Loading...
2012-07-31CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Conservation Commission July 31, 2012 Tony Paluzzi, Vice Chairman, Christine Bertoni Robert Buchsbaum, Anne Grant, Stephanie Root and Bill Squibb David Lang, Chairman Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner Jane Dooley Paluzzi calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 3 rd Floor Council Chambers, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA. Certificates of Compliance New: 171 West Street, DEP File #5 -932 — raze existing and construct new single- family house, pool and associated appurtenances — Preston & Kathleen Bradford Maxner states that Commission received a request for Certificate of Compliance for an outstanding Order of Conditions, DEP File #5 -932 for 171 West Street. The Order, issued in November of 2006, governed the demolition of the existing dwelling and constructing a new single - family house, garage, driveway, pool and other associated appurtenances within 200 -Foot Riverfront Area to Chubbs Brook, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland and Coastal Bank. After this Order was issued, the applicant made several changes to the project that necessitated a new NOI application and they carried out the project under a new Order DEP File 5 -1034, which has already been closed out with a Certificate of Compliance. The owner would like to close this lapsed and invalid Order where no work was undertaken and clear the property title. Squibb moves to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Seconded by Buchsbaum. Motion carries 6 -0. Request for Determination of Applicability New: 94 Preston Place- install fence — William Craig Maxner reads legal notice. Applicant William Craig explains that his family bought this house a few months ago and is interested in installing fence to enclose backyard for safety of his young daughter and dogs. Conservation Commission July 31, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 Maxner explains that Craig had contacted her about the proposed 4 -foot high picket fence to enclose their backyard, which contains portion of a BVW, 25' NDZ and 100' Buffer Zone. The new owner is using an as -built plan prepared previously that closed out an Order governing work involving a new deck and other site improvements. The fence will be installed at the edge of the 25' NDZ, not within this zone but is within existing lawn area. She notes that she informed the owner of the regulations regarding the 25' NDZ and he adjusted his project to run along but not encroach into the NDZ. In response to Buchsbaum, she states that it is near BVW with pond to the north. She agrees with members that house is in buffer zone and that as -built plan has survey points that are accurate. Maxner mentions that since wetland flags are no longer in the field, she measured the depth of the fence from the rear of the dwelling as 39 feet from the northwest rear corner of the house and 44 feet from the northeast rear corner of the house this runs along 25 foot NDZ. Discussion ensues with applicant about spoils from fence postholes and he says he would not put it in the wetlands or 25 -foot NDZ. Craig adds that he mows his lawn between wetland and NDZ and plans to continue that practice. Commission also addresses accuracy of sketch and Maxner notes that reference would be to the approved plan. Discussion ensues as to whether wildlife will be able to move back and forth. Craig agrees to allow for 4 -inch spacing between the pickets to allow for small animals to move back and forth. Bertoni moves to issue a Negative # 3 Determination citing approved distances at which the fence may be installed as discussed. Seconded by Buchsbaum. Motion carries 6 -0. Recess for Public Hearings Buchsbaum moves to recess public hearings. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 6 -0. Notices of Intent and /or Abbreviated Notices of Intent Cont: 47 Grover Street, DEP #5 -1084 — construct new single family house and associated appurtenances — John L. Hyland Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering, refers to creation of additional building lot at 47 Grover Street, previous review of project and site visit by Commission on June 18. The work involves the construction of a new single - family house and utilities on Lot B as well as construction of a new driveway to service the existing house on Lot A that involves filling and replicating BVW. He addresses comments from Maxner's recent email including large trees to be removed close to the proposed house on plan and additional details on replication area that would be graded in order to grow wetland plants and his firm's botanist has recommended plantings. He notes that the proposed project would be accomplished with the minimum amount of wetlands disturbance. Ogren mentions the alternatives analysis and the choice will be to cross the wetlands area at a point of minimum disturbance going to the north and south at the narrowest point for the driveway. There is no alternative access to lot due to surrounding houses so access will be from Conservation Commission July 31, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 Grover Street. He mentions sizing of culvert and small watershed limited by roadway where review was done on backwaters in consideration of culvert size to handle it hydraulically so two 12 -inch pipes will be used side -by -side. He also addresses bank disturbance and channel relative to Wetlands Protection Act but notes there is not a defined bank but bordering vegetated wetland. In response to members, Ogren says sewer, electricity and water would be brought around the circumference of existing lot where utilities would use an easement. He notes the intention is to request the Planning Board to allow common access from the existing driveway but they had to prove that the lot could be accessed along its frontage due to the wetlands location. Ogren describes use of low volume pump for sewer outside of buffer zone. Also, that the only impervious surface to be added is extension of driveway. He explains that proposed use of two 12 -inch culverts is intended to decrease backwater to increase depth of capacity without increasing flow. In addition, that plantings would be done in replication area and on shoulders of pipe with New England wetland mix to re- vegetate mentioned in planting narrative. Discussion ensues about packed stone dust versus asphalt paving for road and driveway. Maxner recommends the following special conditions: This approval is contingent upon the applicant /owner, prior to any construction on site including new house construction on Lot B, first making every reasonable effort to obtain approved common access to Lots A and B by way of the existing driveway that currently serves the existing house on Lot A before pursuing proposed driveway construction. Should the existing shared common driveway option be successful, the applicant shall document such in the final request a Certificate of Compliance once all of the other work allowed under this Order is completed and the site is stabilized. 2. If the shared common driveway option not be successful, the applicant /owner shall present a summary to the Commission to demonstrate what efforts were made to obtain such approval and reasons for denial. 3. If the shared common driveway option not be successful, the following special conditions apply relative to the proposed wetland replication (also see Standard Condition #16 below): a) Wetland replication shall be completed prior to construction of the newly proposed house on Lot B. b) Every phase of the wetland replication construction and after -care shall be directed and monitored by a qualified wetland professional. Contact information of said professional shall be registered with the Conservation Commission. c) A pre - construction meeting with the Commission or its Administrator and all responsible parties, including the wetland professional, shall be held prior to replication activities commencing. d) Irrigation of any or all areas within the wetland replication zone or buffer zone disturbance shall be implemented by the applicant as necessary to ensure survival of newly planted and seeded areas. The wetland replication, after -care and monitoring protocol shall be executed as described in the Monitoring Program narrative in addition to the requirements of and in accordance with the Conservation Commission July 31, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9 Beverly Wetlands Protection Regulations Section V.D.2. a) —j). If there are any conflicting procedures, the stricter and more comprehensive shall rule. Discussion ensued about 75% survival rate of plants in wetland replication and 100% survival rate for the two red maples. Maxner states that she visited the site and refers to property line near abutter's property where there was a question of jurisdiction. Buchsbaum notes that this area does not constitute a wetland in his opinion, as jewelweed can be opportunistic. In response to Paluzzi, Ogren mentions that there would be disturbance to roots of 30 -inch maple tree on site where water is the deepest and utilities will go down five feet. The forced main and electric go down 18 inches. He suggests work would be down five feet out from tree and that sewer would wrap around it. Discussion ensues about how tree is outside of buffer zone but there is agreement not to injure it. Maxner refers to DEP comment on its website stating that applicant should provide alternatives analysis that Commission has already asked for. Buchsbaum recommends an inspection be done for backwater in culvert pipes. Maxner suggests inspections upon 2 -year rain events. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Bertoni moves to close the hearing. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 6 -0. Ogren confirms that the discussion for 8756 Hale Street will be held at the August 21, 2012 meeting. Maxner confirms that Jeff Rhuda had requested a continuance to the August meeting this afternoon and there would be no discussion this evening. 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 Maxner notes that she received call from applicant asking for a continuance to the Commission's August 21 meeting. Buchsbaum moves to continue. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 6 -0. New: 400 Hale Street, Endicott College pond vegetation management and chemical treatment — Dennis Monaco Maxner reads legal notice. Mickey Marcus, wetlands scientist and certified aquatic applicator of New England Environmental, representing the College discusses pond management activities proposed at the College's ponds on the main campus. He notes that the College has taken actions to reduce nutrients getting into the pond (i.e., bank stabilization and buffer zone plantings). He explains there continues to be a water quality issue and offensive odors from algae resulting from warm weather and low rainfall. In addition, purple loosestrife is appearing along pond. He adds that once an Order of Conditions is received from the Commission, the College would file a separate application with the State where final determination occurs about appropriate chemical treatment protocol. Maxner notes the Commission issued a Certificate of Compliance this year to close an Order, issued in March 1986, which governed the chemical treatment of the main Conservation Commission July 31, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 campus ponds for the nuisance vegetation milfoil, which was choking the pond at the time, by using the herbicide Diquat Dibromide. The current NOI discusses algal growth and suspended particle issues. Marcus explains that since there isn't any aeration, treatment of the College's pond would be done a few times as algae dies it depletes dissolved oxygen. It would be treated with an algaecide and better water quality would be seen in 10 days. He recommends starting off slowly to see how the pond responds to try and break down organic material at bottom and make it look better. Maxner mentions DEP comment on its website about analysis needs to be done before treatment. Marcus explains how Commission would issue Order of Conditions that addresses nutrient and algae analysis before treatment and then the College would go to the State for a specific permit. He notes that the College is trying to manage parking lot runoff and treat what already is in the pond. In response to Buchsbaum, Marcus states that the pond can be treated to precipitate out nutrients and seal nutrients to bottom substrate. This would be done once a year to manage nutrients stored in soil without dredging. The first step is aeration that the College has done followed by aquatic management. If this doesn't work then the College would have to take a more aggressive stance. Marcus describes how nutrient levels would be determined during annual assessment. He notes that the types and species of algae change so these are tested every year and treatment plan is modified accordingly and submitted to DEP for license to apply chemicals. He explains that to measure the depth of algae in the pond, a stick with electrical tape is used across the pond to measure depth of water and sediment to assess amount of chemical that should be used. He notes that algae are found within water column and treatment would be for upper and lower pond. Also, testing would be done to assess water quality and test nitrogen and phosphorous levels. He explained that a one - gallon water sample is sent to a lab that specializes in pond management and does microscopic algae tests. Samples are assessed for dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity and color. He adds that if entire ponds were treated for algae it would deplete dissolved oxygen and impact fish population. So partial sections are treated ensuring a refuge for fish. It was noted that there is aeration between the two ponds. In response to Paluzzi, Marcus states that in the first year the treatment is done three times every few months and it takes 10 days for algae to die after a treatment is done as needed. He notes that hot, dry weather is when algae proliferate. In response to Buchsbaum, Marcus explains that symptoms of the pond will be treated initially as that is the most pressing issue for the College right now. Also, that in this situation the College has reinforced banks, installed plantings in buffer zone and tried to manage surface water coming into the pond from parking lot, which could be analyzed. He notes that samples could be taken in the pond during the summer when it is hot, stressed and there are bad conditions. Discussion ensues about downstream dredging where bottom of pond was exposed (675 square feet was dredged). Buchsbaum notes that the NOI lacks specifics and there are no test results provided for water quality parameters, noting that the Order of Conditions would essentially be a blank check to perform work. Conservation Commission July 31, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9 Marcus explains that the College is requesting in an Order of Conditions to treat the ponds and reiterates proposal to use copper herbicide that would have to be permitted by state to use. He notes that tests could be done in the lab to determine formula and concentration of herbicide. Root asks how long the turnaround would take to receive the baseline test results. Marcus estimates that it would be about 2 weeks noting that it would cost $1,000 to do the water analysis that takes two weeks to get results from South Carolina lab that does a comprehensive battery of tests. Root notes that this is enough time before the Commission's next meeting to gather that information for review. Bertoni asks how the proposed water quality parameters were chosen, by what criteria, and if they gave any consideration for fecal choliform or other nutrients and contaminants. Discussion ensues regarding test parameters. Marcus explains that the Order of Conditions from the Commission is a sequence before they can go to the State. He adds that the DEP water quality permit is an annual permit. Discussion ensues about doing aeration first to bring up stagnant water from bottom of pond to resolve algae issue but this is not working at the College's pond. Maxner explains that the Commission could approve the concept but once the water sample analysis results are available they would be presented to the Commission at its meeting on August 21 in order to have a clear plan and set of conditions. Marcus notes that he worked with City of Cambridge doing a post- treatment assessment and a similar process could be done with Beverly with an annual report. Bertoni expresses concern that the Commission does not have analysis and is trying to determine solutions before analysis is done. Marcus states that the College is required to explain concentration and type of chemical to treat problem after getting analysis that would be included in watershed protection permit application. Bertoni notes that information on how continuing problems within the watershed should be addressed is also important. Buchsbaum states that there is anecdotal data that there is a problem but no measurements have been done deeming that treatment is necessary and questioned if there should be a site visit. Marcus presents a photograph showing brown algae along pond edges and notes that species would have to be indentified through analysis. He mentions that there are odors from the pond indicating it is nutrient rich. Discussion ensues about analysis that would say algae are in the pond along with suggestions for treatment alternatives as part of working with DEP. Squibb mentions that Commission is in favor of approving proposal but is unclear on what it is approving. In response to Paluzzi, Marcus explains that late September is the latest a treatment application should be done and if Commission approves proposal and issues Order of Conditions he believes it could take the State a week to issue a permit since this is not a complicated application (i.e., pond is not a water supply). Maxner states that she believes the Commission wants data before they close and is looking for baseline analysis before making a decision. She notes that examples of other Order of Conservation Commission July 31, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9 Conditions issued by other Commission for similar proposals would be helpful. Discussion ensues about whether a site visit is necessary. Members agree to visit the site as their individual schedules allow. Dennis Monaco from the College agrees with suggestion. Buchsbaum moves to continue the hearing in anticipation that the College will obtain baseline water quality data for review at the next meeting. Seconded by Root. Motion carries 6 -0. Maxner explains that the Commission has approved another pond treatment project in Beverly for a vegetation problem other than algae and that it is moving toward approving the College's proposal once it has details. Old/New Business New: 675E Hale Street, Order of Conditions DEP File #5 -1073 — Commission review per Special Condition # 3 — Christopher & Hillary Gabrieli c/o Laura Gibson Lolly Gibson, landscape architect for the project, notes the Order, issued in March of this year, governs management of invasive species, primarily Phragmites, in -situ restorative planting, buffer zone enhancement planting, and upgrades to existing trails. She notes the Commission issued a special condition that required the applicant to return should the use of herbicides prove to be necessary to present a detailed plan as to the types of materials to be used, methods of application and areas to receive the treatment. Gibson gives an update on the project status, noting that the pulling and kicking methods of Phragmites control to submerges the roots underwater has been successful and explains that when the Phrag was mowed in areas, large native specimen trees and shrubs were revealed, therefore herbicide application at pin pointed areas is needed to protect the native plants that are being uncovered amongst the dense swaths of Phrag. She explains that chemicals would be used individually on Phragmites so as not to get into the ground and without use of broad spraying method. Gibson notes that habitat garden and boardwalks are completed and trails have been cleared and reestablished. She explains that Phyllis Koch, who is a licensed applicator, would do the herbicide application. Gibson says application would occur soon during the growing season. Discussion ensues about use of lower concentration, use of organic cedar oil for ticks and use of garlic spray on lawn to keep mosquitoes. Buchsbaum moves for Commission to approve the proposed use of herbicide as described by Gibson. Seconded by Squibb. Motion carries 6 -0. New: 875 Hale Street, Order of Conditions DEP File #5 -1038 — request for Minor Modification under the Ordinance — Montrose School Park, LLC Maxner states that she received an email from representative asking continuance to Commission's August 21 meeting due to a conflict. Conservation Commission July 31, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 Building Permit for 10 Pine Knoll Drive Maxner explains that she received the building permit for 10 Pine Knoll Drive for a proposal to construct an addition. She presents Commission with photographs of site that contains bordering vegetated wetlands and buffer zone. Maxner describes her site visit where she met with homeowner to measure out the project that is 47 feet at its closest point, but more than 60 feet from the wetlands on average, noting that the project is in lawn area with no grading proposed, just excavation for foundation. She notes that one corner of addition, 8 square feet, is 47 feet from wetland, thereby excluding the project from the minor project permit process instituted by Commission since project has to be more than 50 feet away. She explains that homeowner was unaware of the need for RDA process, and he has lined up contractor to begin work. Maxner asks Commission if homeowner could submit RDA application for Commission review at its August 21 meeting. She mentions preconstruction meeting and expresses confidence in Bill McGrath, contractor, since he precisely follows her instructions (i.e., installs erosion control and respects limit of work). Maxner mentions roof runoff and proposed use of gravel perimeter instead of gutters. Discussion ensues about whether the project meets parameter of minor project due to being more than 50 feet away, it is within existing lawn, that no mature vegetation would be removed and grade on site would not be changed. Foundation would be installed and addition built out. Maxner reiterates that RDA is necessary. She adds that at preconstruction meeting she would ensure erosion controls are used so excavation could start and that material removed would be put in a dump truck and hauled off site. Buchsbaum moves to have the RDA submitted in time for the Commission's August 21 meeting and for Maxner to have preconstruction meeting with contractor (onsite before work starts and after building permit signed). Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 6 -0. 25 Whitehall Circle — Change in Approved Plan under previous RDA Maxner notes that Commission issued a Determination of Applicability for 25 Whitehall Circle for construction of a new house in the outer limits of the buffer zone with the condition that the Commission must review any variations in plan. She explains that house was sited far away from wetlands and that part of subdivision approval is every time a lot goes for building permit there has to be impervious surface calculations and dry well intake. The revised proposal doesn't move the house closer to the wetland, where the corner of house is 90 feet from wetland, but did change the square footage of house within the buffer zone from 50 square feet to 80 square feet due to a bay window bump out, and the proposed pool has been eliminated. She notes that the engineer has performed stormwater calculations to ensure that there is zero volume leaving the site and the drywells are handling runoff She will do a pre - construction meeting to ensure erosion control remains at 50 -foot buffer and trees called out on plan for removal, are in fact those removed. Maxner notes that the contractor's engineer is documenting any changes. Root moves to approve the change. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 6 -0. Conservation Commission July 31, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9 New: Expenditure Approvals ... If Any Squibb moves to pay $466 for Commission members and staff for annual dues for membership to Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions. Seconded by Buchsbaum. Motion carries 6 -0. Bertoni moves to pay $100 to Essex County Greenbelt Association for its annual membership. Seconded by Buchsbaum. Motion carries 6 -0. Approval of Minutes Commission tables October 11, 2011 minutes approval until Lang is available to vote. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening Paluzzi moves to adjourn at 9:15 p.m. Seconded by Squibb. Motion carries 6 -0. The next regular meeting of the Conservation Commission is Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at Beverly City Hall, 3 rd Floor Council Chambers, 191 Cabot Street.