2012-06-12CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012
David Lang, Chairman, Tony Paluzzi, Vice Chairman,
Christine Bertoni, Robert Buchsbaum, Kate Glidden, Anne
Grant and Bill Squibb
None
Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner
Joan Johnson, Beverly Conservation Land Trust
Jane Dooley
Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly Public Library, 32 Essex Street, Beverly,
MA.
Certificates of Compliance
New: Foster Street, Common Lane, Thissell Street, Hale and Oak Street, DEP File #5 -794 —
install underground duct bank and cable — Mass. Electric Co. d /b /a National Grid
The Order, issued in April of 2003, governed the construction of an underground electric duct
bank system including approximately 40 manholes and 19,700 feet of concrete encased PVC
conduits within the right -of -ways of the above - mentioned streets. During the public hearing, a
neighbor inquired as to whether a salamander crossing could be installed in Common Lane
somewhere between Station 38 and 42 (sheets 8 & 9). As part of the approval, the Commission
issued a special condition requiring installation of salamander crossings. Grid renegotiated that
condition and agreed to provide funds to the City so that it could purchase and install a box
culvert with grates. Maxner notes that the funds have not yet been provided. Joshua Holden,
lead environmental engineer for National Grid, notes that the request for funding from National
Grid would take 7 to 10 days and asks if the Certificate of Compliance could be issued
conditionally. Discussion ensues as to the completion of the conduit work, Maxner notes that the
areas were within the paved right of way and she has traveled over these roadways many times
since the work was done and has not seen any issues.
Paluzzi moves to issue the Certificate of Compliance with the condition that it be withheld until
City receives check from National Grid. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 7 -0.
New: 101 West Street, DEP File #5 -989 — construct new single family house and associated
appurtenances — West Development, LLC c/o Robert & Michael Hubbard
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 12
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, representing applicant presents the as -built plan. He explains
the Order, issued in August of 2008, governed the construction of single - family house, garage,
driveway, pool, patio, deck, walkways and landscaping and other associated appurtenances as
well as replanting of beach grass within Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank, Coastal Beach and Land
Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. He notes some changes to the plan have occurred, including
a sunroom and blue stone patio replacing the proposed pool and pool patio resulting in decreased
impervious surface. Other changes included replacing roof drywells with a stone infiltration
trench and other drywells installed to receive runoff from driveway surfaces.
He explains that a sand fence was not installed and dune grass replanting was not performed as
the extent of the dune grass has expanded naturally and is larger that what was called for in the
approved plan. He notes that he and Maxner held a site walk and found the site to be stable.
Lang mentions that Conservation Commission should have been notified about project changes
prior to implementation in the field. Griffin states he understands, but notes that there is less
impervious cover. Maxner concurs that site is stable and that No Disturb Zone was grass with a
small planting area where a dying tree was removed with the Commission's approval. Plantings
include native shrubs and she notes that the landscape plan is part of settlement agreement with
good size trees that have benefited from pruning, there is dune grass and in the southeast portion
of site by seawall it has expanded naturally.
Paluzzi moves to issue Certificate of Compliance. Seconded by Buchsbaum. Motion carries 7 -0.
Recess for Public Hearings
Paluzzi moves to recess public hearings. Seconded by Buchsbaum. Motion carries 7 -0.
Notices of Intent and /or Abbreviated Notices of Intent
Cont: 43 Water Street, DEP #5 -1079 — install steel sheet pile bulkhead, fill land under ocean,
install travel lift and floating docks — Beverly Port Marina
Frank Kinzie, managing director of Beverly Port Marina provides copies of supplemental
information to the Conservation Commission and refers to exhibits 1 -11, and notes that
Commission had made a site visit. Lang notes that the Commission will require a continuance
to review this information.
Kinzie reviews each of the exhibits in the response package.
In response to Squibb, Kinzie explains that use of the existing travel lift pit would impact public
access, it is narrow next to fuel tanks and keeping the existing configuration would require
periodic dredging. In response to Lang, he says that as much as 5,000 cubic yards of fill is
expected within the new area.
Discussion ensues where members concur that this project is complex enough to require peer
review. Maxner outlines the scope of work:
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 12
➢ Review the Notice of Intent, associated attachments, narratives, plans and various
correspondences to determine compliance with the performance standards of the Mass.
Wetlands Protection Act and Regulations (3 10 CMR 10. 00, et. seq.);
➢ Review the same for compliance with the Beverly Wetlands Protection Ordinance and
Regulations;
➢ Submit an opinion as to whether filling of 3,500 s. f. of Land Under the Ocean (LUO) is
allowable under the Act and Regulations and the local Ordinance and Regulations;
➢ If allowable, recommend options for mitigation for the filling of LUO;
➢ Review the Stormwater Management Plan and associated documents for compliance with
the Massachusetts 2008 Stormwater Management Regulations;
Lang mentions once Commission selects a consultant, a check would be received from the
applicant. He notes that the peer review process could take a few weeks to complete but the
Commission will try to expedite the process.
Paluzzi moves for the Commission to hire a peer review consultant with the described scope.
Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 7 -0. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to the July 10,
2012 meeting. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 7 -0.
New: 22 Whitehall Circle and portion of 18 Whitehall Circle — construct building addition, in-
round pool, patio and associated drainage and landscaping — Gerald & Gail Sullivan
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Bob Griffin representing applicant, explains that the lot has been developed with an existing
single family house and garage under a previous Order approved by the Commission. He notes
that Commission held a site walk a couple weeks ago to view site conditions. He mentions that
the lot would be expanded through an ANR with the Planning Board by 12,000 square feet to a
total of 32,000 square feet. Griffin refers to drainage calculations that account for previously
approved construction on lot 22 and allocated to lot 21. He notes the same stormwater model is
used for the subdivision as it is built out.
He explains that the applicant is proposing building a 1,500 square foot, two -story addition off
rear of building and construction of in- ground pool and surrounding patio. A split rail fence and
granite markers run along the 25' No Disturb Zone line. Griffin states that drainage calculations
determined need for additional 1,000 - gallon dry well at back of building and 2 -feet wide and 2-
feet deep pea stone infiltration strip around the pool deck. No additional driveway will be
constructed. He explains that six feet of fill will be used and retaining wall installed.
Griffin refers to landscaping plan from Laura Rutledge that includes native species of trees,
shrubs, ground cover, and perennials (i.e., arborvitaes, red maple to replace two trees to be
removed).
In response to members, Griffin mentions that retaining wall would be elevated to existing grade
and that overflow pipe has low slope for use in extreme storm events and that fill would be used
from construction sites in surrounding area (i.e., Beverly High School). Also, he explains that a
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 12
dry well connected to pool would prevent any draw down of water not chlorinated for two weeks
from backwashing into wetland. In addition, the homeowner's builder from the applicant's
hometown is an experienced developer who has experience with complying with Conservation
Commissions' conditions.
In response to members' questions, Griffin states that no significant ledge has been found in area
and he doesn't expect blasting to be required for addition, and truck access is directly off of
Whitehall Circle, and that construction would begin as soon as they are legally able, also, that
pavers would be used for patio. He notes that cluster of trees and all trees marked to be saved
from previous Commission approval would be saved as indicated on plan and that trees close to
pool would be removed.
Discussion ensues about special conditions regarding maintenance of dry well, and that the
retaining wall should be located to allow sufficient room for tree roots. In response to abutter
from 24 Whitehall Circle, Griffin mentions lawn and landscaping between addition and that
arborvitaes would be relocated along property line. In response to members, Griffin notes that
granite markers extend around wetland and that the proposed retaining wall can be placed 7 feet
away from closest tree.
There being no further questions from the Commission or the public, Paluzzi moves to close
hearing. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 7 -0.
New: 47 Grover Street — construct new single family house and associated appurtenances — John
L. Hyland
Maxner reads legal notice.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering representing applicant, summarizes proposal to create access for
an additional house on Lot B. He notes that to create additional lot under ANR regulations with
the Planning Board requires demonstration that the newly created lots have real access off of the
frontage, which would require crossing and filling 1,010 square feet of BVW with a replication
area of 2,040 feet also calculated were buffer zone and No Disturb Zone to comply with local
wetlands Ordinance.
Ogren explains that once process is complete with Conservation Commission he would go to
Planning Board to seek access to both dwellings by using existing driveway as a common access
drive. He notes changes to plan based on investigation of utilities where sewer line would go
along existing driveway to Grover Street, also that the water line is sufficient to service new
dwelling, so sewer, water and electricity would use easement outside of buffer zone.
In response to members, Ogren said utilities do not involve wetlands, and that under regulation
of Planning Board access to each lot has to be demonstrated for special permit permission to use
a common driveway, also relative to ANR plan with standard for access and there is requisite
frontage for building lots.
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 12
He notes that a portion of the new house and associated work on Lot B is in the buffer zone but
reiterates that all utilities are outside of the buffer zone. Ogren mentions that BVW has low
growing plants with perennial wetland sedges and rushes that would be replicated and that the
best area topographically is what is being considered and refers to the plan. Ogren states that
there is water filled up to the culvert and agrees that proposed driveway goes through No Disturb
Zone twice. He reiterates if the project goes through the City's process it is unlikely the second
driveway would be built.
Lang suggests Commission schedule a site walk. Maxner mentions that there should be
alternatives analysis to No Disturb Zone impacts and that more information is required on
proposed house, tree removal and other amenities need to be outlined on plan. Maxner will
forward a full list of required supplemental information. Jack Hyland explains that the new house
is intended to blend in with circa 1600s existing house. He mentions that he would like to
remove pine trees in the back of the house. Ogren states these could be marked during
Commission's site visit. Discussion ensues about stream on site and specifications on size of
equalizer pipe proposed for under the driveway. Members agree to visit site on Monday, June 18
at 5:30 p.m.
Lang asks if there are any questions from the public.
Discussion ensues with abutters at 28 Holly Lane and 30 Holly Lane with Hyland about wetlands
vegetation, no cut zone and pumping of water from basement on to resident's land during
Mother's Day storm. Lang notes Commission will review wetlands areas with consideration of
this discussion during its site walk. Ogren agrees to get wetlands plan. Lang mentions that this
public hearing would be taken up at its next meeting on July 10.
Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to the July 10, 2012 meeting and schedule site walk
for June 18 at 5:30 p.m. Seconded by Buchsbaum. Motion carries 7 -0.
Buchsbaum departs for the evening.
New: 44 -46 River Street — environmental remediation_ install sheet bile wall_ reconfi
parking, building demolition and drainage improvements — National Grid/Mass. Electric/Boston
Gas
Maxner reads legal notice.
Matthew Varrell, Karen Staffier of VHB, Joe Higgins LSP, Jason Naiden of National Grid, and
Ged Olson are present for the applicant. Varrell summarizes the NOI originally submitted in
2010 and Order of Conditions issued in 2011 denied under WPA and approved under local
ordinance and appealed by applicant. He notes that negotiations between City and applicant
occurred to move project forward. He explains that the plan submitted under this new NOI is
essentially the same as before with revisions based on the items further negotiated for settlement.
Varrell states that northern portion of developed site was formerly used for gas manufacturing
plant and explains the project involves environmental remediation through removal of source
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 12
hazardous waste material, installation of a sheet pile containment wall, dense non - aqueous phase
liquid ( DNAPL) removal systems, and construction of cap. Consolidation of the gas and electric
operations facilities through the removal of five existing buildings and reconfiguration of
existing parking and yard areas. Installation of stormwater management structures to support
both the remediation and consolidation projects. Work to take place within Coastal Bank, 100 -
Foot Buffer Zone, 200 -Foot Riverfront Area to the Bass River and Land Subject to Coastal
Storm Flowage.
He describes site remediation consisting of installation of sheet pile wall, capping and extension
of bulkhead to contain areas of contamination on gas portion of site. Also, DNAPL removal
system and contingency plan as well as excavation of hot spots on site. He continues that once
remediation work is done the site consolidation would link gas and electric portions of site and
installation of new stormwater controls, reconfiguration of parking and travel lanes would be
implemented. He states that part of this would include demolition of buildings with the part of
site that has packed gravel surface would be paved. He also mentions that 24 inch municipal
drain line was replaced under a previous RDA approved by the Commission. He explains the
new stormwater treatment structure is a bio- retention basin for sheet flow for stormwater
treatment before discharge into drain line into water; also notes TSS removal percentages.
Varrell summarizes new changes to project including five -foot wide, walking trail for public
access down to river with fence this is dependent upon Chapter 91 program approval. In
addition, the other large change is expansion of riverfront restoration and restoration of 25 -foot
NDZ on the electric side of the site, with pavement removal and proper soils installed and
vegetation planting of the area. Also, a strip on back would be re- vegetated including with
arborvitaes to create a green space with associated path.
Discussion ensues about stable area and overflow manhole covers where concrete blocks are
used to keep covers in place and drainage work related to the buildings. Maxner states special
conditions would specify attentiveness to securing the manhole covers.
Varrell mentions that wildflower mix planted is doing well although woody species plantings did
not survive since soils conditions including packed gravel were not suitable. He says that
increased soil depth would be installed to be conducive to roots. Also that warning tape and grid
would be used to prevent anyone from digging down into the capped hot spot area.
In response to Lang, Varrell states that hot spot material would be excavated and removed off
site. He describes lawn to be located along path and 24 -inch height woody plantings for
mitigation area defined by wildlife habitat value. Special conditions would mandate these be
maintained to ensure they are growing. Varrell reiterates significant changes as expansion of
river restoration area and treatment of soils on top of and outside of cap.
Higgins addresses assurances that MPC solution works and is satisfactory. Also, that DEP did
not have many comments regarding enhancement areas that he reads into record and states that
utility did not think they needed to respond.
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 12
Varrell refers to letter from Div. Of Marine Fisheries that addresses the matter especially
regarding winter flounder spawning habitat that he reads into the record. Discussion ensues about
whether any work would occur from February to June. Representative shares site photos with
Commission. Discussion ensues about if there would be any changes to sheet piling work
relative to 25 -foot No Disturb Zone and if it would go around obstacles and that this aspect of the
project would go back to Chapter 91 representatives and Commission.
Lang questions the validity of the 2010 stormwater calculations that was part of the previous
filing. Karen Staffier notes that there is no increase in impervious area going to bio- retention
basin, orienting of grading area to bio- retention area and clean up of material by sweeping
parking lot and use of gravel strip filter, that could have fall and spring maintenance inspections
(i.e., special condition) and be refreshed if clogged, to keep sand out of drainage structure.
Maxner describes language from Attorney Nylen stating that changes can only be made with
written approval prior to work.
Discussion ensues with 60 River Street abutter Kevin Desmond about sheet piling wall proposed
to existing grade and his concern about storm surge although applicant representative mentions
that cap would not be mounded. Lang states that pollution should be encapsulated and site stable.
Nylen summarizes discussions with applicant about Commission's concerns with respect to
contamination, mitigation and monitoring and National Grid has moved closer to where
Commission wants to be. He notes that the City contracted with an LSP to ensure the sheet -
piling wall would protect the wetlands interests and reported back that they are comfortable with
the design. He adds that special conditions were addressed in a letter relative to field decisions
that gives applicant flexibility with language if they need to come back for a plan change. Nylen
suggests if the Commission decides to support this since applicant has made design revisions, it
should incorporate Marine Fisheries conditions with his provided language and also address
monitoring on annual basis.
There being no further questions from the Commission or the public, Paluzzi moves to close
public hearing. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 6 -0.
Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation
Cont: 50 Dunham Road (a.k.a. 44 Dunham Road), DEP #5 -1076 — review and affirm character
and delineation of wetland resource areas on site — Cummings Properties, LLC c/o Stephen
Drohosky
Parties present: John Dick, Hancock Associates, and Steve Drohosky of Cummings representing
applicant. Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental Consulting, peer reviewer for Commission.
Attorney Ted Regnante, 401 Edgewater Place, Wakefield, and Mike DeRosa and Dan
Jarmoloiwicz of DeRosa Environmental representing Dunham Castle condominium owners.
Maxner asks Dick to provide a brief summary and then asks that Mary Rimmer provide her
presentation and findings. Dick summarizes the third iteration of plan that now includes
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 12
topography and other site details. He notes that there are 9 pools on the site that have been
looked at, which fall into one of three categories: currently certified pools, pools that are
certifiable under the Ordinance and pools that, at least to date, do not contain any evidence of
breeding activity.
Dick observes that Ordinance Regulations has a modifier for vernal pools describing them as
temporary bodies of water, which differs from the Natural Heritage (NH) criteria that allows for
pools to be perennial. He explains the conditions of the pools based on the site inspection
conducted by all of the respective party consultants:
➢ #1 — is a certified vernal by State and he believes is perennial and dredged in 1976;
➢ #2 — labeled as pond on the plan, is probably an old excavation pit, not certified, and he
believes to be perennial;
➢ #3 — pond adjacent to building and dredged to 5 -feet depth per the 1976 landscaping plan,
and he notes that this pool receives runoff from roof and part of parking lot and he
believes the bottom of that pool is dug below groundwater and therefore is perennial;
➢ He notes that they have evidence of vernal pool habitat function/breeding in pool #'s 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, and 8, but all those pools may not be temporary;
➢ No evidence of breeding function in pool #'s 6, 7 and 9.
Dick refers to his elaborate report, he asks the Commission to consider that 100 -foot No Disturb
Zone (NDZ) that in many instances is already disturbed (i.e., building, parking lot and driveway
area) and local Ordinance which allows waivers. He explains the various historic disturbances
within the NDZ to the various pools on the site. He explains that pools 4 and 5 have largely
undisturbed buffers and pool 8 is in a different watershed. Lang points out that the Ordinance is
blind to groundwater and surface water divides. Dick notes that the Ordinance allows for
waivers to the NDZ and there is room for interpretation of the Regulations as well. He suggests
there is no reason to do migration pathways for an ANRAD since there is no plan on the table to
develop the site and ANRAD is a planning tool and the client needs some certainty as to how
development will be allowed on the site.
Rimmer notes that she conducted fieldwork on April 18. She mentions that her agreement with
Commission was to determine whether or not the pools were functioning as vernal pools, not to
review the delineation of BVW, nor delineate or determine the function of the NDZ. Rimmer
explains her findings and her numbering of the pools on site:
➢ #1 — is a certified vernal pool (NH #3617) and still functions as such with breeding
activity found;
➢ #2 — a large button bush swamp, she notes that water levels were down but did have
spotted salamanders egg masses and spormatophores and invertebrates that are listed in
the local Ordinance as facultative species used for criteria and recent breeding activity
relative to local Ordinance indicators for vernal pool;
➢ #3 - detention basin next to building area does not have any vegetation and steep slopes,
but had many (20 +) salamander egg masses and met biotic criteria for vernal pool;
➢ #4 — certified vernal pool and had less than 50 s.f of water, but still supported vernal pool
habitat despite drought conditions with spotted salamander egg masses;
➢ #5 — offsite pool had both wood frog tadpoles and salamander egg masses, meeting
vernal pool criteria under local Ordinance;
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 12
➢ #6 and #7 — did not have any indicators, and notes they are excavated areas, with poor
shallow water quality;
➢ #8 — is the essentially the A series BVW with pockets of standing water facultative
invertebrates found, but meets criteria of Ordinance for vernal pool; and
➢ #9 — is downgraded in a phragmite marsh, had a stream discharging to a larger phragmite
marsh but did not find any breeding or vernal pool indicators in this area.
She adds that relative to the Ordinance's specification for 100 -foot NDZ from the boundary of
vernal pools she notes that adjustments could be made for proposed development, which is
sensible as long as it is coupled with overall mitigation plan on the site. She explains that as part
of ANRAD plan it is difficult to assess since roadways, buildings and drainage are not known at
this stage of the process. She suggests that it is premature to define the NDZ until NOI is filed
because there will be more information to determine impacts to drainageconditions, recruitment
and dispersal areas. She recommends that the specific NDZ boundaries not be determined at this
stage because it might limit the ability to provide mitigation on site where other configurations of
the NDZ may make better sense once a development scheme is proposed. She understands the
applicant's desire for certaintly
Bertoni asks pool #5 has been established as certified, noting that the number is NH #1438. Dick
states that he suspects that it is probably the same pool.
Maxner asks Rimmer to explain the changes the Natural Heritage made to criteria for
certification a couple years ago. Rimmer explains that NH not relying on facultative invertebrate
evidence and focusing on higher quality habitat, and conceded that some pools could possibly
contain fish, and they eliminated the requirement of dry pool documentation. Rimmer notes that
with regard to the term "temporary" in the Ordinance, she was only made aware of it tonight, and
explains that she did not consider hydro - periods in her investigation, noting that there is no
definition of temporary in the Ordinance.
Lang asks Rimmer's opinion as to the health of pools # 1 and #2. Rimmer explains animals can
cross roads and come from quite a distance as they have such breeding site fidelity, so it is
important to know whether curbing is proposed within roadways, underground systems under
roadways and location of buildings so that they do not to block dispersal patterns. She responds
to Lang that box culverts can be successful and "culvert- cams" have shown evidence of use. In
response to Maxner, Rimmer explains that pool #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8 are eligible under the
Ordinance, and pool #1 (previously certified), 2, 3, 4 (previously certified) & 5 are eligible under
NH.
Lang opens the floor to representatives of the condominium association.
Ted Regnante, speaks to specifics regarding disturbance within NDZ from edge of the vernal
pools, noting that trees have been cut in the NDZ, and no plan has been submitted that shows the
extent of the NDZ. He also argues that there could be a fine associated with enforcement order
and restoration of site where trees were cut in No Disturb Zone. He quotes from several sections
of the local Regulations, which he believes to compel the Commission to collect biological
habitat evaluation and migratory pathways relative to determination of where development could
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 12
occur on the site, noting there is a mandate for a wildlife habitat evaluation. He requests on
behalf of his clients that the applicant withdraw and resubmit application, short of that he
suggests that work on the site not be allowed until migratory pathway study is performed in the
spring 2013 at the applicant's expense.
Mike DeRosa reads from the definition and characteristics of vernal pools from the Regulations,
noting that vernal pools exhibit tremendous variation, and he does not believe that the pools need
to be dry to be protected. He introduces research by Brian Windmiller that is capture and
recapture data and gives data percentages of dispersal from the report, and it speaks to the
importance of the NDZ and protection of resource area. He notes that the Beverly Ordinance
goes a long way to classify the NDZ as an actual resource area for better protection. He refers to
the plan that he highlighted in different colors of various buffers and resources on site. He notes
that this site is very active with 6 out of 9 pools being certifiable. He notes the site was clear cut
in portions, suggests applicant could be ordered to determine how clear cutting of trees effected
the NDZ and that better data should be collected at the site next spring.
Paluzzi asks if NH has any protection around the vernal pools. Rimmer states they do not, they
only certify but do not regulate. Dick states that the pools have not been specifically delineated
based on past surveys conducted on site or aerial review of pool extent. He notes that the
ANRAD asked for a BVW delineation and does not agree with Regnante's assessment. Lang
asks if DeRosa has done any wildlife habitat study under an ANRAD. DeRosa does not recall
doing it during an ANRAD.
Lang opens the floor to questions from the public. There are none.
Bertoni asks a clarifying question on what filing is being considered this evening. Maxner states
the ANRAD is not the table, noting that Commission has the option to consider an enforcement
order to address clear- cutting separately. She offers her opinion on the issues about the
migratory pathways, which are very important, but the Ordinance does not characterize pathways
as a resource and are best dealt with under an NOI.
Lang asks Rimmer the timeframe and complexity of a pathway study for a site like this. Rimmer
explains that the methods for capturing the creatures' movement through setting up drift nets and
can also determine the quality of the areas over which they travel and believes they can be useful
planning tools.
Discussion ensues about if there is a specific development plan for Commission to consider
where they could provide more comments and certainty. Stephen Drohosky explains that there
are no special plans for the site and they are complying with Commission's request to submit
ANRAD application to understand where buildings could be located and where water would
move across site. He expresses his disagreement that these pools are vernal as they are not
temporary as required by the Regulations. He reviews the pools and his opinions as to their
character and protection status.
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 12
Maxner states that she is not sure how the Commission wants to proceed and believes that a set
of findings that should be attached to the final ANRAD, which she does not have drafted at this
point.
Lang re- clarifies with Dick the evidence and data found in each pool for certification under the
NH. Rimmer suggests interpretation be done of Ordinance about protection of temporary pools
and burden is on applicant to provide evidence that needs to be gathered to demonstrate
permanence of the pools.
Regnante reiterates his opinion that the pathways must be determined in order to characterize all
of the wetlands on site. Rimmer suggests that the Commission may decide to make findings on
specific resources. Lang responds to condominium residents about Commission's jurisdiction
and overall environmental impacts of cutting so far. He explains that the 100 -foot buffer zone
around resource area and expresses Commission's understanding of loss of canopy but that large
area where trees were cut is outside of 100 -foot zone to wetlands and Commission's jurisdiction
so it is primarily dealing with vernal pools.
Maxner responds to Regnante that she does not believe that abandoning this ANRAD application
after all of the time and resources invested so far makes sense. Lang suggests that Commission
would be making a decision on the ANRAD at its next meeting. Maxner suggests to continue
the contract with Mary Rimmer and that she be allowed to work with her to draft a set of
findings, which hopefully the applicant will be amendable to pay for. Discussion ensues as to
logistics for accepting any final comments and information from all parties and drafting a set of
findings. Rimmer points out that it needs to be clear as to what resource areas are being
determined. Dick states that at this point the applicant would like to know all that it can, that is
what an ANRAD is for. Rimmer responds that the Commission could make determinations on
what is known, and that which there isn't enough information make a finding to that affect.
Paluzzi moves to continue hearing until July 10, 2012 meeting. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion
carries 6 -0.
Old/New Business
Cont: 44 Prince Street, DEP File #5 -1046 — Request to Modify Order of Conditions — David
C.9rneva I e
Bob Griffin representing the applicant, notes that the request has been discussed at two meetings
and the Commission conducted a site walk and the Commission has expressed its concerns about
the plan as proposed. He outlines the modifications to the plan, including converting an area
within the 25' NDZ, permitted to be lawn, to be converted to bluestone patio and perennial infill
adjacent to the house. He notes that the proposed bluestone patio has been reduced by one - third,
from 980 square feet to 650 square feet about 580 square foot within the NDZ, with proposed
mitigation for disturbance consisting of 150 -foot x 5 -foot strip totaling 750 square feet of coastal
bank plantings where invasive species would be removed by hand, existing vegetation
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 12
maintained while adding beach plum, bayberry and Virginia rose. Griffin notes that the
driveway will be constructed of bituminous concrete rather than pavers since the cost was
excessive so they will revert to the previously approved material, but a circular paver area will be
retained located in front of the house. He notes a change in location to the sewer pump chamber
to avoid ledge.
He adds that also proposed is to remove 1,400 square feet of concrete patio in return for NDZ
disturbance and adding back in 10' by 18' bluestone patio down to 1,200 square foot of patio to
removed of which 800 square feet was within the NDZ. Also 250 square feet of planting beds are
going to be added here similar to landscaping plan with non - invasive species. He noted that
1,800 square feet of enhancements. He explains that no credit was taken for proposal to change
the driveway from asphalt to pavers. Members review the plan. Maxner asks a clarifying
question about the blue stone patio and square footage of incursion to mitigation ratio. Griffin
explains that 580 s.f of incursion in the NDZ with 1800 s.f of enhancement. Bertoni asks a
clarifying question as to impervious surface calculations. Griffin explains that the calculations
end up the same as previous calculations with the original NOI.
Paluzzi moves to approve modifications to Order of Conditions. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion
carries 6 -0. Discussion ensues regarding an addendum to the conditions requiring 75% survival
of the coastal planting strip and another planting area two growing seasons post plant
installation. Discussion ensues as to the proposal meeting the NDZ waiver criteria. Lang
believes that the waiver criteria has been met considering the 3:1 ratio for mitigation provided
for the incursion on what is a tight site. Members agree.
New: Whitehall Circle (a.k.a. Chapman's Corner) — Alternative Location of Public Access
Pathway — Discussion of Findings/Approval under Conservation Restriction Section I.B.
Maxner explains the Commission will recall conducting a site inspection to review an alternative
location for the access pathway to the open space parcel in this subdivision, noting that the
Commission holds a CR on this open space property jointly with the Beverly Conservation Land
Trust. She notes that during the recent site inspection, it appeared that most everyone was in
agreement that the path location is an improvement provided that the following tasks are made
part of the proposal:
➢ The far side of the detention basin berm is lowered by 1.5 feet to
reduce the severity of the grade leading from that point to the rest of
the path;
➢ The rip rap along the back of the basin is removed and the surface is
treated with appropriate material to ensure stability and walkability;
➢ Some plantings (low growing shrubs) should be installed to help
demarcate the trail at the street and the top of rear of the berm;
➢ Allowance for the Land Trust to clear shrubs and bushes along the
wall within the pathway as well as prune trees that may hang low in to
the walking zone;
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 12
➢ A possible deadline for completing the first 3 tasks should be
established, with a possible stipulation that this approval becomes null
and void past that deadline ( ?).
Bob Griffin representing applicant, notes that the developer is fine with the conditions but did
not agree to install any signage. He notes that the developer would be amenable to installing the
shrubbery to better demarcate the path.
Maxner reads correspondence from the BCLT. Discussion ensues as to the BUT requested
conditions.
Paluzzi moves to approve the repositioning of the walkway subject to the following conditions:
1. The far western side of the detention basin berm within the limits of the 5' walkway
shall be lowered by at least 1.5 feet to reduce the severity of the grade leading from
that point to the rest of the path;
2. The rip -rap along the back of the basin within the limits of the 5' walkway shall be
removed and the surface be treated with appropriate material (i.e. Lynn Pack or
equivalent) and properly graded to ensure stability and walkability - *Note that the
June 12 plan calls this out; the remaining section of the path from the rip -rap
removal to the stone wall will be grassed;
3. The developer shall install some plantings (low growing shrubs) on both sides of the
entrance to the path off of the street /sidewalk, and at the western berm cut to help
better demarcate the route of the trail;
4. Allowance for the Land Trust to clear shrubs and bushes along the wall within the
pathway as well as prune trees or other overgrowth that may hang low in to the
walking zone;
Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 6 -0.
Orders of Conditions
44 -46 River Street — environmental remediation, install sheet pile wall, reconfigure parking,
building demolition and drainage improvements — National Grid /Mass. Electric/Boston Gas
Maxner outlines for Commission Orders of Conditions for National Grid 44 -46 River Street.
Paluzzi moves to approve Order of Condition for 44 -46 River Street. Seconded by Squibb.
Motion carries 6 -0.
22 Whitehall Circle and portion of 18 Whitehall Circle — construct building addition, in-ground
pool, patio and associated drainage and landscaping — Gerald & Gail Sullivan
Discussion ensues as to potential special conditions for the project.
Grant moves to issue Standard Conditions with the following Special Conditions:
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 12
1. Prior to construction or any work on site and in time for inspection at the pre - construction
meeting, the limit of the entire 25 -Foot No Disturb Zone associated with Wetland System
A shall be marked with granite posts measuring 5" x 5" x 4' with at least an 18" reveal
above grade as noted on the approved plan entitled "Order of Conditions Marker Plan,
M -1" stamped received December 15, 2008, prepared by Griffin Engineering Group,
LLC in addition to the split rail fencing as called out on the approved project plan.
These markers and /or fencing shall have plaques bearing language on their upland side
reading "No Disturbance Beyond This Point By Order Of the Beverly Conservation
Commission ". Prior to any work commencing the Conservation Administrator shall
inspect the installed markers and fence.
2. In order to avoid disturbing the root systems, the proposed retaining wall at the southern
edged of pool patio shall be moved at least 7 (seven) feet to the north away from the trees
that are slated for preservation.
3. All trees slated for preservation within the Buffer Zone shall survive at least two years
post construction. If any trees within the Buffer Zone fail or die within those two years,
three native replacement trees of at least 2 -inch caliper shall be planted on site within the
Buffer Zone.
4. Photo documentation of physical installation of the drainage /drywell structures shall be
submitted to the Commission for its file.
5. It shall be the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain and clean all the drywells at
least once per year or more frequently if directed by the manufacturer. This condition
shall run in perpetuity and shall survive the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance.
Seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 6 -0.
Old/New Business, continued
New: Planning Board Request for Comments — 130 Cabot Street — Special Permit & Site Plan
Review — 130 -140 Cabot Street Realty Trust c/o Jay Levy & Armando Maffeo
Maxner informs Commission about Planning Board's request for comments and notes that there
are no wetlands at site. Members review the plan and agree there is not jurisdiction on site.
Maxner will write a comment letter to the Planning Board indicating the Commission's
determination.
Schedule Site Inspections — 208 Hart Street & Brookwood School — final inspections for
Certificate of Compliance issuance
Commission scheduled site inspections at Brookwood School and 208 Hart Street for Monday,
June 18 from 6:30 and 7:00 respectively.
Other... Minor Modifications, Extensions, Emergency Certifications, Enforcement Orders,
Correspondence, etc ... Received/Issued After Publication of Agenda
Conservation Commission
June 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 12
Maxner explains a project at 56 Thissell Street, which involves construction of a single - family
house in the outer limits of the buffer zone to a small pond. She explains the limits of
disturbance are 85 feet from the pond with haybales staked at that limit. She notes that this
project is a good candidate for a minor project permit and wanted to ask the Commission if they
would consider authorizing her to issue a minor permit. Discussion ensues as to the scope of
work and location of the resource area relative to the work. Maxner shows aerial photos of the
site the proposed plot plan. Lang notes that the Commission has been talking about instituting a
minor permit process and agrees that this project fits the parameters for this process. Members
agree. Paluzzi moves to allow Maxner to issue a minor project permit for 56 Thissell Street.
Seconded by Squibb. Motion carries 6 -0.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening Paluzzi moves to
adjourn at 11:20 p.m. Seconded by Glidden. Motion carries 6 -0.
The next regular meeting of the Conservation Commission is on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 at
Beverly City Hall, 3 rd Floor Council Chambers, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA.