Loading...
2011-05-17CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: May 17, 2011 Board: Conservation Commission Members Present Chair David Lang, Vice Chair, Tony Paluzzi, Gregg Cademartori, Kate Glidden, Bill Squibb Members Absent: Mary Reilly, Dr. Mayo Johnson 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 16 Bayview Avenue — DEP File #1006 - Construct Beach Access Stairway Install Shrubs and Grass on Coastal Bank — Elmtop Realty Trust — c/o Robert and Michael Hubbard Maxner notes that the Commission will recall withholding the Certificate in favor of requiring better bank stabilization on the coastal bank as her field inspection found bare, eroding and vulnerable soils on this side of the bank. Maxner states that Bob Griffin has conveyed this information to the owner, and the Hubbards, and will report to her when stabilization work is completed. Maxner recommends that the Commission continue the matter to the June 7, 2011 Conservation Commission meeting. Cademartori moves to continue. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. Old Ferry Way Landing — Cabot Street- DEP #1041 — Dredge Section of Float Embayment — City of Beverly — Michael Collins Commissioner of Public Services and Engineering Maxner explains this was tabled to the April 26 meeting because the dredge material was still on site dewatering and being tested for pH, noting that the final disposal location is being decided upon. She recommends that the Commission continue the matter to the next meeting on June 7, 2011. Paluzzi moves to continue. Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carries 4 -0. Squibb arrives. New: Thompson Farm Way, DEP File #5 -873 — Thomas Carnevale Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 201 ]Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18 Maxner reports that the Order governed the construction of detention basin within 100 -Foot Buffer Zone, but outside the 25' NDZ, to an off -site Bordering Vegetated Wetland and the basin serves the 6 -lot residential subdivision. She explains that the basin was the only part of the project within the Commission's jurisdiction. Maxner notes that this is the second request for Certificate of Compliance, and the Commission will recall discussing the fact that the developer had not witnessed ponding or water retention in the basin and that the wetland plantings were not installed in the bottom of the basin. She recalls that the Commission had the developer consult with the design engineer who advised that the bottom of the basin be over seeded with a wildflower mix in substitution of the shrubs that probably would not survive in such droughty conditions. She explains that the Commission voted to deny the first Certificate of Compliance request in favor of allowing a growing season to pass to make sure the seed mix survived. Maxner reports that she visited the site and took photos and reports that the bottom of the basin has been seeded and is growing well. She reports however that the perimeter plantings did not survive noting that the soils are sandy and there is not enough water residence for the plants. Maxner noted that she met with the homeowner and he explained to her that he is working with the developer on a punch list of other items on the lot. She notes that the owner offered to do the plantings. Maxner suggests that the Commission deny this request for a Certificate of Compliance due to failure of the berm plantings. Paluzzi moves to deny the Certificate of Compliance request. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY New: 16 Bay View Avenue — Thomas & JoAnne Doherty Maxner reads the legal notice. Jeff Tucker is present for the applicant. Tucker addresses the Commission and recalls that the Commission discussed this site at the last meeting in conjunction with an enforcement order. He explains that the applicant is proposing to remove a large 36" diameter non - native maple tree from within the pool patio area and replace it with a clustering of native shrubs and herbaceous plantings. He notes that work will take place within the 100 -Foot Buffer Zone to the Coastal Bank but within the confines of a pool patio area outside the 25' NDZ. Tucker notes that due to the proximity of the tree to the existing pool, they will be grinding the stump as opposed to removing it. Tucker explains the types of plantings they are proposing. Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 201 ]Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18 Maxner notes that the existing white pines and asks how big they are. Tucker states that they are 10 -12 feet. Maxner asks what their timeline is for their replanting. Tucker explains that they would like to do it as soon as possible this spring. Lang asks if there is any public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative 3 Determination, with a special condition that the relocated white pine trees shall be replaced if they do not survive through the Fall of 2012. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. New: 34 Haven Way (Formerly 34 Forty Five West Street) — Joseph Carlucci Maxner reads legal notice. Jeff Tucker is present for the applicant. Tucker addresses the Commission and explains that the applicant is proposing landscaping activities immediately adjacent to a rip -rap Coastal Bank, within the 25' NDZ. He noted that the work includes removal /management of invasive vines, pruning of shrubs and sumac, and installation of some native shrub species. Tucker shows the Commission photos of the site. Tucker explains that pruning the plants will result in their coming back thicker, which will be beneficial to the site. Lang questions to what extent the sumacs will be pruned. Tucker estimates that they are about 10 feet tall and the applicant plans to prune about 36 inches with the dead sumac specimens to be flush cut. Maxner asks if the new plantings will result in the 25 ft. NDZ being fully vegetated. Tucker explains that it was not their intention to do so and notes that the proposed planting beds are intended to make the visual presence more desirable and explains the proposed species and sizes of the plantings. Lang asks if there is public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. Cademartori asks if there are specifications or schedule for the plantings. Tucker states a list has been provided but no schematic as it will be spot determined. Cademartori states that he is comfortable with the concept but suggests that they submit photos before during and after plantings. Maxner agrees and suggests that they submit photos of the area pre cut, post cut and post planting. She also suggests that she be notified when the project is to start. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative 3 Determination, with a special condition that the applicant submit pre cut, post cut and Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 4 of 18 post planting photographs and that Maxner be notified when the work is to start. Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. New: 33 Riverview Street — Richard Stamegna & Marianne D'Aquila Maxner reads legal notice. Mr. Stamegna and Marianne D'Aquila are present at the meeting. Mr. Stamenga addresses the Commission and explains that they are proposing to extend the existing deck at the rear of the house, which is located within 200 -Foot Riverfront Area to the Bass River and 100 -Foot Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank. He notes that the existing house and deck are already within the 25' NDZ to the bank, with the existing deck about 14 feet from the bank. He explains that the new section of deck will run parallel with the back of the house and wrap around to meet the side deck and will be about 14 feet from the top of bank. Maxner explains that she visited the site and took measurements. She explains that the existing house and deck are 14 feet from the top of the rip -rap coastal bank. She notes that the new deck will fall within the 25 foot NDZ. Lang explains that sometimes waivers are granted for work to be done in the NDZ. Maxner states that she discussed mitigation with the applicant and they are offering native plantings and notes the location on the plan. Lang questions what type of footings will be used for the deck. Stamegna explains that they are proposing 5 new sono tubes to support the new section of deck. He explains that they are proposing to install shrubs between the deck and the bank. Lang recommends that they be native species. The Commission discusses some appropriate plantings that could be used. Maxner suggests that she would give them a list of appropriate plantings to choose from. Lang suggests that at least 20 plants — 1 -2 Gullans should be planted. Lang asks for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to close issue a Negative 3 Determination; with the following special conditions: 1. Sono tubes shall be excavated manually; heavy machinery is prohibited to operate on the riverside of the house. 2. As mitigation for incursion into the 25 -Foot No Disturb Zone, not less than twenty (20) 2- Gallon sized native shrubs, chosen from the enclosed native plant list, shall be planted between the existing and proposed deck and top of coastal bank. This condition is a requirement as part of the approval of the project. Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 2011MeetingMinutes Page S of 18 New: 2 Grove Street — Thomas & Monica Healey Maxner reads legal notice. Robert Gulla is present for the applicant. Tom Healey is present. Kate Wiggins, landscape architect is also present. Gulla addresses the Commission and explains that the applicant is proposing extensive native landscaping within the 200 -Foot Riverfront to Chubbs Brook. He notes that there will be no removal of existing vegetation. Maxner notes that she visited the site with Mr. Healey and has some concerns about possible filling of flood plain in an area at the corner of the site. Gulla notes that they would like to eliminate that area from this plan approval and they would redesign that after further confirmation of where the floodplain limit is. Lang questions if there will be any filling in the 100 -foot buffer zone. Gulla explains the plan and no filling is proposed other than soil amendments and planting beds for the new plants. Cademartori questions if they have any past surveys of the elevations to determine the location of the floodplain. He notes that he is comfortable with this plan and it will add a lot of value to the site. But suggests that they submit a revised plan showing the slope and the elevations. Maxner questions if the area will be heavily manicured or mulched. Gulla explains an area that might be mulched but noted that the Commission could condition that out and they would accept that. Gulla explains that they will install a silt sock during construction along the split post and rail fence. Maxner also notes that the plans call for the replacement of a stockade fence on the site with a split post rail fence, which is an improvement and will be beneficial to wildlife in the area. Lang asks for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to close the hearing and issue a Negative 2 Determination, with the following Special Conditions: 1. A revised plan shall be submitted calling out elevations and the limit of the 100 -Year Floodplain. 2. Prior to any work within the first 100 feet from Chubbs Brook, the Conservation Agent shall have the opportunity to verify that no fill will be imported to or elevations changed within the 100 -Year Floodplain. Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 201 ]Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18 Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. Recess for Public Hearings Cademartori moves to recess for public hearings at this time. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. Notices of Intent Cont: - 4 Gavin Circle, DEP File #5 -1040 — patio, floating dock/pier and stairs — Jonathan & Joan Perry Bob Griffin is present for the applicant. Griffin addresses the Commission and explains that this project is to install a floating dock/mini pier and small patio immediately adjacent to the banks of a small pond. He explains that the house was built 20 years ago and notes that the 25 -foot NDZ goes through the house and encumbers the entire back yard. He notes that there is a sharp drop off to the pond bank and explains that the pond water level drops about 5 feet in the summer and there are erosion issues along the bank. He notes that the Perry family use the pond for swimming, fishing and ice - skating and there are some small canoes in the area as well. Griffin explains that the Perry's are looking to stabilize their yard and install a small concrete paver patio big enough for a chair or a small gas grill. He also notes that they are proposing a small infiltration trench as well as installing pea stone in the three -foot walkway between the front and back yard. Griffin explains that the proposed floating pier will consist of a small fixed platform at grade with a gangway and terminal float further out into the water. He stated that all of the work proposed could be done with small landscape equipment. Paluzzi asks how high the proposed platform will be. Griffin estimated that it would be about a foot high and the dock would be 8'x8'. Paluzzi asked if the dock would be left in the water year round. Griffin explains that they would like to try leaving it in the water in the winter, noting that the worst that could happen is that the Styrofoam on the dock may get damaged by ice but could be replaced. Lang suggests that they consider using something other than Styrofoam on the bottom of the dock, noting that there are several other products that they could use. Griffin states that they will look at other options. Maxner recalls that she noticed an erosive channel along the edge of the sunroom roof drip edge. Griffin suggests that they could extend the pea stone to that area to address that. Maxner questions how the pea stone will be contained on the site. Griffin explains that they will use a landscape edging along the walkway. Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 7 of 18 Maxner questions if the dock will sit at the bottom of the pond during the drier periods of the year. Griffin explains that his goal was to situate the dock so that it would not hit bottom and he feels that they have it well positioned and should float at all times. Paluzzi questions if there are any additional plantings proposed with this plan. Griffin states that there are no additional plantings planned. He noted that the goal of the project was to stop erosion on the site, noting that the existing vegetation along the edge of the bank are doing well. Lang notes that they are working in a large area of the NDZ and the Commission generally requires mitigation of some kind and he feels that some compensation is in order. The Commission discusses possible areas where plantings could be installed. Griffin suggests that he could work with the owner and Maxner during construction when they get a better look at the site and see what they can come up with. Lang agrees and suggests that a minimum of 100 s.f should be compensated. Maxner clarifies that the goal would be to naturalize what is not natural on the site. Lang agrees. Lang 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, Paluzzi moves to close the hearing. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. Cont: 44 -46 River Street, DEP File #5 -1048 — site work, environmental remediation, building demolition — National Grid/Mass. Electric/Boston Gas Matt Varrell and Karen Staffier from VHB, Joe Higgins from Innovative Engineering and Erin Whoriskey and Jason Naiden, representatives of National Grid, are present. Karro Frost and Lyons Witten of New England Environmental, the peer review consultant for the Commission are present. Maxner asks the applicant to give a brief overview of the project and then recommends the Commission will take testimony, comments and recommendations from its peer review consultants. Varrell addresses the Commission and provides a brief overview of the project and impacted resource areas. Lang clarifies that they are excavating hazardous material and placing it back on site. Joe Higgins addresses the Commission and explains that the work proposed will be done on the National Grid upland portion of the site. He explains that they will be excavating soil contaminated with coal tar in three hot spots, which will amount to about 1,500 to 2,000 yards of material, and these hot spots are located at about 5 to 10 feet below grade, which are shallow excavations. He notes the site has been filled historically with dredged material from the Bass Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 201 ]Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18 River and other miscellaneous debris which is on top of a confining layer of silty clay about 15 to 20 feet below grade. He notes much of the coal tar has sunk to that confining layer and they are proposing to encapsulate that material by installing a sheet pile wall along the edge to encase the majority of the contamination. He also explains that an engineered barrier will be constructed over the soil and a restoration area will be planted on top of the barrier and the rest will be paved over for the parking area. He explains that the sheet pile walls will be installed just outside the remnants of the existing bulkhead, as there are deadmen holding that old bulkhead and removing them would entail extensive excavation. Cademartori asks if they anticipate encountering those deadmen when they excavate the hot spots. Higgins explains where the hot spots are located and notes that the deadmen should not extend that far. Lang questions if the area of the engineered barrier contains coal tar. Higgins states that it is not a hot spot but it is contaminated. Higgins estimated that 1,500 -2,000 yards of material will be taken off site from the hot spots. Squibb asks if they will be taking out any of the clay layer in those hot spots. Higgins states there might be some clay, but may still be sand and other fill material. Maxner asks the third party consultants from New England Environmental to address the Commission and report on their findings. Karro Frost and Lyons Witten are present from New England Environmental. Frost addresses the Commission and explains that they reviewed the plans and application noting that one of the major components of the project is that it is labeled as a limited project. She explains that this provision is only filed if the project cannot meet all of the performance standards for the resource areas on a site, and allows the Commission flexibility to allow such a project if it determines that the project is of great benefit, as this project would be. She explains that while performance standards cannot be met, the introductory language to the limited project provisions states that the issuing authority should encourage as many performance standards to be met as practicable. Frost reviews some of the Riverfront (RA) impact numbers and notes that they propose 79,700 square feet of disturbance and environmental remediation work is 63,050 square feet — she doesn't think the numbers seem to add up. She notes that an alternatives analysis was done but it was 11 years ago and she was not sure if that should be revisited. Frost notes that the Project Narrative indicates the presence of a previously constructed Inner Riparian Enhancement Area (IREA) near the northwest corner of the site, which has clearly failed based on her observations, and she assumes that it was required by the Commission for a previous project. So this needs to be addressed. She notes one of her primary concerns is CMR 10.58 (5) (a) and (c), which says work in a previously developed RA allows for a series of choices but that at a minimum the project must improve on existing conditions, and she agrees that this project will do that as well as attempting to meet the Stormwater Regulations. She notes this provision also requires that new work shall Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 9 of 18 not be located closer to the river than existing conditions, however notwithstanding those provisions 310 CMR 10.58. (5) (f) & (g), (f) which allows for 1:1 on -site restoration and g., which allows for 2:1 off -site mitigation as well as on site. She states that the new sheet piles are closer to the river for sure, and they are triggering (f )& (g) by working in the river and covering the coastal bank. But the Commission has the flexibility to decide that this is satisfactory. She notes that the IKEA specifies a layer of topsoil of min of 6" as taken straight from the NOI and plans, and in her opinion this is insufficient and the mitigation or restoration must mimic what was there before and it was probably a salt marsh which would not survive in 6 inches of topsoil. She notes that there is likely a connection between the need for remediation and the observation that "only a portion of the original plantings from 2009 in this area have survived." This IREA was constructed partially within the portion of the site scheduled for environmental remediation. Witten states he had a number of comments, some small but he will concentrate on two primary concerns about this project. The first is that this project proposes remediation on National Grid property but the contamination from the coal plant extends off property to Desmond Yacht Yard, the MCP defines the clean up site as where the contamination has come to lie and therefore the Desmond property is involved in this disposal site. He notes that work can be done in phases with various NOI's for each phase, but he believes that the whole entire project should be looked at. He states that someday the Desmond piece may come before the Commission, but in his opinion they are so interrelated and he does not know why they were not placed under one NOI. The second major and probably most important concern is that the applicant is proposing to encapsulate the contaminants on site and that that the RA restoration area is insufficient as the top elevation of impermeable barrier is a limiting factor to the success of the restoration area as 6" of topsoil will not support the restoration and is destined to fail. He recommends that removing contamination closest to the river and therefore improving the riparian habitat and its degree of success by lowering the elevation of the barrier. He notes that if the project were 300 feet from the river this would not be an issue or part of the conversation. He believes that the Commission could require more work to be done in that area. Lang asks Higgins if he would like to respond. Higgins clarifies that they are before the Commission solely for the National Grid property at this time and the Desmond property does have a future response action but it is not nearly as invasive or disruptive as the current NOI and will involve a simple capping. He notes that what they are proposing on the Grid property now will in no way impede their ability to remediate the neighboring property. Lang asks if the neighboring property was ever part of the Grid property. Higgins states no, this is migration of contaminants. He notes that the 6 inches topsoil is not correct, and will have Matt Varrell address that. Squibb asks what will prevent the contamination on the Desmond property from continuing to leach into the river. Higgins states that the contamination is nowhere near the level as on the Grid and that the groundwater is impacted but below standards, noting that the only risk is contact. Squibb states that it seems to make sense that the sheet pile can be extended to the Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 201 ]Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18 Desmond parcel and encapsulate it. Higgins states that they have not seen coal tar on that property and therefore do not see the need to encapsulate this area because it does meet groundwater standards. Maxner asks what have they found. Higgins notes they've detected dissolved contaminants including PAH's, petroleum and BTEC's. Lang asks if they found any cyanide. Higgins states not to his recollection. Glidden asks the timeline for work on the Desmond parcel. Higgins states he is not sure as access issues are the first obstacle and doesn't want to get into specifics for that part of the project prematurely. Lang asks what the monitoring program is for ground and surface water to ensure the barrier is working. Higgins states that they will look at a couple of things which include water levels differences within the barrier and outside the barrier and water level differences with tides and the worry is seepage coming from the encapsulated area. Lang asks if they test for chemical quality. Higgins states some testing, yes as part of the long term O & M. Lang asks if it is tested in the river itself. Higgins notes that they only do annual inspection of the cap that was installed, and no degradation has been observed and it has silted in nicely. He notes that they have no water quality monitoring for the river ongoing, but did some during the in -river work and there will be surface water quality monitoring during construction for this phase too. Maxner asks Witten to elaborate on his proposed alternatives for dealing with the contaminated area. Witten responds that he was trying to provide the Commission with several ideas as to the possible alternatives to dealing with the hazardous waste on this property, noting that Grid's analysis was done 11 years ago. He has reviewed the documents from 2000, which did discuss different approaches, and the chosen alternative is a very standard approach to dealing with coal tar in an upland situation. He states however, he believes that a better approach can be done in the buffer zone, which would result in a more beneficial riverfront restoration that has more value. He explains that instead of installing a single sheet pile wall all around the area, a second sheet pile could be installed at the 100 -foot buffer zone and from there one could excavate down 5 feet and take the contaminants off site or cap it on the upland portion of the site. He notes that one could excavate even more, 10 or 15 feet down to the clay layer because the two sheet pile walls would provide an enclosed area to excavate and the implementation of this would be no more or no less intrusive or damaging to the resource area than what is currently proposed. He expresses his belief that doing more excavation in the buffer zone would result in a better project, as the restoration area will be more likely to succeed. He notes that he was trying to provide Commission with information that other alternatives exist and to whatever degree of implementation can be decided upon by the Commission. He notes that the response from National Grid latest report states this could not be implemented because it would be prohibited under the Limited Project but he respectfully disagrees with that statement. Higgins states that he would like to respond. He notes that their proposal achieves not significant risk under the MCP and their intention is not to achieve background levels on this site and it is not possible to do that. He notes the alternatives suggested by NEE are valid and Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 201 ]Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 18 feasible, but the taking out 2, 3 or 5 feet will not get much benefit as implementation of just driving sheet pile walls is very different from excavation to that degree with a tidally influenced river. He explains that volumes become a factor as excavating an area of 25,000 square feet to depth of 15 feet translates into 15, 000 yards of material and that means lots of trucks going through the City of Beverly and he is not sure what benefit is achieved. He believes that it is not worth all the things that could go wrong. Lang points out that the project is within the 200 -foot RA and 100 -foot buffer zone that needs to be considered and that there has been some changes to the MCP, the wetland regulations and the City has an local wetland Ordinance that factor into the approach to the project and he is not sure that this won't be considered a landfill which may be prohibited in this zone. Naiden notes that he does not think this is a landfill. Lang notes that any wet mound of waste that will be capped can be fall into solid waste regulations. Squibb asks if transporting the excavated material by barge is possible. Higgins states its possible but there still needs to be offloading for upland disposal. Maxner asks about reconsolidating on site. Higgins states that he is not sure as the volume of material may not allow for proper grading and that it would result in a landfill. Lang notes that is what Grid is proposing now, confirming his point. Frost notes that the grade is already being raised to a large degree. Lang notes that this is a very sensitive area on the Bass River and he is unsure as to whether an 11 -year old analysis is still valid. Higgins notes they would be willing to revisit it but they will probably end up with the same scenario. Witten notes that he listed a number of alternatives and agrees that full excavation is more complicated, but taking it down 5 or 6 feet in the buffer zone would result in one third of the cost and a better result. He notes that a shorter wall could be installed on the riverside. He points out that two main tenants of the MCP state that first the goal of all remediation is to clean up to background level, and on this site it is not possible and he is not suggesting background nor would the Commission suggest full background, but there is a wide spectrum between no significant risk and the background goal which then leads to the second point that studies or alternatives are evaluated for their feasibility to show what is possible and achievable. He notes that capping is probably okay for the upland, but a better scenario of more removal within the buffer zone could be achieved without necessarily trying for background levels and no more or less impact to the resources from the work. Varrell notes that the wetlands regulations for limited projects allow for clean up of sites like this and reads from the NOI narrative that quotes the 310 CMR 10.24 (7) 6., which parenthetically indicates that no such measure may be permitted which is designed in accordance with MCP solely to reduce contamination to a level lower than significant risk. Also he notes that this provision also states that an alternative selected under MCP shall meet this provision of the wetland standards for limited project. Varrell goes on to explain that the soil thickness has been misrepresented noting that they are proposing the design of the RRA includes an 18 inch layer of soil over the engineered barrier. He explains that this includes 12 inches of loam over six inches of sand. She further explains that the proposed topsoil includes a minimum of 8% organic carbon by weight and the proposed soil specifications and general mitigation design have been developed to be consistent with the Army Corp of Engineers guidance for resource area mitigation. He states that by providing relatively high organic content in the soil, combined with Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 201 ]Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18 uneven micro topography, they are confident that adequate soil and moisture content will occur to support the proposed plantings. He also noted that they propose to install plantings that will be planted in such a way that the water will runoff the site correctly. Witten offers his opinion as to interpretation of 310 CMR 10.24 (7) 6. He explains that the purpose of the project is not solely just to make the site cleaner, but rather it is an improvement to existing conditions and to build and ensure a successful riparian restoration area and that achieving no significant risk is not the only purpose of this project. He explains that achieving no significant risk is not the only standard that must be met, but that there are other standards that can and should be met. Lang asks if this provision does not allow you to dig out more contaminants. Frost states if the only reason to dig out more contaminants is to make the site cleaner, then it prohibits you from doing so because there are no other reasons to do it. Squibb asks for clarification on the limited project provision. Frost explains that the only reason to file under a limited project is because the project does not meet the performance standards of the regulations, but allows the Commission the ability to approve the project anyway if it is a valuable project but also requiring meeting all standards to the greatest extent possible as part of conditioning the project. Witten notes that the MCP states the essentially the same thing. Naiden asks if NEE considers their analysis to be inconsistent with the MCP. Frost notes that an alternatives analysis needed to be done but it was not part of the NOI and should have been. Witten explains that from an MCP perspective the analysis is fine and perfectly acceptable, and if it was 300 feet from the river then he would not be having this conversation, but rather he has attempted to give the Commission alternatives within the RA that could address wetlands standards as well. Discussion ensues regarding the language of the wetlands regulations and MCP and how Commissions can require additional resource area improvements. Cademartori expresses concern over the fact that the previous mitigation done on the site as designed for a prior project has failed and Grid is now looking to gain credit for this project on an area that should have already been a successful restoration. He notes that the remediation is limited the ability to address stormwater, noting that it is only designed to capture a 2 -year storm. He stated that future uses of the property are also of concern. He notes that there is expansion of fleet parking and change of use in that area, moving closer to riverfront with activities. Karen Staffier addresses the Commission and explains the stormwater proposal. She explains that currently the site is haphazard uses of parking, soil and equipment storage but no new increase in intensity of use or new use is proposed. There are two main areas of stormwater methods first being a biorention area a low impact development feature that will accept sheet flow and explains the elements of this feature. The second stormwater feature consists of a closely complying with regulations as a stormceptor was chosen to treat the stormwater in the redevelopment part of the site to the greatest extent possible. She notes that both areas achieve the standard T S S removal. Frost offers comments on the stormwater proposal. Staffier responds to the comments and why certain methodologies were used and stormwater features were chosen, noting that DEP has guidance that the design. Frost cleaning of these systems is critical and maintenance must be Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 13 of 18 regular and timely. She notes that stormceptors are not recommended for critical areas such as shellfish areas. She notes that the filter strip has been changed with a 33% slope change is appropriate, and VHB's responses to her comments very appropriately. Discussion ensues as to the Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the Frost asks clarification on snow storage. Staffier states that there are a few only small areas of storage, but most is trucked off site routinely. She also notes that Grid has a very evolved spill reaction protocol and this site is no exception and provides details on this protocol. Lang asks if there are any other questions about stormwater. There are none. Lang asks if the applicant would like to discuss their next step. Grid representatives ask for a 5- minute recess to discuss amongst themselves. Lang states that the Commission will now take a short 5- minute recess. The Commission reconvened and Varrell addresses the Commission and states that they would like to elaborate on the proposed bioretention areas noting that they feel that the design will work well and notes that they want the storm water to sheet flow off the site. He explains the proposed stormwater design. He notes that the existing compacted gravel parking area will be upgraded to a paved area. He explains that the stormwater will flow across the parking lot and explains the plan. He also reports that deep sump catch basins will be installed which will increase the removal of TSS at a greater value as suggested in the Stormwater Management Regulations. He stated that overall the stormwater quality will be vastly improved from what it is today. Frost states that she likes the use of bioretention basins but noted that she has not dealt with them in this type of situation before. She noted that they are typically used in critical areas and they are not appropriate for bathing areas or shellfish growing areas. Lang asks the National Grid Representatives how they wish to proceed since there are no other questions this evening. Varrell stated that they would be willing to take another look at the issued raised during tonight's hearing and asked the Commission for guidance on what they expect. Lang states that he would like to see them review the alternatives analysis and bring the proposed plan back with current standards in mind. He stated that he would like them to update the alternatives analysis to current thinking and in compliance with current DEP and MCP policies. He stated that he understands that this is not going to be a clean site but the Commission needs to be see if they can pull it all back out of the buffer zone noting that this is the wrong place to store this kind of waste for a long period of time with sheet piling. Higgins explains that this is considered a Class C RAO project because of the contamination in the Bass River and notes that they will not be able to meet the standards of a Class A RAO. He Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 14 of 18 further explains that if they dig upland on the site this will still be a Class C RAO site. Lang states that he understands that but noted that something in between digging up some or all of the material would be better. Varrell questions if any members of the Commission had significant recommendations that will make this more viable. Cademartori noted that the electric side of the site vs. the gas side of the site has no changes to the stormwater management. He notes that the design increases the parking area and it is actually closer to the river. He would like to see more effort to address stormwater and restoration opportunities on the electric side of the site. Higgins states that they will revisit that and see if they can squeeze out any additional area. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Lang suggests that the public hearing be continued to June 7, 2011. He also stated that it would be helpful if the applicant could give all of the suggestions and changes to the plan suggested tonight some consideration and submit a response to the Commission a few days before the meeting to give the members and the Commissions consultant time to review the material. Paluzzi so moves. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carried 5 -0. Cont: 400 Hale Street, DEP File #5 -1052 — construct new sidewalk along College Way — Endicott College Joe Orzel of Gulf of Maine is present for the applicant. Orzel addresses the Commission and explains that a site inspection was held with the Commission last week and noted that they looked at the area of the proposed location of the sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the pond. He noted that there is very little vegetation in the NDZ. He explains that they chose this location for the sidewalk because of the ledge and utilities on the opposite side and also to avoid the roots of a large tree. Orzel explains that they are proposing mitigation for the disturbance to the 25 -Foot NDZ noting that the proposal was not submitted with the NOI and has been submitted for review this evening. He notes the proposed locations for plantings in the area between the retaining wall and the concrete bank of the pond. He also explains the suggested plantings that are appropriate for the site. Maxner clarifies that the Commission would like the planting area to remain natural and that there should be no mulching or mowing of the area. Lang notes that their proposal states that the area will remain natural. Squibb states that he would like to be sure that there is something there to prohibit cars from driving through the area. Orzel explains that a curb will be installed. Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 15 of 18 There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. Cont: 400 Hale Street, DEP File #5 -1053 — replace walkway and restore /stabilize eroding Inland Bank at pond — Endicott College Joe Orzel of Gulf of Maine is present for the applicant. Orzel distributes additional information on the project to the Commission. Lang notes that supplemental information should be submitted to the Commission ahead of time so members can review it. He states that the Commission does not appreciate receiving new information on the night of the meeting. Orzel explains that they have divided the area into three zones for the planting and bank restoration area. Orzel explains that in Zone 1 they are proposing to remove invasive species noting that there are three large plants along the top of the bank and it makes sense to remove them as they are right at the edge of the bank. He explains that they are proposing to restore and replant the area with vegetation. Orzel explains that in Zone 2 the area is currently dominated by ferns and the college would like to maintain them. He states that they are proposing to add some fern plantings to what is there and do some pruning of existing shrubs that are in the area. He notes that most are fairly small shrubs. Orzel explains that in Zone 3 the area near the sidewalk, is dominated by sumac noting that there are approximately 50 stems that are 5 feet high. He explains that they are proposing to manage that and would like to cut back the sumac although it is native it gives an unkempt appearance. Lang questions why they are thinking of getting rid of the invasive species but are proposing a 20 foot grass strip. Orzel explains that they are proposing more plantings in certain areas to get more access to the pond noting that they are trying to prevent having to access it through planted areas. Maxner asks Orzel to clarify if the proposed sidewalk is being replaced in kind size wise and there is no expansion. Orzel confirms that it is the same size and will be constructed of pervious pavers. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Squibb moves to close the public hearing. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. Cont: 102 Cherry Hill Drive, DEP File #5 -1054 — clear, grade and loam existing industrial /commercial lot, create 6,200 s.f. of Bordering Vegetated Wetland — The Flatley Companies, c/o John Roche Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 16 of 18 Maxner reminds the Commission that the applicant had asked for a continuance to the June 7, 2011 at the last meeting. New: 34 Foster's Point — remove porch and construct addition and deck — Amanda & Martin Plecinoga Lang and Glidden recused themselves from discussion of this matter. Maxner reads legal notice. Maxner informed the Commission that they should open the public hearing this evening and administratively continue it to the June 7, 2011 meeting as two members will need to recuse themselves from voting on this application, and two more members will not be able to attend the meeting, leaving only three eligible members and therefore no quorum to act. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Lang and Glidden returned to the meeting at this time. Cont: 8 Robin Road — Discussion regarding work conducted without wetlands permit — Joan & Martin Sullivan Joan and Martin Sullivan are present at the meeting. Maxner explains that the Commission will recall work on a deck occurred without wetlands permitting and the Commission visited the site on Tuesday May 10, 2011. She notes that Mr. & Mrs. Sullivan are at the meeting to discuss mitigation options. Maxner explains that she talked with Chairman David Lang regarding this matter and he informed her that there are areas of inadvertent encroachment of soil in the wetland areas. She explains that they think that it is grading that migrated a little bit into the wetland and it is minor to fix. She also explains that the Commission should identify areas that are appropriate for mitigation. Lang explains that he observed a 10x10 area, which is a steep grade off the driveway. He recommends that they push that back and level off the grade to be even with the wetland and plant native plantings in the area. Sullivan asks Maxner if she has a list of appropriate wetland plantings that they can use as a guide. Maxner states that she does and explains the information that is provided on the list. Maxner suggests that in the interest of expediting the process she recommends that an Enforcement Order be issued requiring plantings within part of the 25' NDZ that is now lawn. Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 17 of 18 She explains that the EO is the quickest most efficient way to get results, as an RDA would take more time and money. The Commission discussed a time frame for completing the mitigation work. Lang notes that the plantings that they are looking at are probably available now and suggested that the work be completed by June 30, 2011. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moved to issue and Enforcement Order for 8 Robin Road, and that the installation of the mitigation area be completed by June 30, 2011. Glidden seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 -0. New: Expenditure Approvals Maxner requests that the Commission approved the mileage reimbursement she submitted for 341 miles that she accumulated on various site visits and other Commission business for the 4- month period of January thru April 2011, in the amount of $136.40. Squibb moved to approve. Paluzzi seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 -0. Orders of Conditions 4 Gavin Circle The Commission discussed conditions for the project. Paluzzi moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. Prior to construction of patio or installation of dock and pier a mitigation plan consisting of native shrub plantings (of at least two different species) covering at least 100 square feet in area shown on the property plan shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent for review and approval. (the applicant can refer to the attached native plant list from which to choose shrub species) The planting plan must be completed prior to the Commission releasing a Certificate of Compliance. 2. Prior to construction of patio a silt fence shall be installed, entrenched below grade, between the work area and the bank of the pond to prevent any exposed or loose soils from eroding into the pond. 3. As described by the applicant's engineer during the May 17 public hearing, only small landscape -sized construction equipment shall be used on site. Any equipment used for the project shall not be stored immediately next to the pond when not in use for any extended period of time. 4. In order to address erosion caused by the drip edge from the sunroom roof, the drip edge shall be infiltrated with a crushed stone infiltration trench or other comparable method. 5. The floatation material used for the floating dock shall consist of durable material that will remain in tact and withstand any potential abrasion from icing conditions in the pond. Beverly Conservation Commission May 17, 201 ]Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18 6. It is anticipated that the floating dock will remain in the pond year round. However, in the event that it is removed, great care shall be taken not to disturb or compromise the integrity of the pond bank or associated vegetation. 7. Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carried 5 -0. Cont: 400 Hale Street, DEP File #5 -1052 — construct new sidewalk along College Way — Endicott College The Commission discussed potential conditions for the project. Paluzzi moves to issue Standard Conditions. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carried 5 -0. Cont: 400 Hale Street, DEP File #5 -1053 — replace walkway and restore /stabilize eroding inland bank at pond — Endicott College The Commission discussed potential conditions for the project. Paluzzi moves to issue Standard Conditions with the following Special Condition: 1. A strip of grassy lawn no larger than 15 feet in length shall be allowed to remain at the southern end of the westerly pond bank between Wetland Flags # 3 & # 4. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carried 5 -0. Wetland Violation at 29 Riverview Street Maxner informed the Commission that unpermitted work has occurred at 29 Riverview Street. She explains that while doing a site inspection at 44 Riverview Street she noticed the work had been done. She explains that she contacted DEP who looked at the site and noted that it looks as though some in -kind lawn replacement was done on the site. Lang suggests that she look at aerial photos and maps to try and determine how much alteration was done on the site. He also suggests that he and Maxner visit the site. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening, Paluzzi moves to adjourn the meeting. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. The meeting adjourns at 10:50 p.m.