Loading...
2011-06-07CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: June 7, 2011 Board: Conservation Commission Members Present Chair David Lang, Vice Chair, Tony Paluzzi, Gregg Cademartori, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Kate Glidden, Bill Squibb, and Mary Reilly Members Absent: None Others Present: Amy Maxner — Environmental Planner Recorder: Eileen Sacco by Tape Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers, Beverly, MA. Certificates of Compliance 16 Bayview Avenue — DEP File #5 -1006 - Construct Beach Access Stairway Install Shrubs and Grass on Coastal Bank — Elmtop Realty Trust — c/o Robert and Michael Hubbard Maxner explains that the Order governed the construction of a wooden stairway on Coastal Bank and in Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) to gain access to adjacent Coastal Beach; management of invasive plant species, pruning of existing shrubs, installation of additional native shrubs and grasses on Coastal Bank and within LSCSF. She notes that the Commission will recall withholding the Certificate in favor of requiring better bank stabilization on this part of the project as her field inspection found bare, eroding and vulnerable soils on this side of the bank. Maxner reports that she visited the site yesterday and observed growing grasses, and stabilization looks much better and recommends that the Commission issue a Certificate of Compliance. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Maxner notes that the tree planting required by the recent Enforcement Order issued by the Commission has been completed. She explains that three large river birch tree clusters have been installed and look to be in good health. Old Ferry Way Landing — Cabot Street- DEP #5 -1041 — Dredge Section of Float Embayment — City of Beverly — Michael Collins Commissioner of Public Services and Engineering Maxner recalls that the Order governed dredging 4,200 square feet, approximately 300 cubic yards, from within land Under the Ocean and Coastal Beach from the float embayment in Beverly Harbor at Old Ferry Landing. She explains that the dredging work was proposed to allow for the installation of new floating dock system; the new floating dock system is currently permitted under Order of Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 2 of 18 Conditions DEP File #5 -881. She explains that the Commission will recall this was continued to this meeting because the dredge material was still on site awaiting a final disposal destination. Maxner reported that the landfill that was to be the destination for the material from the site is closed and the material is now going to Amesbury. She explains that the material has been removed from the site and the site has been cleaned up. She recommends that the Commission issue a Certificate of Compliance. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. New: 94 Preston Place, DEP File #5 -976 — Michael Hardiman Maxner explains that the Order, issued in March of 2008, governed the construction of three small additions, removal of existing and reconstruction of new deck, and relocating a storage shed. She notes that work took place within 100 -Foot Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Maxner reports that the applicant also proposed to remove historic yard waste dumped within the wetland and 25'NDZ. Maxner explains that the applicant eliminated the additions and scaled back the extent of the rear deck, therefore significantly shrinking the scope of the final project. She notes that the dumped yard waste has been removed and the shed was relocated outside the 25' NDZ. Maxner explains that she conducted a site inspection and found the site to be in compliance with the Order, stable and fully vegetated, and found no outstanding conditions of concern. She notes that the applicant may install pervious patio pavers under the new deck. Members agree that this will not require further review. Maxner recommends that the Commission issue a Certificate of Compliance. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. New: Thompson Farm Way, DEP File #5 -873 — Thomas Carnevale Maxner explains that the Commission will recall 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. She explains that the wet basin serves the 6 -lot residential subdivision and all work associated with the subdivision building envelopes, access roadway, and cul -de -sac is outside the 100 -Foot Buffer Zone, and the only work fell within jurisdiction was the construction of the proposed wet basin and associated grading. Maxner explains that the Commission will recall denying the request at the last meeting because it appeared that the berm plantings were dead or dying and they were required by Special Conditions. She reports that it seems that these plants are late bloomers and have sprouted back to life. She Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 3 of 18 suggests that based on the Special Condition and photos of existing condition, the Commission should make a determination if a Certificate of Compliance can be issued. Cademartori questions if there maintenance planned for the basin. Maxner explains that the basin will be mowed annually. Cademartori suggests that they check the sump for sediment as well. There being no further questions or comments regarding this plan, Paluzzi moves to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Glidden seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Request for Determination of Applicability New: 7 Meeting Place Circle — Uche Aloha Maxner reads legal notice. Mr. Agoha is present at the meeting Agoha addresses the Commission and explains that he proposes to install a storage shed within the 100 -Foot Buffer Zone to BVW associated with Willow Pond. He states that he intends to use the shed for storage of yard equipment such as his snow blower, yard tools and his children's toys. Maxner shows the Commission photos of the area noting that the proposed location for the shed is outside of the 25 -foot No Disturb Zone and the required 20 -foot No Cut Zone of the subdivision from the edge of the wetland. Mr. Agoha notes that he reduced the size of the shed from 10x20 to 10x16 and the door to the shed will be in line with the current fence. Maxner notes that there are a couple of saplings on the site that are not doing so well but if they have to come down for the shed that would be acceptable if the shed is positioned parallel to the fence rather than perpendicular as shown on the plan, noting that she believes that a perpendicular installation poses a potential for damage and impact from traffic in and out of the shed. Agoha states that the door will open into the yard not to the side, so they will not need to enter past the fence to access the shed. Lang questions what the fence signifies. Maxner explains that it delineates the 20 -foot No Cut Zone for most of the subdivision but in this case it extends out further. Squibb asks if they will be pouring a foundation. Agoha explains that they do not need a foundation because the area is fairly flat and they could probably just use cinder blocks. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative # 3 Determination. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. New: 10 Eleanor Avenue —Joan Gallagher Maxner reads legal notice. Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 4 of 18 Joan Gallagher is present at the meeting. Gallagher addresses the Commission and explains that she is proposing to construct a retaining wall to help abate erosion occurring around her house foundation, back yard and at the base of several perimeter trees whose roots are starting to be exposed. She also notes that she is proposing a stockade fence to be installed along the easterly and northerly property boundary, and will be within the 25' NDZ to Coastal Bank. She explains the plans noting that the proposed project elements are highlighted in yellow on the survey plan. Gallagher explains that the tree roots are exposed and she has lost a lot of shrubs and grass on her property. She notes that all of the soil has migrated down to her old boathouse foundation and the dirt is level with the top of that wall and she has lost about two feet of soil. Maxner explains that she visited the site and took photos, which she shared with the Commission. Lang states that he needs to understand more about what Gallagher is proposing with respect to the wall. Gallagher explains the location of the fence and the area where the wall will be located. Lang states that the Commission needs to have more dimensions and specifications for the wall. Gallagher explains that the work will take place within 100 -Foot Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank and 200 -Foot Riverfront Area to Danvers River. She also states that she is willing to install enhancement plantings as mitigation for the fence incursion into the 25' NDZ, and retaining wall will go a long way to abate the erosion of soil that will eventually compromise existing trees and vegetation. Reilly notes that the proposed work is in the Riverfront area and states that she would be more comfortable with additional information. Maxner suggests that the Commission visit the site. Lang agrees and states that he wants to take a look at the proposed dimensions. Johnson asks Gallagher to have the area staked out for the location of the retaining wall prior to the site visit. 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 moved to continue the matter to the June 28, 2011 Conservation Commission meeting pending a site visit by members as their schedules allow. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. New: Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail — TEC Associates c/o Kyle Fair Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page S of 18 Maxner reads legal notice. Kyle Fair is present for the MBCR. Fair addresses the Commission and explains that they are proposing a Vegetation Management Program for the next five years. He explains the maps noting that there is 10 miles of track in Beverly. He notes that the areas on the maps are zones and the yellow zone indicates that there is a wetland in that zone and explains the process they will use for spraying. He notes that anything within 20 feet of the nearest centerline is given a 10 -foot buffer zone. Fair explains that the blue zone is a sensitive area that requires limited application and explains the criteria for determining that. He notes that only a balanced application will be applied using only chemicals that are prescribed by the Department of Agricultural Resource. Fair explains that the applications will take place during the first two weeks of July. Fair explains that since the last plan was approved by the Commission they have made some changes to the zones for clarity. He also notes that the chemicals used are described in the yearly operational plan that they are required to submit to the Conservation Commission yearly. He also notes that there will be no applications done in marsh areas. Lang refers to Section 21 and notes that the area is close to Wenham Lake, and the area is not noted for special protection. Fair states that the lake has Zone A protection explaining that the area is 400 feet and the tracks do not pass through Zone A. He explains the location on the map. Lang questions if the applications would be reapplied due to rainy weather. Fair explains that they do not do the applications in rainy weather and explains the process. Lang notes that Chubbs Brook at the West Street crossing is another area that he feels should be protected. He notes that there is a presence of fish and smelt in that brook. Maxner explains that the location of Chubbs Brook is 23 on the map. Fair explains that Chubbs Brook was measured to be greater than 20 feet from center and explains the criteria. He states that they measured the head wall and the regulations do not allow for additional protection of the brook. Lang states that he does not think that they should be spraying in the area of the Brook and suggests that the area could be hand picked rather than spraying it noting that in the western part of the state they manage vegetation by spraying at a lesser frequency. Maxner notes that the City is coordinating with the MBTA on work on the culvert at Chubbs Brook and states that they should be aware of the project and may want to suspend spraying in that area to avoid complications. The Commission and Fair discuss the spraying process. Glidden questions if representatives of the MBCR will be present when the areas are sprayed. Fair states that the vehicle will always have a representative of the MBCR or a person from his office at all times during the applications. He notes that they will be monitoring the spraying applications in Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 6 of 18 each zone. He notes that the pilot anticipates the zones as they approach them to insure the proper applications. Cademartori asks how many cities and towns they do these RDA applications in. Fair reviews the areas where they do the applications noting that Beverly is scheduled for this week or next week. Lang states that if they walk the area along Chubbs Brook in Beverly Farms it should be a limited or no spray zone. Fair states that both head walls are outside of the 20 -foot center rail. Reilly notes that there are vernal pools in the area of the Boyles Street crossing. Fair explains the regulations regarding vernal pools. She notes that she would like for this area to be re- measured. Lang states that these regulations are very generic and would be inclined to vote against this tonight as he feels very strongly about protection of Chubbs Brook, noting that smelt have been found to be increasing in the brook. He suggests that the Commission continue this matter to the next meeting so that the applicant can go back and extend the no spray zone in the vicinity of the West Street crossing. Fair agrees to coordinate with Maxner to take a look at these areas. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the matter to the June 28, 2011 meeting. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Recess for Public Hearings Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings at this time. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Notices of Intent Cont: - 44 -46 River Street, DEP File #5 -1048 — site work, environmental remediation, building demolition — National Grid/Mass. Electric/Boston Gas Matt Varrell from VHB, Karen Staffier from VHB, Joe Higgins from Innovative Engineering Solutions (IEES), and Erin Whoriskey and Jason Naiden, and other representatives of National Grid are present. Varrell addresses the Commission and recalls that at the last meeting the Commission asked them to review the alternatives under the MCP and to take a look at the plan for other opportunities for restoration on the site. He notes that LEES submitted a letter relating to MCP issues. He noted that they worked with National Grid to look at the site and enhance Riverfront Area or other areas of the site that aren't actively used. He explains that they found two areas of about 3,000 s.f in the southern portion of the site (on the Mass. Electric side) and notes the areas on the plan. He notes that they would excavate the current material out and extend the planting and seed the area with the same grass seed they are proposing in the upper riverfront area restoration zone. He also noted that a portion of the site is in the 25 -Foot No Disturb Zone. They feel this provides additional Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 7 of 18 restoration in the Riverfront and the 25' NDZ and offers to field and questions relative to this proposal. Karro Frost, the Commission's peer review consultant with New England Environmental (NEE), states that the new area of restoration on the aerial photos shows fairly verdant growth and asks what is currently growing as the aerial may be some years old. Varrell responds that they did not have an opportunity to fully assess this area, but based on their knowledge of the site there is not a lot of good topsoil for plant growth and this restoration plan will improve current conditions by adding more vegetation and amending the soils. Frost reiterates that the aerial does shows vegetation growth in this area now. She goes on to ask in what type of substrate the existing arborvitaes are growing in now. Varrel notes that he does not believe they are growing in a restored area and they have been there for quite a while. Maxner asks how the arborvitaes are doing. Varrell notes that they seem to be doing okay. A National Grid representative noted that there may be two shrubs that are not doing well and they will be replaced as this area also serves as a screen for the neighboring properties. Maxner asks Varrell to explain the changes in grade in the area. Varrell explains the areas that they are proposing to re- grade. He states that it is flat and then a minor slope. She asks clarification on the square footage of the new restoration area. Varrell notes that it is approximately 2,960 square feet. Maxner questions what is happening with the stormwater along the edge at this side of the site and asks if there is a berm along the edge. Staffier explains that there is a berm and explains the flow of stormwater. Maxner clarifies that it is overland flow and there is really no catch basins on that side. Staffier confirms that there are no catch basins and is overland flow into the Bass River. Johnson states that he missed the last meeting and he listened to the recording and read all the materials submitted. He wishes to recall his impressions that National Grid is proposing a remediation plan that is perhaps only temporarily, 3 to 5 decades, that will reduce further pollution of the Bass River in contrast to a more permanent solution of removing all the contaminated material from the site and while the perfect solution is attainable but very expensive. He questions if this is a compromise that has been reached. Lang explains that they have gone back and looked at other options to what they proposed which is based on an 11 -year old evaluation and essentially have stuck with their original proposal. He noted that this is a much less expensive option and in the end they chose their original alternative. Maxner notes that this most recent information attempted to, in part, address some of the alternatives that the Commission's consultant provided in their report. Cademartori states that his concern is that the Commission was told specifically that there is no opportunity for restoration or stormwater management on the Mass. Electric side of the property and he feels that if there is a way to incorporate the other site it would be more beneficial, given the number of vehicles that will be parked there. He states his belief that there are opportunities on the Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 8 of 18 Electric side to remove pavement and restore areas next to the river as opposed to leaving it as pavement and allowing stormwater to sheet flow right off the site from this side. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. Maxner asks if the Commission's consultant has anything to add. Lyons Witten, the Commission's LSP peer review consultant with NEE, addresses the Commission and notes that at the last meeting he offered alternatives for consideration and one alternative in particular which the applicant took that idea to the extreme. He notes that the applicant went ahead with a proposal involving excavation to 20 feet and driving piles to 60 feet and removal all contamination and there is no surprise that this ends up to be a much more expensive undertaking. He explains his intent was to demonstrate that something could be done in the buffer zone to create a better riparian restoration area. He states that he finds it interesting that they came back tonight and did not even consider the other side of the site. He finds if hard to believe that they could propose a multimillion - dollar remediation and site - restructuring project with the statement that they cannot mix the two sites. He explains that his objection is the riparian restoration zone being placed on top of the remediation cap because it seems to mock the intent of the riverfront area regulations that they are working under. And doesn't provide for what the regulations are trying to promote. He notes that the restoration area could be located at a different area on site or somewhere in town off site and suggests that a land use on the Electric side could be parked on to of the remediation cap just as other uses will be parked on top of the cap and move the riparian restoration elsewhere, whether it be on site Lang asks what the main concern for not placing the restoration area on top of the cap. Maxner notes that it will be a very shallow area and not attain a true riparian restoration immediately adjacent to the river. She notes that the restoration area is only 18 inches deep, and that limits what can grow in there. Frost notes that this area will be constantly maintained to not allow trees grow in this area. Maxner notes that Witten's points are very well taken in that the applicant came back with an all or nothing scenario with no options in between the chosen alternative and a full 20 feet of excavation. Maxner questions if the other side of the site where the additional restoration is, and if they any information about sub grade contamination. Higgins states that they have extensive testing and it is clean over there. Maxner asks if that side of the site might make sense for riparian restoration. He explains that there are certain operations that cannot be moved and it is premature to assume that can be carried out on that side of the site. He also states that the excavation of 20 feet is the depth of the contamination and if you want to remove all of the contamination from the buffer zone then you have to excavate down 20 feet. He believes that short of that depth there is noting to be gained and if they take additional material out Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 9 of 18 of the buffer zone, it could be done but they would still need to have a second containment system unless they take everything out. Maxner asks what the other side of the site is used for. A National Grid representative explains the use of the site and notes that there is not a lot of opportunity for digging because of the underground utilities and existience of high- tension lines. Squibb asks if the utilities extend into the river. Maxner clarifies that they would be hitting tension wires landward of the arborvitae. The National Grid representative notes that he is not 100% sure where they are located and does not have an as- built to show underground wires and utilities. Maxner asks how much room they would have landward of the arborvitae. The National Grid representative states that they do not know. Maxner reiterates that there are unknowns, but they rejected this side of the site even though they don't know their limitations. Varrell states that they believe they have provided a viable restoration area on the site and placed it in an area that the Commission previously approved. Frost notes that if the Commission approves the restoration area there should be a restriction covenant placed on the area that prevents them from doing anything with it in the future. Varrell noted that this was filed as a limited project and the performance standards of riverfront area are not meant to be fully complied with. Maxner notes Cademartori's point regarding stormwater management on the other side of the site, asking if there are there any ideas. Staffier states that they looked at options that could go above and beyond what is required and there is a high voltage duct bank running through the site that presents limitations and digging is not something that can be easily done. Primary limitations to stormwater is digging and then there is the problem of no existing discharge points. She explains that they could maybe collect the water but there is nowhere for the water to go. She also states that overland the topography is not suited for the runoff Lang states that if there are no further questions or comments he would entertain a motion to close the hearing. Johnson moves to close the public hearing. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Maxner informs the applicants that the Commission will precede with the rest of their agenda and Orders of Conditions will be issued later in the meeting. 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 Richard Cane of Flately Company and Mike DeRosa are present for the applicant. Cane addresses the Commission and provides a brief overview of the application and the proposed replication and mitigation plan. He notes that Maxner prepared a draft Order of Conditions and explains that they are concerned about the issue of timing in terms of which work can be done first. Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 10 of 18 Lang suggests that they do the lower replication area first so that Maxner could approve it. Cane explains that the company would like to also begin work on their site to prepare for marketing at the same time. Lang notes that the excavation and preparation of the wetland replication area should not take that long and is confident that work on the development site won't be delayed for any significant amount of time. He notes that between Maxner, himself and Vice Chair Paluzzi there will be someone immediately available to review and approve the replication work. Maxner notes that she drafted the special conditions and emailed them to the Commission. Cademartori questions who has the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Cane explains that Jack Kelleher has a Purchase and Sale Agreement on the property and he is in agreement with the plans. Cademartori states that if the P &S fails for some reason there would have to be another RFP. Cane states that if the deal falls through then the deal is dead. He explains that there are a series of steps that have to be followed. Maxner reviews the proposed Order of Conditions with the Commission. Cademartori states that he is concerned that the property slated for the restoration area was not included in the Notice of Intent and the City has not agreed to it or signed the NOI. Maxner states that a revised Notice of Intent has been signed by the Mayor, Mr. Kelleher and Flatley Company and was submitted for the record. Cane explains that they held a meeting with the Mayor, noting that Maxner attended that meeting and the Mayor expressed his support of this project and the approach that is being considered for land transfer to the Commission. He explains that it may make more sense for Mr. Kelleher to close on the property under his Purchase and Sale agreement with City and then turn the property over to the City. Maxner states that she would like to look at the deed before it is recorded. Cane explains that the Mayor has requested that Maxner, Cassidy and the City Solicitor review the deed before it is final. Cane states that he has no problem with the Order of Conditions stating that it is contingent upon City Council approval. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on this matter. Maxner suggests that a bond should be posted for the project. Cane states that he has no problem with that but requested that it be in the form of cash or a letter of credit. Discussion ensues as to the appropriate amount for the surety. Lang suggested $15,000. DeRosa states that amount would probably be sufficient to include his oversight services as well as cost of plant material. Cane reviews the drainage plans for the site. Squibb states that he is concerned that the ATV's will continue to use the site. Cane states that they will be working with the police department to keep people off the site and signs will be posted. Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 11 of 18 There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to close the hearing. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. 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. Martin Plecinoga is present. Plecinoga addresses the Commission and states that he is going through the proper channels for this project. He explains that he is proposing to tear down a back porch, build an addition at the back of the house and construct a new deck off of the new addition all closer to the river than existing conditions. He notes that the work is to take place within 200 -Foot Riverfront Area, 100 -Foot Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank and Salt Marsh, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. Maxner asks Plecinoga to explain the resource areas on the site. Plecinoga states that the site is adjacent to the riverfront area and the salt marsh. He notes that all work will be done on the lawn area. He notes that this is the third time that he has filed with the Commission and excavation work will be done and notes areas on the plan. Plecinoga explains that in the long term he plans to rebuild his pier but that is not included in this filing. Paluzzi questions how far the construction will be from the coastal bank. Plecinoga states that it is about 90 feet from the foundation. Maxner states that she thinks it is less than that. Discussion ensues regarding the lines for the coastal bank on the plan. Reilly questions if the applicant is proposing the construction of the deck at this time. Plecinoga states that he is proposing the deck at this time. Johnson asks if the deck is outside of the 25 -foot No Disturb Zone (25' NDZ). Plecinoga explains that the deck is proposed to be 14 feet off the rear of the new foundation. He also explains that the deck will be canter levered over the lawn area. Discussion ensues regarding the location of the deck in relation to the 25' NDZ and it is determined that the cantilevered portion of the deck encroaches into the NDZ. Paluzzi suggests that they consider narrowing the deck so as not to encroach on the 25' NDZ or provide mitigation. Maxner explains that the 25' NDZ is governed by the local Ordinance, which was enacted to ensure a little more protection for the resource area than the wetland protection act calls for. She notes that it was not apparent to her that the deck would encroach into this zone based on the plan submitted. Plecinoga suggests that he would eliminate the deck at this time so that he can proceed with the addition on his house. He explains that he will come back with minor modification at a later date. Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 12 of 18 Maxner noted that if he decides to encroach on the 25' NDZ and proposes mitigation he would have to file for an amendment to the plan. Maxner asks if the applicant has provided for erosion control on the site. Plecinoga explains his plans for a hay bale line on the plan. Maxner suggests that the hay bales should serve as the limit of work line for the project and he should increase the line of hay bales to go the entire length of the fence. Cademartori suggests that the limit of the 25' NDZ be field verified by Maxner prior to any work commencing and installation of erosion controls. Members agree. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moved to close the public hearing. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -0. New: 73 Cross Lane — Donald Benoit Bob Griffin is present for the applicant. Maxner reads legal notice. Griffin addresses the Commission and explains that the applicant is proposing to construct a two -car garage addition, driveway, rear deck and walkway to the existing single - family house within 100 - Foot Buffer Zone to inland bank and BVW. He also noted that a waiver is requested for work in the 25' NDZ, which involves a stone infiltration trench and some minor grading. Griffin also notes that the applicant has been to the ZBA for approval. Griffin explains that the garage will have a concrete frost wall foundation and will be outside the 25' NDZ. He notes that the subsurface infiltrator will be within the 25' NDZ, but there is no other preferable alternative on the site as it is small. He explains that infiltrator will handle new roof runoff and is designed for a half -inch of rainfall. Reilly questions why they are not proposing mitigation for encroachment in the 25' NDZ and removal of the large tree. Griffin states that the site is small and they have a small yard as it is. Reilly asks why the large tree is slated for removal. Griffin notes that they are worried that the root system will be compromised from foundation excavation. He suggests that they could plant a replacement oak tree on the site. Discussion ensues regarding the size of the replacement tree. Reilly suggests that they plant three 2" oak trees on the site noting that they are losing a big oak tree. Maxner notes that tree planting is usually the last thing on the punch list for projects and notes that she is concerned about the survival of the trees. She states that she wants to be sure that the tree survives and suggests that the trees be planted within six months of the completion of the construction. Lang suggests that there should be a year of survival before a Certificate of Compliance is issued and the trees should be in the ground for a year. Griffin states that he would not want to plant the trees too early and risk them being damaged during construction. Lang agrees and suggests that the Certificate of Compliance will be withheld until the trees are established. Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 13 of 18 Lang opens the hearing up 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 public hearing. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. OLD/NEW BUSINESS New: 412 Hale Street, Landmark School, DEP File #5 -909 — Request for Minor Modification James DeVellis is present for the applicant. DeVellis addresses the Commission and explains that the permit for the soccer field for the Landmark School was issued in March of 2007 and extended until March of 2013. He explains that fundraising for the project has been difficult due to the economy and they are now going to construct the field in phases starting with the construction of the field and doing the electrical work and the installation of the scoreboard, and the bleachers, and fence in Phase II. He notes that there have been some modifications to the access walkway. Maxner explains that she has reviewed the proposed phasing of the project and recommended that the applicant seek a minor modification and that they submit a revised plan for the record. DeVellis also noted that there are two other changes to the plan in that they are proposing to eliminate a retaining wall because there is a lot of ledge on the site and they are re- routing the proposed pathway to the field to save a significant beech tree on the site. He stated that the pathway will be gravel for the time being and eventually they plan to pave it. He also noted that the area above the pond where the proposed subsurface infiltration trench located to the north of the pond is to go is being phased out and the gymnasium will not be constructed. He explains that they will enhance an existing low spot behind the storage pod at the edge of the parking lot and install a rip - rap bowl sediment basin at the same time that they construct the field. Johnson questions if the pond is being used for educational opportunities for students. DeVellis explains that the school has been doing water testing with students and they have submitted the results to the Commission. He also notes that the school has purchased equipment for the students to do proper testing. Maxner states that the proposed changes are minor and asks DeVellis if the proposed phasing of the project could be accomplished before the permit expires. DeVellis states that they should be able to do it, noting that the school will probably fund the project through fund raising. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to approve a minor modification for Phases I and 11 412 Hale Street, Landmark School, DEP File #5 -909. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. 60 Pleasant Street, Special Permit Application — Planning Board Request for Comments Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 14 of 18 Maxner informs the Commission that this property does not appear to contain any wetland resources or buffer zones. The Commission reviews the plan. The Commission members have no comments on the matter and no action was taken. New: 875 Hale Street OSRD Documents — Planning Board Request for Comments Jeff Rhuda is present. Maxner informs the Commission that the Planning Board is looking for input from the Commission relative to the Open Space Management Plan, Stormwater O & M Plan and Declaration of Covenants and Easements. She notes that in talking with Planning Board staff member Leah Zambernardi that she suggests that the Commission's input concentrate on the documents rather than the application noting that the application has been reviewed extensively. She notes that the developer, Jeff Rhuda is present this evening and may want to participate in the discussion. Maxner suggests that it is important to reference the plan in the documents. Rhuda states that the plan is referenced in the Homeowners Trust Association. Rhuda also notes that the Commission will get another look at the Operation and Maintenance Plan and the Long Term Pollution Plan when the Notice of Intent is reviewed. He explains that the open space areas are the meadow, turf grass area and the wooded area. Reilly notes that it is not obvious in the open space maintenance narrative as to which area requires which type of care and maintenance and suggests that the areas be separated out in the document and more clearly defined. Discussion ensues regarding the frequency of the mowing of the meadow. Rhuda notes that passive recreation is not allowed in the area. Maxner suggests that the meadow be mowed once a year in late August. Rhuda suggests that late fall would be a better time and would be in keeping with the regulations. Reilly agrees and provides material from Audubon that suggests very late in the fall for mowing of the meadow. Rhuda suggests that the Commission hold off on the Operation and Maintenance Plan until the Notice of Intent is filed. Rhuda explains that the restrictive covenant and open space plan gives the city and the Commission the right to enter the property to be sure that everything is in compliance. He reviews the open space proposal and notes that there are no uses allowed in the forested area or the meadow. He also notes that everything is cross - referenced in the documents. Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 15 of 18 Rhuda suggests that he would make the suggested edits to the documents and get them back to Maxner so that she can prepare comments to the Planning Board. Maxner requests that the Commission vote to authorize her to write a letter to the Planning Board relative to the comments of the Commission in this matter. Paluzzi moves to authorize Maxner to write a letter to the Planning Board indicating the comments of the Commission regarding 875 Hale Street OSRD Documents. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Request for Partial Certificates of Compliance — Lot 8- Manor Homes Subdivision — 19 Whitehall Circle Bob Griffin is present for the applicant. Maxner informs the Commission that lot 8 does not contain wetlands and the Commission has no jurisdiction but the lot is included in the subdivision roadway Order of Conditions. Griffin states that the lot is outside of the buffer zone and encumbrance is restricting the mortgage from being written on the parcel. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance to release Lot 8 — 19 Whitehall Circle. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Request for Partial Certificates of Compliance — Lot 6 — Manor Homes Subdivision — 23 Whitehall Circle Maxner explains that Lot 6 contains part of the 100' NDZ to the Vernal Pool and limits of the Conservation Restriction, as well as the walking path that leads to the 6 -acre open space parcel, which is currently being revisited as existing topography makes it difficult to navigate as conditions exist in the field at this time. She notes that no work has been performed within the Commission's jurisdiction and that the CR prohibits any future work in these areas. Griffin states that the walking path is being revisited although they do not believe that they promised any measurements. He explains that when they do lot 5 they will do some re- grading and while the path will still be on lot 6, it will border lot 5. Griffin noted that the work of building the residences is complete and the lots are in compliance. Maxner agrees that everything is stable. Maxner also notes that the site will need a full Certificate of Compliance for the roadway when the site is complete so the Commission still has some leverage with regard to the open space pathway. Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 16 of 18 There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance for Lot 6 — 23 Whitehall Circle. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Request from Steven Edelstein — 4 Birchwood Drive- DEP File # 5 -991 - Installation of an outdoor storage shed within the Buffer Zone Maxner explains that the existing Order governs the installation of in ground pool, cabana, patio, house addition, expansion of basketball court, gas and sewer utility installation and driveway improvements within Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, Bank and 100 -Foot Buffer Zone thereto. She explains that the applicant is requesting to construct a 12x20 shed at the end of the driveway to house pool equipment and toys etc. She notes that this seems to be a very minimal impact and asks the Commission if this can be done as a minor modification to the order. Lang asks how far from the brook will the shed be. Maxner estimates that it is about 30 feet. Lang agrees that a minor modification is in order. There are no additional comments from other members of the Commission. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Squibb moves to allow a minor modification for 4 Birchwood Drive, DEP File #5 -991 for the installation of a 12x20 foot shed. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. 50 Hillcrest — Request for Modification to RDA Maxner explains that the applicant has an existing RDA for pool and deck and is requesting to bump out the deck so it will be 84 feet from the wetland instead of the proposed 95 feet that was approved by the Commission. She shows the proposed deck plan to the Commission members for their review. She questions if the existing RDA can be amended, as this is a minor change. Lang states that he sees no problem with that. Members agree that no further review is necessary for this change in the deck. Orders of Conditions 44 -46 River Street, DEP File #5 -1048 Maxner suggests that considering the late hour, the Commission should continue this to a date certain within the 21 days that the Commission has to issue an Order of Conditions. The Commission discussed possible dates to continue the matter to and determined that they would reconvene on Monday, June 20, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. to hold final discussion and vote on an Order of Conditions for this project. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moved to continue the issuance of an Order of Conditions for 44 -46 River Street, DEP File #5 -1048 to Monday June 20, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carried 7 -0. Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 17 of 18 102 Cherry Hill Drive, DEP File #5 -1054 The Commission discussed possible conditions for the project. Paluzzi moved to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. The approval under this Order of Conditions is contingent upon 10 Sam Fonzo Drive, Map 65 Lot 4, being deeded over to the City of Beverly to be placed under the care and custody of the Beverly Conservation Commission pursuant to MGL Chapter 40 Section 8C. 2. The Conservation Agent shall review and approve the draft deed language prior to its execution. 3. No work or proposed site activities on either property shall be allowed to commence until such deed is fully executed and recorded at the Southern Essex Registry of Deeds. It is expected that the deed shall contain language that allows the applicant to conduct replication, necessary after -care and monitoring activities on the City -owned property. 4. Prior to construction or proposed site activities, cash or letter of credit or other appropriate performance security in the amount of $15,000.00 shall be posted with the City of Beverly Conservation Commission. 5. Prior to replication activities commencing, reconnaissance information, as required pursuant to Beverly Wetlands Protection Regulations, Section VI. F. a) — g), (that which has not been included in the original application and plans) shall be submitted to the Conservation Administrator for review. The Administrator shall reserve the right to present said information to the Commission if deemed appropriate. 6. A pre - construction meeting with the Commission or its Administrator and all responsible parties shall be held prior to replication activities commencing. Irrigation of any or all areas within the wetland replication zone as well as the upland stabilization effort shall be implemented by the applicant as necessary to ensure survival of newly planted and seeded areas. Once completed, the replication area shall be inspected by the Conservation Administrator. 7. The wetland replication, after -care and monitoring protocol shall be executed as described in the NOI narrative in addition to the requirements of and in accordance with the Beverly Wetlands Protection Regulations Section V.D.2. a) —j). Every phase of such shall be directed and monitored by a qualified wetland professional. If there are any conflicting procedures, the stricter and more comprehensive shall rule. Reilly seconded the motion. The motion carried 7 -0. 34 Fosters Point, DEP File #5 -1055 Lang and Glidden recused themselves from discussion of this matter. The Commission discussed possible conditions. Johnson moved to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Beverly Conservation Commission June 7, 2011MeetingMinutes Page 18 of 18 1. Prior to construction and installation of any erosion controls, the Conservation Agent shall field verify and mark the limit of the 25 -Foot No Disturbance Zone. 2. The erosion controls (i.e. entrenched silt fence) shall be installed at the limit of the 25 -Foot No Disturbance Zone or landward there from and inspected by the Conservation Administrator. 3. This Order of Conditions prohibits the incursion of any part of this project into the 25 -Foot No Disturbance Zone, including any part or supporting structures related to the proposed deck. Storage of any project related materials shall be landward of the erosion controls; stockpiling of excavate, construction materials or other work - related debris is also prohibited within the 25 -Foot No Disturbance Zone. 4. Grading or changing the elevation of any part of this property is neither proposed nor permitted under this project and Order of Conditions. 5. Excavated soils from the proposed frost wall foundation shall be removed from the site immediately and not stockpiled on site for any extended period of time. Cademartori seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 -0 -2, with Lang and Glidden abstaining. 73 Cross Lane, DEP File #5 -1056 The Commission discussed possible conditions for the project. Paluzzi moved to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: The applicant shall plant three 2 -inch caliper oak trees within the vicinity of the easterly area of the property to compensate for the removal of the 36" oak tree. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7 -0. Approval of Minutes The minutes to the Conservation Commission meetings held on January 25, 2011 and February 25, 2011 were presented for approval. Johnson moves to approve the minutes of the Conservation Commission meetings held on January 25, 2011 and February 25, 2011 as presented. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 6 -0- 1, with Reilly abstaining. Adiournment 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 7 -0. The meeting adjourns at 10:30 p.m.