan
makes some assumptions that the 100-Foot Buffer Zone (BZ) can be almost entirely developed.
He also notes that it appears that they are counting wetland as open space on the plan.
Maxner notes that she addresses the conceptual yield plan at the beginning of the comment letter
and noted that she stated that the applicant presumes that the Commission will permit complete
disturbance of the 100 foot buffer zone outside of the 25 foot No Disturb Zone and the 25' NDZ
is a minimum performance standard of protection rather than a maximum as assumed on the
yield plan.
Maxner also stated in the letter that it is the applicant's burden to prove, through sensitive site
design, that the project meets all of the performance standards of both the Wetlands Protection
Act and Ordinance. Discussion ensues regarding the Commission's permitting process and
members suggest that comments on the yield plan incorporate more detail on what the
Commission looks for in allowing disturbance in the BZ.
The Commission reviews the comment letter pertaining to the Conceptual OSRD Plan Option 1
& L 1 Site Assessment. The comments letter states that it appears that Option 1 does not meet
the 50% open space requirement with only 39% of the buildable area set aside for open space.
She also notes that a stormwater detention basin is proposed with the open space area, which is
being counted toward the open space calculation contrary to provisions in the Ordinance. It is
also noted that the 100-foot buffer area around the wetland, a primary conservation area, is not
maintained and is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Ordinance.
Lang suggests that language be added to include that a waiver from the Planning Board must be
sought to build in primary conservation land and the OSRD provisions are cited in the letter as
well.
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 26, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Page 30f5
Maxner continues to review the hammer head access road and driveway layouts and guest
parking, which may require additional planning at this stage as in some cased they appear
difficult to navigate and clearly cannot be use for parking as they are far less that the length of a
typical parking spot. Members discuss roadway design and parking requirements and emergency
vehicle access.
Members agree that the layout with the majority of the house sites located on the non wetland
resource side of the roadway is favorable noting the Commission's experience with houses so
close to the wetland. Maxner further notes that homeowners of lots with wetland resources and
buffer zones are subject to project review of nearly all activities on their properties.
Lang agrees and notes that there is less likelihood of violations if residential uses are separated
from the wetlands and BZ.
Maxner reviews the comments regarding the Conceptual OSRD Plan Option 2 & L-2 Conceptual
Landscape Plan. She notes that as with Option 1, it appears that the 50% open space requirement
is not met with Option 2 with only 38% of the buildable area set aside. She further notes that an
above surface stormwater structure is also sited within the open space and counted toward
calculation of the same. The 100-foot buffer to the primary conservation area is not maintained.
Maxner makes a suggestion that a more compact development layout, which eliminates one of
the lots, could result in a shorter roadway thus preserving a greater amount of open space and
buffer zone in the southern portion of the tract, which is encompassed by primary conservation
areas. She suggests that the plan be shifted up a whole house lot.
Johnson agrees noting that it would be much less disturbance on the site if the layout could be
more compact. Reilly suggests that more LID techniques be incorporated into the design and
asks if drainage calculations have been done. Discussion ensues regarding potential
opportunities for LID methods on site. Maxner states that no drainage studies have been
submitted at this stage, but the engineer may very well have already run the calculations. She
notes that this is a very preliminary stage and this process is to aid the Planning Board in
choosing a preferred concept plan that can be further tweaked and scrutinized down the line.
Lang states that he feels that both concept plans do not meet the intent or objectives of the OSRD
Ordinance. He states that the Commission may not approve lots 4 & 5 on the yield plan.
Lang opens the discussion up for public comment at this time.
Robert Lewis of 903 Hale Street addresses the Commission and expresses his concerns about the
topography of the land that they will have to change to build these houses. Maxner notes that the
OSRD is supposed to be sensitive to landscape and topography. Lang suggests that the
Commission include a comment about that in the letter.
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 26, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Page 40f5
Nancy Coffey of97 Haskell Street addresses the Commission and questions if the existing
building will be torn down. Maxner states that she is not sure what their plans are for the
existing structures. She notes that the two structures may be subdivide by ANR and remain.
Rene Mary, 274 Hale Street, suggests that the Commission require the applicant to submit a
viable narrative for the plans. Lang explains that these are conceptual plans for the purposes of
commenting to the Planning Board and the Commission has no authority to require anything. He
suggests that the Commission could recommend to the Planning Board that in the future,
narratives should be included to avoid assumptions.
Ms. Coffey addresses the Commission again and expresses her concerns about additional
flooding in the area because of the development. Maxner explains that the Planning Board will
require a full drainage study.
Tom Grant of 868 Hale Street addresses the Commission and expresses his concerns about
parking and the width of the proposed road.
Lang suggests that he would like to see the applicant be more sensitive with regards to design.
He recommends that the Commission push for the elimination of lot 4 and that they be more
creative with stormwater management. He reviews the Commission's recommendations and
asks Maxner to incorporate them into the draft letter.
Discussion ensues regarding the OSRD process and opportunities for abutter and public input.
Maxner reminds everyone that the Planning Board will hold a public hearing on February 9th and
that abutters will be receiving a notification in the mail.
Maxner agrees to edit the comment letter and email it to members for a final review before
submitting it to the Planning Board.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Beverly Conservation Commission meeting held on December 8,2009 were
presented for approval. Johnson moves to approve the minutes as submitted. Reilly seconds the
motion. The motion carries (4-0-1) with Paluzzi abstaining.
L.P. Henderson Road. DEP File #5-1022 - Hammr - An2ier Ames
Maxner informs the Commission that she conducted a pre-construction meeting for the new
hangar at the airport proposed by Angier Ames. She notes that Alan Battistelli informed her that
they planned on removing an area of pavement between the two hangars and this may remove a
small topographic divide between the wetland and the taxiway. They are contemplating loaming
and seeding this area or they offered to put in crushed stone to help with infiltration. She wanted
to bring this to the Commission's attention because it was not discussed at the meeting at all and
she thought the Commission needed to know. She provides a map of the area in question for the
members to review.
Beverly Conservation Commission
January 26, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Page 50f5
Lang notes that removal of impervious surface is always favorable and he has no preference
between grass and gravel and he doubts that the removal of the small drainage divide will impact
the. Members discuss the drainage in the area.
Members agree that grass is an acceptable final treatment of the surface and they have no issue
with the removal of the pavement, and agree that no major impact should be expected with
drainage.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening, Johnson moves to
adjourn the meeting. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0.
The meeting adjourns at 8:45 p.m.