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.