Loading...
2011-02-22CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: February 22, 2011 Board: Conservation Commission Members Present Chair David Lang, Tony Paluzzi, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Kate Glidden, and Mary Reilly, and Bill Squibb 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 has requested a continuance to the March 15, 2011 meeting. Paluzzi moves to continue to March 15, 2011. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6- 0. Cont: 44- 46 River Street — National Grid/Boston Gas/Mass. Electric Maxner recalls that the Commission voted to secure the services of the services of a third party peer review to review the following: ➢ Review Notice of Intent, associated narratives and plans to determine compliance with the performance standards of the Wetlands Protection Act and Regulations (3 10 CMR 10. 00, et. seq.) and Beverly Wetlands Protection Ordinance and Regulations for all resource areas and determine if there are any resource area impacts not recognized or documented and properly addressed in the application; ➢ Review the Stormwater Management Report and associated documents for compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Regulations; ➢ Develop an opinion as to the adequacy of the presently designated MCP Remedial Response Action (RRA) on a fact - specific /regulatory basis as it relates to immediate and long -term protection of the Riverfront Area and other on site resource areas, including whether there Beverly Conservation Commission February 22, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 are other reasonable alternatives it might include to protect the resource areas. Your assessment of all the alternatives relative to the likelihood of the cost, ability to protect the resource areas and satisfactory execution of the finally designated RRA to the presently designated RRA, and submit that comparison opinion as part of your findings, per below; ➢ Submit a written report of your findings in advance of and attend the February 22, 2011 Conservation Commission meeting to present said findings and take questions and offer advice if warranted. Maxner explains that New England Environmental submitted the lower bid and included options for the firm conducting a site visit and having an LSP come to the meeting. She recommends that the Commission authorize the site visit and LSP and vote to include these in the services. She also explains that she is still waiting for National Grid to cut a check so the review can begin, and suggests that the Commission continue the hearing to the March 15 meeting. Lang questions whether National Grid is aware of the changes to the scope of services for the peer review. Maxner confirms that they are aware of it and are agreeable to including the additional services. Paluzzi moves to include the site visit and the LSP in the scope of services for the Peer Review of 42 -44 River Street, National Grid, and to continue the public hearing to March 15, 2011. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6 -0. New: 22 Fosters Point — Donna McMahon Lang recuses himself from discussion of this matter. Maxner reads legal notice. Tom Mannetta of Mannetta Inc. and Patrick Seakamp of Seakamp Environmental are present for the applicant. Squibb arrives. Mannetta addresses the Commission and explains that the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single - family house and construct a new 3 bedroom dwelling roughly within the same footprint. He notes that all but 53 square feet of the lot is within the 200 -Foot Riverfront area. He notes that the applicants went through the ZBA process to gain relief from side yard set backs, noting that they received the variance, noting that they are restricted by the lot shape. Seakamp addresses the Commission and explains the resource areas and their locations on the plans. He also explains the footprint of the new dwelling and the location of the driveway, noting that the location of the driveway will not change. He estimates that the overall change between the existing and the proposed houses will be about 102 s.f. of Riverfront Area impact. He also explains that the proposed deck is within the 25 foot NDZ but is cantilevered off the second floor therefore no ground impact will result. Beverly Conservation Commission February 22, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 Johnson states his opinion that the 25' NDZ does have air rights. Mannetta explains the location of the deck and interprets the Beverly Regulations that ground disturbance is the trigger. Reilly questions if the house will be built on pilings. Mannetta explains that it will be slab on grade. Maxner questions what the extent of the over -dig for the slab on grade will be. Mannetta explains that it will be about 4 feet. He explains that they will have to go into the NDZ to over dig in a corner and explains the location on the plan. Reilly questions if they anticipate any tree removal for this project. Mannetta states that everything that is presently there will stay aside from a shrub clump immediately adjacent to the house. Reilly states that she is concerned about root disturbance to the existing tree and recommends that they take extra caution to be sure that the roots are not damaged during construction. Reilly questions the slab on grade and asks how they will excavate for that. Mannetta explains that they will dig a trench and install a frost wall noting that it will be minimal impact compared to a full foundation. Maxner asks where they will set up equipment for the demolition of the house. Mannetta explains that they will take it down and remove the material right out and store the dumpster in the driveway. Reilly asks if there are any plans to replant and enhance the area that is presently lawn. Mannetta explains that they will re -seed when the construction is complete noting that the area is all grass now. Maxner asks Seakamp if there is any degrade marsh or resource area that could be improved. Seakamp notes that the area is a backwater cove on the Danvers River and at low tide it is a mud flat. He also notes that there is a low bank between the mud flat. He explains the area on the plans, noting that the salt marsh is pretty healthy along the property and there is nothing in the marsh area that is severely degraded. He also notes that the mean high water mark is at the top of high tide. Maxner also notes that the NDZ should be marked out on the plan. Marietta agrees to add that. Reilly notes that the backyard will be in the NDZ and suggests that they consider doing some plantings instead of keeping grass. Seakamp agrees and suggests they could install some clump plantings of berry producing shrubs, noting that he would be reluctant to specify rugosa rose. He states that he will confer with the homeowner and get some ideas from them. Maxner agrees and states that she would like to see areas of naturalized vegetation that is not heavily manicured. Seakamp suggests that he would come off the edge of the salt marsh to provide a shrub buffer between the land and salt marsh. Maxner clarifies that there is no work proposed pertaining to the existing pier. Mannetta confirms this. Beverly Conservation Commission February 22, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 Johnson states that he would feel more inclined to approve this if the porch were narrower so it does not go into the NDZ. He notes that he feels that the NDZ has air rights and as it is proposed it is in violation of the local Ordinance. Mannetta explains that they are not disturbing vegetation and there are no stairs for the porch. He also notes that they can add plantings that may benefit the NDZ. Maxner agrees that the issue of air rights is a good point, noting that she does not think that this issue has come up before. She also notes that when considering the impact on the NDZ she usually worries about ground disturbance in the NDZ. Mannetta states that a lot of thought has gone into this proposal to get to this point and the ZBA decision required that they shrink the initial footprint. SeaKamp states that the NDZ area is grass now and the current function will be in tact when this project is complete. He further notes that the amount of the deck that juts out will not change anything. Johnson questions if rainfall will come through the deck. Mannetta states that it will come through. Paluzzi asks for a rough idea of the square footage of the deck with the overhang. Mannetta estimates that it will be 20 -25 square feet. He notes the location on the plan. Paluzzi suggests that the Commission visit the site. Johnson agrees noting that he hopes that the snow will melt some before the visit. The Commission will visit the site on March 12, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. Paluzzi asks if there are any comments or questions from the public. There are none. Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to the March 15, 2011 meeting, pending a site inspection on March 12, 2011. Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. Lang returns to the meeting. Old/New Business Cont: 54 Paine Avenue, Enforcement Order — Tim Brady Paluzzi recuses himself from discussion of this matter. Maxner informs the Commission that Mr. Brady has submitted a planting plan and his consultant has a conflict this evening and is unable to attend. She explains that she reviewed the plan and asks if the Commission is comfortable with the plan or would they like a presentation from the applicant's specialist. Beverly Conservation Commission February 22, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 Reilly states that she feels that the plan is very thorough. Maxner asks if the members are comfortable with the restorative aspects of the buffer zone. Members indicate that they are. Maxner notes that an ongoing maintenance plan has also been proposed and will be submitted with a final written report. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Reilly moves to approve to wetland and buffer zone restoration plan for 54 Paine Avenue. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. New: Proposed Changes to the Watershed Protection Overlay District Ordinance — Request for Comments From City Council — Maxner explains that the members of the Beverly Safe Drinking Water Alliance (the "Alliance ") attended the January 24, 2011 City Council's Legal Affairs Committee (the "Committee ") meeting and presented a proposed draft amending the City's Watershed Protection Overlay District (Section 29 -31.0 of the Zoning Ordinance) by replacing it with a new Water Supply Protection Overlay District. Members of the Alliance include Mary Rodrick, Pamela Kampersal, Robert Hames, Renee Mary & David Dearborn. The Committee has forwarded this proposal to the Conservation Commission and asked for a reply, feedback and /or suggestions regarding the matter by April 1, 2011. The proposal was also sent to the City Planner/Department, City Solicitor, Planning Board, Building Inspector, Fire Department, Beverly /Salem Water Supply Board and the Airport Commission for comments. Maxner explains that the proposal is threefold as follows: ➢ The first component of the proposal is to replace the existing Ordinance with a new one. The text varies significantly from the current Ordinance by providing for more detailed processes for permitting, approval, enforcement and expanded definitions and by -right and prohibited uses etc. The Alliance presumably relied to some extent on the requirements in the Massachusetts Watershed Protection Act MGL 350 CMR 11 when composing the draft (as they mention in their cover letter). As mentioned above, Planning Department Staff will conduct a review of the text, conceivably with input from other City entities with expertise on our watersheds (Beverly Salem Water Supply Board and City Engineering Department), and will make recommendations on its content. ➢ The second component of the proposal is to amend the Watershed Protection Overlay District map. The Alliance describes the proposed maps as relying on "the watershed protection zones created in 1996 by the Mass DEP drinking Water Program and aligns the watershed boundary with the watershed approved by Mass DEP." The revisions re- delineate the watershed boundary and include areas of DEP designated medium yield aquifer(s). The Planning Department intends to consult with and rely upon the recommendations of other City entities with expertise in this area (Beverly Salem Water Supply Board and City Engineering Department) on the adequacy of the proposed maps. The Commission's collective expertise would be helpful in this respect as well. Beverly Conservation Commission February 22, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 ➢ The third component is the creation of a citizen advisory committee entitled, the "Watershed Protection Advisory Council" composed of "concerned residents and /or elected officials" whose purpose would be to advise the SPGA on special permit requests within the overlay district, make recommendations on updating the ordinance as needed, public education, interact with other Cities and Towns watershed groups and governments on watershed protection issues and represent interest of watershed protection with other Beverly Boards and Commissions. Maxner notes that this will not be the only opportunity for the Commission to comment on this proposal if the Council ultimately decides to sponsor it as a formal zoning amendment. She explains that if the Council does a formal amendment the Planning Board and the Council will hold a joint public hearing and the Council will consider the Commission's recommendations when making its decision. She also suggests that members review the proposal and if they have comments or need more information to let her know. Bob Hames of the Alliance addresses the Commission to answer any questions they may have. He provides a brief chronology on how this proposal came about and presents larger scale maps of the revised watershed boundaries for the Commission to review. Lang explains that back in the mid 1980's Mayor Moynihan decided to explore the possibility of establishing a watershed protection ordinance and appointed Lang, among others to serve on a committee to draft the ordinance. He notes that the watershed boundaries were a point of contention for many in the community and was subject to various interests, which resulted in a boundary delineation that was not based entirely on scientific mapping methods. He provides a brief history of the development of the ordinance and its final passage. Discussion ensues regarding the current ordinance and proposed changes. Members agree that revisiting the physical boundary of the watershed based on true mapping methods is worthwhile. Maxner suggests that the Commission take some more time to review and digest this draft proposal and be prepared to discuss this further at the next meeting. She offers to research any part of the proposal for the Commission if they determine more information is needed. Maxner asks Hames to provide the PDF's of the revised watershed map and for the citation that the Alliance used to craft the Ordinance. Hames agrees. Expenditures Maxner explains that she was able to establish an account for the Conservation Commission at the Registry of Deeds so that in the future she won't have to pay for Registry transactions out of pocket. She notes there is an invoice for recording an affidavit releasing the enforcement order for 71 Brimbal Avenue in the amount of $75.00. Johnson moves to approve expenditures for reimbursement to Maxner in the amount of $75.00. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 6 -0. Beverly Conservation Commission February 22, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Beverly Conservation Commission meeting held on January 4, 2011 are presented for approval. Paluzzi moves to approve the minutes as amended. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0 -2 with Lang and Reilly abstaining. Amendment to Beverly Conservation Commission Regulations Maxner states that the Commission has been talking about amending the regulations and suggests that she draft a track and change document for the Commission to review, noting that she has some ideas about a minor project permitting process. Lang agrees that a draft is a good place for the Commission to start. Proposed Location for Dog Park Maxner notes that she and Paluzzi are supposed to go out the airport to review the proposed location for the dog park, but are hoping for some more snow to melt to get a better site conditions for observation. 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 8:45 p.m.