Loading...
2011-01-25CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: January 25, 2011 Board: Conservation Commission Members Present Chair David Lang, Tony Paluzzi, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Bill Squibb, Kate Glidden, and Mary Reilly Members Absent: 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 City Beverly Public Library, 32 Essex Street Beverly, MA. Recess for Public Hearings Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings at this time. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6 -0. Notice of Intent Cont: 4 Gavin Circle — Jon & Joan Perry Maxner informs the Commission that the applicant is not present this evening and she expected that they would attend to give a presentation. Paluzzi suggests that Maxner contact them one more time to see what their intentions are, and the Commission will continue the matter to the February 22, 2011 meeting. Johnson moves to continue the public hearing for 4 Gavin Circle to February 22, 2011. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 6 -0. Cont: 44- 46 River Street — National Grid/Boston Gas/Mass. Electric Erin Whoriskey and Jason Naiden of National Grid, Matt Varrell and Karen Fisk of VHB, Joe Higgins of Innovative Environmental Engineering are present for the applicant. Varrell addresses the Commission and explains that a site walk was held on January 15, 2011. He also notes that they have held discussion with the abutter Mr. Coffey regarding the impact on his site without a definite resolution at this time. Lang states that he has concerns about the site essentially turning into a hazardous waste landfill, which will likely continue to leach into the adjacent Bass River. He is not convinced that this proposal will be a permanent solution to the situation. Beverly Conservation Commission January 25, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 Joe Higgins addresses the Commission and states that the site is not really a landfill and explains that they are proposing an in -situ solution to cap and contain contaminated material on site. He explains that they intend to encapsulate the material that is there so it does not get into the river. Lang confirms that they are leaving contaminated material on the site and encapsulating it. Higgins confirms. Higgins explains that the material on the site exceeds the upper concentration limits and so long as it is restricted with the sheet pile wall system and topped with impervious pavement it would no longer be a threat to the river. He also explains that the buildings on the site will be removed and they will excavate 2,000 yards of material. He notes that if all of the material is excavated and removed from site it would be in excess of 30,000 yards and at very considerable expense and exposure during transport. He also notes that the tar holder and separator will be removed as well. Reilly asks how long the sheet piles will last. Higgins explains that the material is marine grade sheet steel and it should last 30 -50 years. He also explains that they will have to monitor the groundwater. Reilly asks what they would do if the sheet piling fails. Higgins explains that they would come back to the Commission for approval of a solution to the problem or replace the sheets. Squibb questions what would happen if the membrane fails. Higgins explains that they would pull it out and reinstall it. He explains that the sheet piles have material installed in interlocking sections. Lang questions why they are driving the piles on the riverside suggesting why not keep the work on the upland side, which would be less disruptive to the river. Higgins explains the location of the timber piles and also notes that they would have to pre- trench along where the historic piles are located. Lang notes that the Phase III Report was written in 2000. He questions why they would rely on a report that is 11 years old. Higgins explains that the 2000 plan was approved by DEP and they had waited to start the upland side but Grid and Boston Gas couldn't consolidate their operations fast enough, so they moved forward with the in -river work first, which was previously permitted by the Commission. Maxner states that she has two concerns as to resource areas on site. She notes they need to be sure that they are not impacting land under a water body as considering the function of the coastal bank and wants to make sure that impacts to those two resources are properly addressed in the NOI. Reilly agrees stating that she is concerned that sediments could be a problem. Varrell addresses the Commission and explains that they do not believe that they are doing any work in land under water. He also explains that the water is against the coastal bank and they are not going to change the function of the bank. Beverly Conservation Commission January 25, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6 Lang asks if there will be any monitoring of the river. Varrell explains that they dredged a substantial area in 2004 -2005 and removed 2000 yards of sediments that contained coal tar. He explains that they put back a scour control mat system, and annual monitoring took place with divers. He notes that there are no water quality or sediment tests planned at this time. Squibb asks what the deepest point of contaminated material is. Higgins explains that it is about 19 feet below grade. Reilly suggests that the Commission order a peer review of the plans for this project. Lang agrees noting that this is a complicated site, and this proposal is the least expensive option for mitigating the hazardous conditions. He also notes that the MCP is 11 years old and he wants to make sure that the Commission evaluates this fully and protects the river for the future. Varrell questions the need for a peer review noting that the MCP issues are not part of the Wetlands Protection Act under which the Commission has jurisdiction and that the project is a Limited Project. Lang notes that they cannot implement an MCP in Beverly without having some idea of what they are trying to do, noting that this work is in Riverfront Area, which requires an alternatives analysis. Reilly agrees and suggests that the Commission should look at the stormwater management for the site as well. Squibb notes that the neighboring lobsterman addressed the Commission at the last meeting and his issues should be kept in mind with the peer review. Varrell explains that they have held discussions with him and notes that the City sewer overflows on the site and there is not a lot that they can do about it. He explains that they reached out to talk about runoff that leaves the site and setup a meeting, which the man was unable to attend. Maxner suggests that they look at Best Management Practices regarding sweeping the site etc. Maxner asks if there is any opposition to improving the treatment of stormwater on the site. Varrell explains the conditions that exist on the site. Squibb questions what will be done with the material that is removed from the site. Varrell explains that it will be removed to a facility in New Hampshire. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to February 22, 2011 and that the Commission retain the services of an independent consultant for a peer review of the NOI, Stormwater Report and identify any resource area impacts that have not been addressed. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carried 6 -0. Old/New Business Cont: 96 & 102 Cherry Hill Drive — The Flatley Company/Meridian Engineering Associates Richard Cane of Flatley Company, Mike DeRosa of DeRosa Environmental and Charlie Wear of Meridian Associates are present for the Flately company. Beverly Conservation Commission January 25, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 Maxner explains that the Commission will recall conducting a site inspection in response to the Flatley Company's request to discuss the wetlands on site and the company's development plans. She explains that based on the Commission's feedback at the site visit, the company representatives and their wetland scientist Mike DeRosa have gathered more details regarding the true extent of quality wetlands on site and are here this evening to talk about their findings. Cane addresses the Commission and explains that the Commission visited the site on December 4, 2010 and as a result of that, Mike DeRosa has re- evaluated the site to determine the extent of higher quality wetland habitat on site. He explains that there is a 6 -acre parcel owned by the City located immediately north, which is under a purchase and sale agreement with Mr. Jack Kelleher. He explains that they are proposing to have Mr. Kelleher assign over the P &S to the Flatley Company to purchase the site and Flatley would then put a conservation restriction on the entire site. He also notes that they are proposing to restore the area noting that there is some damage from off road vehicles at the top of the site. He also notes that they are proposing to install "no trespassing signs" along the site and work with the Beverly Police Department to enforce them. Cane also explains that they will eliminate undergrowth along the street and reduce vegetation to increase visibility. Squibb suggests that the second lot with the conservation restriction be fenced in. Cane explains that the problem with fencing is they are not sure that it will work. Squibb notes that the concern could be a larger problem for the City. Maxner questions how much the wetland area has shrunk from the original flagging and how the area was analyzed. DeRosa explains the criteria he used for the flagging and explains that the area came up a little over 3,000 s.f., which was larger than he thought it would be. Cane notes that they are staying at lowest portion of the City site to have a better chance at restoration. Johnson states that he thinks the proposal is reasonable especially considering that the entire abutting 6 -acre site will remain untouched and undeveloped. Maxner questions if they are sure that the city is agreeable to relinquishing the Purchase and Sales Agreement noting that it was under an RFP. Kelleher explains that it is a binding Purchase and Sales Agreement and he has the right to assign it to anyone after that. Kelleher also notes that the plan will benefit the City from a tax perspective and he has discussed this with Mayor Scanlon as recently as last week. Lang indicates that the proposal seems to be going in the right direction and the Commission looks forward to seeing completed plans for a Notice of Intent. Members agree that they would be willing to entertain a proposal that includes a conservation restriction on the City property. The Commission thanks the applicants for their presentation to the Commission. Cont: 54 Paine Avenue, Enforcement Order — Tim Brady Beverly Conservation Commission January 25, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 Maxner informed the Commission that Mike DeRosa is finalizing a restoration plan for Mr. Brady and requested that the matter be continued to February 22, 2011. Johnson moves to continue the matter to February 22, 2011. Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carries 6 -0. Cont: Dix Way — McInnis Paving — Tim McInnis Tim McInnis is present. Maxner recalls that Tim McInnis, of McInnis Paving, operates his business out off of Dix Way immediately adjacent to Dix Park and a small stretch of open channel of Chubbs Brook in that vicinity. She notes that Mr. McInnis has been operating this business in this location for many years and is compliant with Zoning and various materials from his operation are stored in outdoor "bins" that he does cover most of the time. She explains that the Commission will recall issuing an Order of Conditions governing construction of 18 -inch high pre -cast concrete block wall along the Greenwood Avenue extension and raising the existing earthen berm at Dix Park by 12 inches as part of the continued Chubbs Brook drainage project efforts. Restorative Riverfront Area plantings were installed along the edge of the open channel on Dix Way, which was executed by the Beverly Farms Improvement Society, separate from the City proper. Members of the Beverly Farms Improvement Society have mentioned to Mr. McInnis that they think his business is a wetlands violation and have threatened to report him to DEP. She notes that he called inquiring if the Commission would issue a letter stating that he is not in violation. Maxner notes that a site visit was held on Saturday January 15 which she was unable to attend and asks the Commission for feedback from the visit on this matter. Lang notes that the Commission did not find any violations during the site visit that was held. Paluzzi agrees and suggests that the Commission issue the letter as requested. Lang notes that the bins were covered at the time and if they remain so, he does not have concerns from a wetlands perspective. Johnson moves to issue a letter stating that the Commission visited the site and found no violations. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 6 -0. McInnis thanks the Commission for its time and consideration in this matter. New: 875 Hale Street — Clarification of Order of Conditions, DEP File #5 -1038 — Robert Lewis Mr. Lewis is present at the meeting. Maxner explains that Mr. Lewis sent a letter requesting clarification of the special conditions issued for the project, specifically what is allowed within the 25 -Foot No Disturb Zone. Maxner explains that she received a response letter from Peter Ogren and she also listened to the recording of the meeting. She recalled that the NDZ called for 10 feet to be an absolute NDZ and the rest would be for mowing only and there was no mention of structures in the area and the intent was not to allow recreational equipment in the area. Beverly Conservation Commission January 25, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6 Lang notes that it is a No Disturb Zone and not a playground area and the intent was to have a grassy mowed area and then naturalized vegetation and then wetland. Maxner agrees and notes that anyone that wants to install a play structure or a barbeque area would have to come back to the Commission for approval. Reilly agrees noting that the proposed plan did not depict any accessory structures associated with the houses, and she therefore expects such structures would have to be reviewed separately under new applications. Members agree and suggest Maxner send a letter to the developer to clarify this and make note of the Commission's determination. Discussion: Proposed Location for Dog Park Maxner addresses the Commission and explains that the Dog Park Committee has located potential space for a Dog Park on airport land behind the airport Commissioners Building. She reviews the area and notes the proposed location noting that there is a wetland along LP Henderson and near the taxi way. Lang notes that the proposed location does not appear to be near the wetland. Maxner explains that the neighbors on Trask Street are concerned about the possibility of more trees being removed from the area. She notes that she is concerned about the extent of the activity in the buffer zone and notes the location on the plans. Lang suggests that Maxner look at the site and if it looks like there might be a problem then it should be delineated. Paluzzi states that he will visit the site with Maxner. Endicott College — DEP File # 5 -1045 Maxner explains that Endicott College lounge addition and pedestrian connector project is starting at the Wylie Inn and the contractor inquired about clean snow management. She explains that there is so much snow that they are shoveling it to the other side of the silt fence. Paluzzi clarifies that they are not plowing the snow they are moving it by shovel. Maxner confirms this. Lang states that there should be no issue with that as long as it is clean snow. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Beverly Conservation Commission meeting held on November 9, 2010 are presented for approval. Paluzzi moves to approve the minutes as amended. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0 -1 with Glidden abstaining. Adiournment There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening, Johnson moves to adjourn the meeting. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 6 -0. The meeting adjourns at 9:00 P.M.