Loading...
2011-03-15CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: March 15, 2011 Board: Conservation Commission Members Present Vice Chair, Tony Paluzzi, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Kate Glidden, Gregg Cademartori Members Absent: Chair David Lang, Mary Reilly and William Squibb Others Present: Amy Maxner — Environmental Planner Recorder: Eileen Sacco by tape recording Paluzzi calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Beverly City Beverly Public Library, 32 Essex, Street Beverly, MA. Certificate of Compliance New: 85 Herrick Street, DEP File #5 -1009 — Beverly Hospital Helipad Maxner informed the Commission that the Commission received a request for a Certificate of Compliance from Beverly Hospital for the helipad project. She explains that since Dr. Johnson is recusing himself from this matter, the Commission does not have a quorum to vote on this tonight. She also explains that the site is not in compliance at this time and states that it will be administratively continued to the April 5, 2011. Recess for Public Hearings Johnson moves to recess for public hearings at this time. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. Notice of Intent Cont: 4 Gavin Circle — Jon & Joan Perry Maxner informs the Commission that Mr. Perry has requested a continuance to the April 5, 2011 meeting. Squibb moves to continue the public hearing for 4 Gavin Circle to April 5, 2011. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. Cont: 44- 46 River Street — National Grid/Boston Gas/Mass. Electric Maxner explains that the Commission has been waiting for National Grid to deliver a check for the peer review of the project. She explains that they delivered a check today and have requested that the matter be continued to the April 5, 2011 Conservation Commission meeting. Beverly Conservation Commission March 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 Johnson moves to continue the public hearing for 44 -46 River Street to the April 5, 2011 Conservation Commission meeting, seconded by Glidden. The motion carries 4 -0. Cont: 22 Fosters Point — Donna McMahon Tom Mannetta and Patrick Seekamp are present for the applicant. The applicant, Donna McMahon is also present in the audience. Mannetta addresses the Commission and explains that a site visit was held on March 12, 2011 and they have submitted revisions to the plans based on recommendations from the Commission. Mannetta explains that they have pulled back the hay bale line to correspond with the NDZ. He also notes that they have pulled the back the hay bale line 16 feet from the cedar tree so as not to disturb the roots of the tree. He notes that the column supports are all outside of the NDZ and there will be 66 square feet of overhang from the second story porch in the air area NDZ. Seekamp addresses the Commission and explains that there was discussion about the location for the planting area and notes that he has designed it for the northwest corner of the site. He notes that he has recommended 5 shrub species, for flexibility for the homeowner in purchasing them. He notes that his specifications call for 15 shrubs, which are to be planted dense at 8 feet on center. He also notes that he has included wild flower species to be planted around the existing flagpole and also to be planted randomly throughout the planting area between the shrubs. He notes that the area is presently a mowed lawn area. Mannetta explains that current porch wraps around the south side of the house and the side facing the marsh area. He notes that the new construction will result in a small gain in grass and vegetated area. Paluzzi asks if the upper deck is still going to overhang the porch. Mannetta explains that there will be approximately 11 feet high overhead. Johnson asks if the deck is still proposed to be enclosed at the second level. Mannetta states that it will be enclosed. Maxner notes that they explained at the site visit that the applicant is planning to leave the existing driveway gravel and asks if that is still the case. Mannetta states that there are no plans to pave the driveway at this time. Maxner states that she would recommend that the Commission issue a special condition that the approval for this project does not include paving the driveway and if in the future the applicant wants to pave the driveway they will have to come back to the Commission for approval. Mannetta states that they agree to that. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on this matter. Beverly Conservation Commission March 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 There being no further questions or comment regarding this matter, Johnson moves to close the public hearing. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. New: 38 South Terrace — Timothy Lundergan Maxner reads legal notice. David Smith of Vine Associates is present along with the applicant Timothy Lundregan. Smith addresses the Commission and explains that this is a small area about 55 feet wide lot and explains the site. He notes that there is a small stonewall that fronts on the Danvers River and portions of it failed as the result of the three -day storm a year ago. He explains that the wall is in poor shape and there is exposed ledge in some parts of it. Smith explains that they surveyed the site and looked at various options and are proposing to replace the wall with a reinforced concrete footings and pre -cast blocks. He explains the process for construction of the wall noting that they will use a small excavator and most of the work for the construction of the wall will be done from the landside of the property. He also notes that there is existing vegetation on the landside, which is dense poison oak, which will be removed. He also notes that there is a granite pad and steps located to the left of the wall and they will use concrete in sections to blend it in with the wall. He explains that once the wall is constructed they will backfill behind it. Smith explains the resource areas associated with the site as coastal bank, coastal beach, and land subject to coastal storm flowage and 200 -Foot Riverfront Area. He explains that after they filed the Notice of Intent he realized that the house, buffer zone and the 25 -Foot NDZ were not pictured on the plans. He also notes that the work proposed is within the 25 foot NDZ and they are requesting a waiver from that. Smith explains that they are proposing a planting plan to loam and seed, between the wall and the house, and install a row of vegetation in the area where they are proposing to remove the poison oak. Paluzzi asks if the construction of the wall will impact the wave force of the neighboring property. Smith states that he doubts that it will and explains the location on the plan noting that the wall already takes a dogleg back into the side of the lot landward. Paluzzi asks if the old wall sections will be removed from the site. Smith explains that the stones will be removed from the site and they are hoping to be able to use the soil as the backfill behind the wall. Maxner asks if they will use a bobcat for the project. Smith explains that they will use a bobcat and notes that the maximum height of the wall will be about 7 feet. Beverly Conservation Commission March 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 Cademartori asks if the existing wall is licensed. Smith explains that it is not and they will be filing for a Chapter 91 license for this project. Maxner notes that there is a comment from DEP regarding the Riverfront Area. Smith states that he thinks that is strange because they are exempt from the Riverfront Regulation because they are getting a state Chapter 91 license. Maxner asks what size blocks they are proposing to use. Smith explains that they would vary in size from 2 -5 feet in width and 4 feet in length about 1600 pounds average. Paluzzi asks if they will go beyond the present toe of the slope when they excavate for the foundation. Smith explains that they are planning to stay within the existing footprint for the wall. Maxner asks if the footings will be subsurface. Smith explains that they may be able to see some on the footings and shows photos of the same type of wall in another location. He also explains that they will know more once they start digging noting that the thickness of the concrete will depend on the ledge. Maxner asks what they plan for erosion control. Smith states that there is not much that they can do but notes that they will use a siltation boon along the work site and open excavation will be covered and weighted down. Maxner asks if the concrete will be poured at low tide. Smith explains that the footings will be poured at low tide to allow for adequate curing time. He also explains that once the first row of blocks are installed they will above the high tide mark. Maxner asks Smith if he feels that there is a need for him to be onsite during construction. Smith states that it would depend on the contractor for the project but noted that he plans to be onsite for the excavation in case any changes need to be made to the plans. Maxner suggests that the Commission visit the site. Paluzzi agrees. The Commission discusses possible dates for the site visit and decides on Monday, March 21, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. Johnson notes that he is not available that evening and requests that the applicant allow him to visit the site on his own at another time. Smith states that it would not be a problem. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on this matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to continue the public hearing for 38 South Terrace to April 5, 2011 pending a site visit on Monday, March 21, 2011. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. New: 188 Elliott Street — Christ The Redeemer Anglican Church c/o William Harper Beverly Conservation Commission March IS, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page S of 11 Maxner reads legal notice. Bill Manuell is present for the applicants. William Harper representative for the applicant is also present. Manuell addresses the Commission and explains that the first page of the Notice of Intent is missing from the filing and distributes it to Commission members and Maxner. Manuell explains that this project is being filed concurrently with the Beverly Conservation Commission and the Town of Danvers Conservation Commission because both municipal boundaries run through the property. He explains that there is a perforated pipe in a ditch along the edge of the parking lot that is clogged and the Church needs to reestablish drainage to abate flooding and very bad icing in the winter. He notes that he flagged the wetlands last summer. Manuell explains that they are proposing to remove the old perforated pipe and stone in the ditch and establish a drainage swale with slopes to be seeded with a wetland seed mix and this will result in 260 square feet of temporary BVW impact. He further explains that they will uncover the inlet to the drainage pipe that takes water from the ditch to the subsurface drainage system in the parking lot and replace that if necessary. Cademartori questions if there is another pipe inlet that extended to the area on the down stream end of the ditch on the Beverly side. Manuell states that it shows on the plan but he could not locate it in the field. Maxner suggests that the pipe could be covered with muck. Manuell agrees that it could be noting that organic material fell in there. Maxner questions if maintenance is proposed for the swale. Manuell explains that the site should be mowed 1 or 2 times per year to keep a positive flow and the swale free of woody vegetation. Maxner notes that DEP has commented on the project. Manuell explains that crushed stone shows on the plan, but that is an oversight and it will be removed from the plan. Maxner suggests that the Commission visit the site. Paluzzi agrees. The Commission scheduled a site visit for March 21, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. Maxner suggests that the Commission might invite the Danvers Conservation Commission to join the site visit. Manuell states that Danvers will open their hearing tomorrow night and he will inform them of this site inspection date. Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. John Makros of Hillcrest Avenue addresses the Commission and states that the pipe in Beverly is horizontal and he knows it is there because you can see it in the manhole. He also notes that a neighbor told him that the pipe is blocked and his basement gets flooded. He also notes that the neighbor notified the City of Beverly regarding the problem, and that DPW used to clean the pipe but hasn't done so in quite a while. Beverly Conservation Commission March 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 The owner of 6 Beverly Hills Avenue addresses the Commission and explains that there was construction a few years back and there are still standing water problems from that and he is not sure if this proposal will impact that or not. He notes that they are meeting with neighbors this week in the area that floods. Manuell explains that this project will not create any more flooding in the area as it is meant to encourage flow of water into the municipal drainage system. He also notes that there is a lot of dumped debris between the parking lot and the ditch is thickly vegetated. He explains that they will clean that out and replace it with a French drain. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to April 5, 201 1pending a site visit on March 21, 2011. Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. Old/New Business Cont: Proposed Changes to the Watershed Protection Overlay District Ordinance — Reguest for Comments From City Council Maxner explains that the Commission opened discussion of this matter at the last meeting and the discussion was continued so that the members could have time to read the draft and formulate any recommendations. She notes that the general consensus at the last meeting was overall support for the Council to consider updating the WPOD and recommends that the Commission write a letter of support to that effect. Johnson states that the intent is good and he has no apprehensions about. He agrees that the Commission should write a letter of support. Members agree noting that the Ordinance was written 25 years ago. Cademartori notes that the watershed boundaries should be updated per current watershed mapping techniques. Discussion ensues as to the Commission's comments. Bob Hames of the Safe Drinking Water Alliance addresses the Commission and provides color copies of the watershed delineation maps. Johnson moves that the Commission send a letter of support for the proposed changes to the watershed protection overlay district ordinance to the Beverly City Council Legal Affairs Committee. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. Maxner will write a letter encapsulating the Commission's recommendations and get it to the City Council Legal Affairs Committee by the April 1, 2011 deadline. New: 875 Hale Street — OSRD Site Plan Application Planning Board Request For Comments — Montrose School Park, LLC Peter Ogren and Jeff Rhuda are present for the applicant. Beverly Conservation Commission March 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 Ogren addresses the Commission and explains that the Planning Board chose the preferred plan for the site and they are in the process of Site Plan Review under the OSRD Ordinance. He notes that it has always been their intention to pursue the OSRD and explains that they filed the conventional subdivision plan to show how many units could be built on the site. Ogren states that they spent a lot of time with the neighbors and the Planning Board working on this proposal to get to this point. Ogren explains that there are characters of green space on the plan as the lots got very small in the process. He asks that the Commission consider allowing exclusive use of the green space behind the dwellings so that the owners can have privacy. He notes that there will be regulations for use as well as a buffer. Ogren also explains that the drainage system will be the same as proposed for the conventional subdivision with subsurface recharge areas. Paluzzi questions if the green space is encroaching the 25 foot No Disturb Zone. Ogren states no, and explains that the NDZ is still open space, noting that in part of the green space there is no construction or activities proposed. He notes that there is one area of encroachment in the NDZ on the site of the existing house where a corner of the porch of the existing house is in the NDZ, but it has been that way for a good many years. Cademartori notes the exclusive use areas on the plan and questions if the meadow will remain. Ogren explains that the open space ordinance is modeled after the state plan and the intent is for the meadow to remain. Rhuda notes that they will present a landscaping plan prepared by a landscape architect during the NOI process. Maxner questions if they are requesting that barbeques, etc be allowed. Ogren notes that people may want to have barbeques and chairs in the yard. Maxner notes that items such as sheds, backyard pools and patios will have to be reviewed and permitted through the Commission, as they would fall within the wetland buffer zone. Maxner states she thinks that the maintenance of the meadow should remain in its natural state and seasonally mowed once or twice a year. Maxner questions if they will be coming in to the Commission separately for each house lot. Ogren states that they will be filing for the roadway and lots all at once. He estimates that they will be filing the NOI sometime in April. Ogren notes that they will be seeking some kind of relief in terms of maintenance because the sewer line goes though the NDZ and they need to prevent saplings from growing in the sewer line. Glidden questions if there will be a homeowners association. Rhuda explains that there will be a small private homeowners association that will be responsible for storm water management and the private roadway. Johnson suggests that the Commission send comments to the Planning Board and make recommendations as to the use of the back yard property. He also suggests that the Commission suggest that the meadow beyond the 10 foot fence be mowed seasonally once or twice per year and be maintained as a meadow. Beverly Conservation Commission March 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 Cademartori questions if a fence is proposed. Rhuda states that they have not indicated one because there is almost a natural buffer of trees that lines the area. Maxner explains that when the Commission approved the conventional plan, a compromise was agreed upon establishing the NDZ within the first ten feet of the wetland. Rhuda states that they can discuss that further during the NOI process, noting that if the Commission feels that it is necessary they would consider that. Cademartori notes that the open space could be a sensitive subject to the landscape design, but he would be less concerned about what happens behind the houses in the private yards. Maxner notes that this is technically not a public hearing but suggests that the Commission take public comment at this time. Robert Lewis of 903 Hale Street addresses the Commission and expresses his concern about the drainage plan for the project and if it will be reviewed. Maxner explains that it has been submitted to the Planning Board with the OSRD Site Plan Review application and it will be reviewed by the Commission as part of the NOI process. Lewis questions if the OSRD is in the jurisdiction of the Commission. Maxner explains that the OSRD is not administered by the Commission and is handled by the Planning Board. Cademartori explains that the Planning Board asks for comments from various Boards and Commissions and that is what this discussion is about. Lewis questions if it is common for the Planning Board to grant exclusive use of green space to homeowners. Maxner explains that this is only the third OSRD plan that has been reviewed under the Ordinance and that this is a new concept not yet tested. She notes that the OSRD requires 50% open space. Lewis requests that the Commission do what they can to preserve the 25 -Foot NDZ, noting that allowing children to run through the wetland would be a shame. Mary Rodrick addresses the Commission and questions if this plan meets the 50% open space requirement. Rhuda states that the open space on the plan is 50.1 %. Maxner clarifies that previous iterations of the site did not meet the 50% open space requirement. She also notes that open space under the OSRD does not have to be open to the public. Rene Mary, 274 Hale Street addresses the Commission and questions how big the houses will be. Rhuda explains that they will be 2,300 - 2,400 s.f. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Maxner suggests that she draft a letter incorporating the suggestions of the Commission and get it to the Planning Board for their March 29, 2011 meeting. Johnson so moves. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. Expenditures Maxner requests that the Commission vote to expend $95.00 to reimburse for her registration fee for the MACC Conference that she attended. Beverly Conservation Commission March 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 Johnson moves to approve expenditure. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 4- 0. Maxner requests that the Commission vote to expend $45.00 to reimburse for her registration fee for the Salem Sound Coastal Watch Symposium March 16 -17, 2011. Johnson moves to approve expenditure. Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. Discussion: Land Owned By Carlman Family Maxner informs the Commission that she was contacted by Essex County Greenbelt regarding land owned by the Carlman Family near the Beverly Common. She explains that the Carlman's contacted Greenbelt and offered to donate the land to Greenbelt but there are back taxes due on the property. Greenbelt noted that it is usually their policy not to accept land with such encumbrances. Maxner further explains that the Carlman's may decided to let the land go by tax title and suggests that the Commission write a letter to City Finance Director John Dunn expressing interest in the care and custody of the land should the city take it by tax title. Greenbelt inquired as to whether the Commission would consider settling the tax debt. Commission members agree that this is not an appropriate use of the Commission's funds. Cademartori agrees and notes that the letter is a good idea and letting them know that should the City proceed with tax title process, the Commission would be interested in accepting it under its care and custody. Proposed Location for Dog Park Maxner reported that she and Johnson and Reilly visited the proposed site at Beverly Airport and they measured the area and its proximity to the wetlands. She reported that, based on their observations and measurements in the field, the area proposed as a dog park is outside of the buffer zone. She suggests that the Commission write a letter to Mayor Scanlon indicating that locating the Dog Park in this area would not trigger a Conservation Commission review. She also reports that the Airport Commission has voted to allow the use of the land for a dog park. Johnson and Reilly concur. Reilly notes that an existing fence for airport security serves as a very clear delineation between the Buffer Zone and the dog park perimeter. Members ask Maxner to report the Commission's findings to the Mayor. 3 Thompsons Farm Way Maxner reports that the Commission has received a request from the owner at 3 Thompson Farm Road has requested to remove a tree that fell on the property and to remove foreign debris from the area near the stone wall in a strip of briar. She provides photos of the tree to the Commission for their review. She notes that the foreign debris is concrete, bricks and miscellaneous Beverly Conservation Commission March 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 materials that should be taken away, but that the briar and other vegetation should not be removed. Paluzzi states that it seems straight - forward and no further presentation is requested. Members agree. Johnson moves to allow removal of the fallen tree and debris but preserve the vegetation. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. Order of Conditions 22 Fosters Point The discussion for the possible conditions for the project ensues. Johnson states that he still has concerns about the 25 -Foot No Disturb Zone and whether it is just the line on the ground or the air above it as well. He notes that aerial rights were never addressed and he is afraid to approve this as it may set a precedent. He notes that the plan as proposed infringes on 4 -5 feet of air space. Based on that, he notes that he does not intend to support the proposal. Maxner states that she sees Dr. Johnson's point but notes that there have been instances where the Commission has allowed disturbance of the NDZ with mitigation. Cademartori questions if the proposed planting plan for the site is compensating enough to offset the encroachment. Glidden states that the enclosed structure is troubling and feels that if it was an open deck it would constitute a lesser encroachment. Maxner suggests that the Commission could request additional mitigation beyond what has been proposed. Johnson notes that what they are offering is tucked away at the side of the property to ensure that their view is not blocked. Cademartori suggests a condition that requires the all parts of the new structure be no closer than the former footprint or if they decide to stick with the current design the applicant must provide a revised mitigation plan that provides more enhancement of the coastal bank. He provides a notation and sketch of an appropriate area of mitigation planting to the plan to illustrate his point. Members review the sketch and discuss this potential condition. Glidden and Paluzzi agree the enhanced planting plan is appropriate and reasonable to off set the encroachment and giving the applicant a choice between scaling back the house or implementing the planting plan is appropriate. Glidden states that she was under the impression at the site visit that they would be doing more planting than they are proposing because Ms. McMahon was expressing her concern over erosion of bank that she has witnessed through the years. Beverly Conservation Commission March 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 Cademartori moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: The proposed incursion into the 25 -Foot No Disturbance Zone by the second story porch/deck shall either be eliminated by reducing the size of said porch/deck, or shall be mitigated for by increasing the extent of native enhancement plantings adjacent to the Coastal Bank as prescribed by the Conservation Commission on the attached annotated sketch prepared by Seekamp Environmental Consulting, Inc. Shrub and herbaceous species listed in the "Buffer Zone Enhancement Planting Plan" prepared by Seekamp are suitable. 2. Paving of the driveway is neither proposed nor permitted under this project and Order of Conditions. 3. The dumpster /roll off container shall be stored in the driveway. 4. Construction materials shall be contained and stored on the street side of the house. 5. All debris from demolition and cast off materials from construction shall be placed in the dumpster or securely contained on the street side of the house. Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carried 3 -1 with Johnson opposed. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening, Johnson moves to adjourn the meeting. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. The meeting adjourns at 9:30 p.m.