Loading...
2012-02-28CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD: Conservation Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: February 28, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Paluzzi, Vice Chairman, Robert Buchsbaum, Anne Grant, Katelyn Merrill, and Bill Squibb BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Lang, Chairman, and Kate Glidden STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Jane Dooley Paluzzi calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Beverly Public Library, 32 Essex Street, Beverly. New: Vicinity of Kennedy Drive, Proposed Wetland Management Activities — Discussion w/Emily Sullivan — Northeast Mosquito Control District Emily Sullivan addresses the Commission and explains that DPW Director Mike Collins has contacted Mosquito Control regarding drainage issues in the vicinity of Kennedy Drive. This area has been subject to Mosquito Control management in 1998 and has been monitored by technicians regularly. There are connections to Virginia Avenue where there is a retention pond and rock berm. Sullivan explains proposal is to mow Phragmites in area to establish better flow and create clear visibility as to where the mosquitoes are. Larvicide has been done over the years for mosquito control in the area but the Phragmites has made it difficult for the crews to get through the area. In response to Paluzzi's question, Sullivan states the lower section on Bradstreet Avenue has to be cleared where there is a waterway that is 10 -feet across and the 100 -feet of Phragmites would be mowed in an 8 -foot swath with a flail mower that pulverizes material. Sullivan has spoken to abutter on Virginia Avenue about any proposed Mosquito Control activity. Discussion ensues about management work done by Mosquito Control in the late 1990s where there was no aerial footage of area, regarding mowing or pruning of Phragmites and if herbicide application would be considered as a more aggressive application/long -term control measure. Sullivan explains that heavier impact maintenance is being proposed to allow for hand clearing in next few years. Merrill suggests more comprehensive approach could be used in the future. Sullivan agrees that spraying with mowing provides best opportunity to manage Phragmites but does not eradicate it. She notes that there is a patchwork of ownership in area where lawns spill into the area. Collins plans to work with Sullivan to identify appropriate residents to contact about Mosquito Control entering the land and to educate them about the situation in the area. Conservation Commission February 28, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 Sullivan explains that along with mowing field mapping will be done in the lower areas, hand maintenance will continue for next five years to assist follow -up annual larviciding efforts. She adds that Mosquito Control helps with flood plans where the water does not move to promote resilient wetlands and to allow catch basins to drain specially because mosquitoes that carry West Nile Virus are found in them and for better predator access. She notes that there are always mosquitoes in that area but this could improve the system. Commission discusses with Sullivan how this work qualifies under the exemption to the Wetlands Protection Act. Discussion ensues about if there is a need for a site visit to determine correlation to WPA exemption. Sullivan offers to provide Commission with additional information in a second letter that includes clauses and language. Maxner mentions that this is the first meeting with Mosquito Control in nearly 10 years. Sullivan explains that her organization has not done any work in Beverly for the last 15 to 20 years. She explains that hand clearing would be done along the edges and pulled away from the area. At the suggestion of Merrill, Maxner agrees to set up site walk where Commissioners can come take a look at area where work is proposed. Certificate of Compliance Cont: 400 Hale Street, DEP File #5463 — construct baseball & soccer field — Endicott College Maxner notes that this will need to be continued to the next meeting as there is no quorum for the NOI on the synthetic turf field and that project will tie in mitigation for this Certificate of Compliance. Squibb moves to continue this item to the March 13, 2012 meeting. Seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 5 -0. New: 254 Essex Street YMCA Sterling Center, DEP File #5 -1021— construct retaining wall, pedestrian walkway and reconfigure parking spaces — YMCA of the North Shore c/o Jack Meany April Ferraro, with Meridian Associates, explains this Order governed a pathway. She notes that in order to provide pedestrian public access along a 50 -foot City right of way blocked by a landscape berm that the YMCA built without permission, work was done along paved parking area adjacent to the Teen Center to reconfigure a 5 -foot walkway to connect to existing woodland paths within the City right of way, and provide an 18 -foot wide fire access way. Work took place within the buffer zone to BVW and IVW. Special Condition was issued for installation of 3' brake in the guardrail and signage that invites the public to "please enjoy this public right of way." Ferraro describes what was done to comply with a request from Open Space and Recreation Committee to maintain five -foot wide pedestrian access pathway with a guardrail to provide 18 -foot fire aisle around building. She notes that gravel path was constructed within 100 -foot buffer. Conservation Commission February 28, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 Maxner reports findings of her final site inspection stating that mostly pathway is fine and there was a modification to plan that included plantings of hemlocks (that are not doing so well) and white pines that abutter had requested as a visual screen. Along the pathway between the berm and guardrail there are a couple of patches of pricker bushes that need to be cut down. The pathway aisle is free of vegetation for the most part and the site is stable. Merrill suggests that the Certificate require a long -term condition requiring vegetation pruning within the pathway. Members agree. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Squibb moves to issue the Certificate of Compliance with a condition requiring long -term vegetation management within the path. Seconded by Merrill. The motion carries 5 -0. Endicott College — Life Sciences Building, DEP File #5 -1072 — Modification to Site Plan Charlie Wear from Meridian Associates describes changes to plan for walkway near entrance to building near primary route that students travel, which necessitated a small area of new walkway, which will fall within the no disturb zone. He notes that the changes to the plan reduces the amount of impervious surface in the Buffer Zone overall. He notes that the existing walkway needs to be re- graded to meet ADA requirements. Maxner mentions that walkway area is already disturbed with pavement, but since changes were within the 25' NDZ she insisted that the Commission review this to determine if a formal application is required or if these changes are deminimus. Merrill moves that there is no significant change to the plan. Seconded by Squibb. The motion carries 5 -0. Recess for Public Hearings Squibb moves to recess for public hearings. Seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 5 -0. Notices of Intent Cont: 400 Hale Street, DEP File #5 -1070 — athletic field improvements, install synthetic turf field — Endicott College c/o Richard Wylie, President Maxner notes that the Commission does not have a legal quorum of eligible members to act on this application and therefore this must be continued to the March 13 meeting. Merrill moves to continue public hearing to March 13 Seconded by Grant. The motion carries 5 -0. Cont: 675E Hale Street, DEP File #5 -1073 — remove and manage invasive species, perform trail upgrades, buffer zone restoration — Christopher & Hillary Gabrieli c/o Laura Gibson, ASLA Laura Gibson, Landscape Architect, and John Dick of Hancock Associates are present for the applicant. Conservation Commission February 28, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 Dick mentions that the Commission completed a site walk of property to view area where work is proposed. He notes that Waterways says the vegetation management without dredging is not jurisdictional pertaining to category 1 notification. Merrill addresses jurisdictional resources regarding presence of riverfront and, and per the Regulations using the USGS map as an indicator of perennial nature of stream. She notes that absent of the documented evidence showing the stream dry for four days in a 12 -month period, she believes the Commission must consider this a perennial stream and there for the 200 -Foot Riverfront area is present on site. Dick notes that he provided an argument for intermittence during the vista pruning RDA process but the Commission did not rule on it then. He notes that regardless of whether Riverfront is there, the project still qualifies under the Limited Project provisions and can be allowed. Gibson says it is not an issue for her clients declaring there is riverfront on site. Maxner states it could be written into the findings that the Commission finds the stream to be perennial but that the project meets the allowance under limited project. She suggests a special condition that requires the cut Phragmites to be burned on site. Gibson mentions that removed Phragmites could be burned on a nearby island of Phragmites during burning season and plans are to remove Phragmites during summer. Merrill suggests they supply a disposal plan so that there is assurances that the cut Phragmites do not pose a problem elsewhere. Buchsbaum notes that flower heads of Phragmites are most dangerous. Gibson says they would be pulled out before they bloom. Merrill asks if there are any deviations from the plan that define management versus landscaping that Maxner should be notified. Gibson notes that she usually submits a phase schedule to Maxner including compost disposal and that habitat garden would be done in June, but that removal will be done in geographic phases. Merrill suggests that Maxner be notified and visit the site prior to each geographic phase. Maxner recommends additional special conditions: Should the use of herbicides be proposed, the applicant shall return to the Commission to present a detailed plan as to the types of materials to be used, methods of application and areas to receive the treatment; annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Commission detailing invasive specie management efforts and progress in reaching the project's goals. Reports shall cover no less than 5 years from the start of project activities. Based on said reports, the Commission reserves the right to require additional monitoring and /or modifications to the management plan. Gibson agrees that these are acceptable conditions. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Buchsbaum moves to closed the hearing. Seconded by Grant. The motion carries 5 -0. New: 1 Lanthorn Lane — William & Margaret Monagle — abandon septic system and connect to City sewer, construct deck and patio. Maxner read legal notice. Conservation Commission February 28, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 Patrick Seekamp of Seekamp Environmental is present for the applicant. He explains the Commission issued an Enforcement Order for unauthorized work in the Buffer Zone, the project involves abandonment of the septic system and connection to City sewer, proposed deck and pool patio. He notes the proposed addition falls outside of the buffer. He explains that there are a few adjacent resources including BVW, coastal dune and coastal beach off site. Seekamp notes the only jurisdiction on site is in the Buffer Zone and work is also outside of the 25' NDZ. He has depicted dune on the plan and refers to aerial photo that illustrated healthy beach grass, noting that the neighborhood should be commended for such good care of the dune and beach grass vegetation. Erosion controls are presently installed and functioning properly and the plan proposes additional controls to fully envelope the work area around the 36 -foot by 12 -foot deck with 8 Sonotube footings under the posts and impervious block patio between elevated deck and existing pool. Addition that is being proposed is on west side of house in outside of 100 -foot buffer zone. Discussion ensues as to handling of backfill from excavation in disturbed area that would be used for Sonotubes and that crushed stone will be used along with current material under deck. Consultant responds to Merrill's question regarding importance of draining pool to dry well to sewer, not out back of property and timing of drain as well as chemical content. Seekamp also describes vegetation in wetland area and that there is a system piped through the neighborhood and daylight along the BVW. He notes when violation was found erosion control was installed and will be maintained for future proposals. Merrill specifies that the hay bales need to be removed when work is completed. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Squibb moves to closed the hearing. Seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 5 -0. Merrill leaves the meeting at this time, and does not return. New: Bass River — City of Beverly — maintenance dredging of navigation channel — City of Beverly Maxner reads legal notice. Ron Bourne of Bourne Engineering is present for the applicant, the City of Beverly. He explains the area to be dredged to and elevation of 6 feet below mean low water falls between the Hall Whitaker Bridge (north of Bridge Street) northerly to the Bass Haven Yacht Club. He notes that this has been historically dredged since the early 1900s. The City has submitted applications to the Army Corps of Engineers, DEP for Chapter 91 and DEP for 401 Water Quality. The EEA Secretary's MEPA determination allows Phase 1 (this section of the river) to proceed while the Final EIR is being prepared for the section of the river that contains contaminants from the adjacent National Grid former MGP site. Bourne explains that the dredged material will be taken by barge out of the river to an in -water disposal site. He notes this does impact intertidal area due to the long period of time since it was Conservation Commission February 28, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 dredged and mitigation for shellfish is proposed by working with the Division of Marine Fisheries. He explains that the dredge area cannot be reseeded but a basin approach involving reseeding in the Pines River in Saugus is proposed via help from DMF. Bourne explains that bottom soil samples were tested north and south of National Grid site but Phase II is not part of this project until they go back to MEPA for EIR to determine how material will be disposed of The whole south channel will be dredged to 9 -foot below mean sea level depth. Maxner asks for clarification as to the actual square footage of dredge area as there are several numbers quoted in the various materials provided in the NOI. Bourne responds that the project planning began in 2007 and notes that the hydrographic survey has a five -year life span and has been updated since with new square footages, outlining basins where dredging impact is expected and where mean low waterline is established. He notes that the numbers contained in the NOI form are the correct most up to date numbers. Bourne notes there was discussion with MEPA regarding draft EIR so the City could move forward without being held back by how the National Grid site is going to be handled. He mentions that MEPA acknowledged all the proper investigation and documentation has been done to allow the City to move ahead with dredging north of Bridge Street. South of Bridge Street has to come back in front of MEPA. In response to Maxner, he says it is possible nothing could happen with problem area of river by National Grid south of Bridge Street. Bourne explains the sediment testing results that have been completed, which meet the ACOE's criteria for in -water disposal. Maxner reads the letter submitted by Mass. Division of Fisheries detailing their recommendations. Bourne mentions that there will be removal of fill and catch basin cleanings in storm water system, street sweeping and alternative deicing products have been employed by the City to help address water quality and sedimentation issues. He notes that in regard to habitat improvement, the dredging will result in better conditions at times of low water for fish passage. He agrees to provide Commission with electronic copy of testing results that show it is acceptable to dispose of dredged material in open water as well as draft EIR and total physical testing report that outlines chemical composition that is within tolerance identifying grain size and if it holds metals or not. He states that analysis met requirements. Maxner asks for details on how the City plans to manage the DPW yard on Park Street since catch basins from this yard drain directly to the Bass River. Bourne agrees to work with the City Engineer on that request. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Squibb moves to continue the hearing to the March 13 meeting. Seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 4 -0. Old/New Business Conservation Commission February 28, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 New: Thissell Street /Common Lane — Forest Management Plan — Samuel & Cecily Vaughan, Joan Vaughan Ingraham — Review, Discussion /Comments Maxner explains that she had written letter and spoken to resident about hemlocks removed in Buffer Zone or wetland that were dead from Wooly Adelgid and some from storm damage. Owners have been considering developing a forest management plan and promised to carbon copy Commission/Administrator for review of any problem trees they would like to cut in the field. Maxner suggests process for work in jurisdictional areas should include development of erosion control and access plan. She notes that on state level this work would be exempt but the City has a local bylaw /ordinance so asks the Commission if an RDA should be filed for formal review. Paluzzi notes that if trees are cut in the wetland area, the owner should notify Commission. Discussion ensues as to whether a formal application is needed. Members agree that each round of cutting could be taken on a case -by -case basis with Maxner reviewing the field prior to work starting. Maxner suggests writing a letter to Vaughan about keeping her informed about any concentrated work planned in Buffer Zone and that forester should work with her to develop a plan to protect resources and wetland. Members agree to this approach. Discussion ensues about 32 acres in total and that 9 acres are excluded from stewardship. New Expenditure Approvals Buchsbaum moves to approve expenditure of $1,001.05 to pay invoice of New England Environmental (the Commission's peer review firm) for their review of the proposed settlement terms for 44 -46 River Street reconsolidation and remediation project. Seconded by Squibb. The motion carries 4 -0. Squibb moves for Commission to pay $158.75 for legal advertisement for Open Space & Recreation Committee's RDA, the Folger Avenue trail blazing project. Seconded by Squibb. The motion carries 4 -0. Order of Conditions 675 E Hale Street Buchsbaum moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions as discussed during this evening hearing: 1. Prior to work commencing on Phragmites management, a Phragmites cuttings disposal management plan shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent for review. The plan should strive to contain the cut Phragmites on site and /or render it non - viable at the time of final disposal. 2. Prior to work commencing in any of the distinct geographic areas of management, a pre - activity meeting shall be held with parties responsible for the project and the Conservation Agent to review each phase of management. Conservation Commission February 28, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 3. Should the use of herbicides be proposed, the applicant shall return to the Commission to present a detailed plan as to the types of materials to be used, methods of application and areas to receive the treatment. 4. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Commission detailing invasive specie management efforts and progress in reaching the project's goals. Reports shall cover no less than 5 years from the start of project activities. Based on said reports, the Commission reserves the right to require additional monitoring and /or modifications to the management plan. Seconded by Squibb. The motion carries 4 -0. 1 Lanthorn Lane Discussion ensues as to possible conditions for the project. Buchsbaum moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions as discussed: 1. In order to encourage infiltration of rainwater and snowmelt, crushed stone shall be installed underneath the proposed deck at the back of the house. 2. The erosion control hay bales shall be maintained in good condition throughout the life of the project, and shall not be removed until all disturbed ground surfaces are fully stabilized with growing grass or vegetation. 3. Pool drawdown or backwash shall not be directly discharged to the wetlands or off the rear yard stonewall, instead shall be directed to street catch basin drainage or over the upper reaches of the lawn to allow for infiltration into the ground. Discharge shall not occur within 2 weeks of chlorination. This condition shall survive in perpetuity beyond the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance or for as long as a pool is maintained on site. Seconded by Squibb. The motion carries 4 -0. Approval of Minutes Commission members gave Maxner amendments to January 31, 2012 regular session minutes. Grant moves the Commission approve the January 31, 2012 regular session minute as amended. Seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 4 -0. Maxner mentions that the January 31, 2012 executive session minutes were reviewed by the City Solicitor. Buchsbaum moves the Commission approve the executive session minutes. Seconded by Grant. The motion carries 4 -0. Maxner takes back copies of minutes from members. Maxner notes that Commission will vote on other minutes requiring approval when other members are in attendance to meet quorum requirement. Conservation Commission February 28, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 Adiournment There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening, Grant moves to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 4 -0. The meeting adjourns at 9:23 p.m.