Loading...
2000-09-18 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Conservation Commission September 18, 2000 Chairman David Lang, Anthony Paluzzi, Jay Donnelly, Patricia Grimes, Son Mazuy, Dr. Mayo Johnson Richard Benevento Debm Hurlburt, Assistant Planning Director Jeannine Dion Chairman Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mazuy moves to recess for Public Heating, second by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries. Notice of Intent (Cont.) 290 Essex Street - single family homes construction - Symes Associates Rich Williams from Hayes Engineering appears on behalf of the applicant, Symes Associates. Williams states there was a site walk and there were several questions regarding the replacement areas, specifically pertaining to water budget. He states there will be elevation changes to ensure the replacement area will get water. Lang asks for clarification of the elevation of the first wetland. Williams states it is between 75 and 79. Lang expresses concern that if the wetland is put four feet above the water table; it will not have a chance to survive. He adds the current wetland is thriving and if you are going to put the wetland four to six feet above the elevation of the water table, it will not survive. Putting storm water runoff into it is good during the storm water periods but other times will be bone dry. Lang states there was some discussion regarding blasting, which at least would get it down to the water table. Jeff Rhuda, a representative from Symes Associates, states if the wetland does not take, he will not be granted a Certificate of Compliance from the Commission. He states he has a botanist and a Professional Engineer telling him that this will work. He adds he will dig a hole as deep as the Commission requires, but he does not think it is necessary. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2000 Page 2 Lang states the performance standards state you want to replicate in the same general area. You don't want to go 4-5 feet up gradient, and that is what the applicant is proposing. The hydrology is essential for things to grow and if you are above the water table during different parts of the year, he would not be inclined to approve it. Rhuda states he is agreeable to blast. Dormelly states he thinks the hydrologic design is ingenious the way the engineer developed and designed to prevent flooding downstream. His concern is the number of trees that have to be cut down within the buffer zone in order to construct the retention basins. Donnelly asks if the applicant would consider relocating the detention basins outside the buffer zone, so there would not be any blasting and removal of trees so close to the wetland. Williams responds that is almost impossible to do because the wetlands are in the low part of the site and in order to take the drainage from the low points in the roadway out to the storm, water management area, you need to be in the low part of the site. Rhuda states the Planning Board has requested a "no disturbance zone." Lang asks if there are questions from members of the Commission. Dr. Johnson states there are about 15 houses in the buffer zone and he does not think the Commission has had enough time to review all of the information. Mazuy states the area is very sensitive. Last spring there were yards that were flooded almost up to the houses and it is his feeling that removal of trees and cutting ledge will make the situation worse than it is now. Mazuy states he is concerned about it and is sure the neighbors down gradient are concerned about it, too. Williams states he is aware this is a sensitive area and has met with the city. He states the situation will not be worse and the applicant will try to improve it. The rate of run offhas been reduced. Lang asks if the applicant has assessed the impacts to the wildlife habitat. Williams responds that he did not because it is not part of the requirement. Lang states he believes that the wildlife will be affected by this project. Lang asks if there are questions from the public. Stella Mae Seamans, 840 Hale Street asks the acreage of the parcel and how many houses are being proposed. Williams responds the lot is approximately 19 acres and 30 houses are being proposed. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2000 Page 3 Seamans states the proposed development in no way preserves conservation guidelines. She states she does not believe the wetlands will be functional and expresses concern about the elimination of trees. Seamans asks who oversees the project. Lang responds that Debbie Hurlburt is the Conservation Commission Agent but there will not be anyone there on a daily basis. Williams states he needs to certify that it has been built according to the plan or the applicant does not receive the Certificate of Compliance. Rhuda states he is building conservation open space projects in Newburyport, Acton and other towns. He adds the Master Plan Committee is working to change the zoning in the city so open space subdivisions can be built. Jim Burkinshaw, 22 Meadow Road asks clarifying questions regarding the retention basins. Williams responds that they need to be built to slow the water down. He states he is not confident with the calculations, is concerned that his land is going to be flooded and asks that the Commission not approve the plan tonight. Rhuda maintains the project will improve the drainage by approximately 10%. Lang clarifies the role of the Conservation Commission to the public. Bill O'Brian, 45B Neptune Street, asks what recourse people have if there is flooding after the project is complete. Lang responds that residents could go to the Engineering Department and adds that drainage is a big issues in all of Beverly. Randall Warren of 278 Essex Street states he gets water in his yard now from the ponds and expresses concern that he will get more water. Williams explains that there should be a reduction in water. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street expresses concern regarding the amount of water going to Willow Pond and a decision being made before the CDM study has been reviewed. She adds that she is very skeptical of the project. Carolyn Burkinshaw, 22 Meadow Road expresses concern regarding affect the project will have on wildlife in the area. William Abbott of 20 Meadow Road expresses concern regarding overall impacts of the proposed project. He states capping the landfill and Meetinghouse subdivision prove to be satisfactory on their own merit, however, expresses concern regarding the combined affect of the projects on the environment. Lang responds that if the project meets the requirements of the Act, then the project meets the minimum requirements. The impacts will be significant in some respects, but in the interest of the act, the Commission is limited to look at certain things. Grimes asks if there is an Operations and Maintenance Plan. Williams responds that there is. Para Kampersal, 241 Dodge Street asks a clarifying question regarding storm water runoff. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2000 Page 4 Paul Hayes, 5 Aston Lane asks how long the project is expected to take. Williams responds approximately 30 months. Joan Johnson, 677 Hale Street asks what level storm the October 21, 1996 storm was. Donnelly responds that it was a record storm. Susan Nelson of 304 Essex Street expresses concern regarding wildlife, drainage and removal of too many trees. Donnelly moves to close thc public hearing, second by Mazuy. Lang asks if there is discussion on the motion. Painful states he does not believe there is enough information to close the public hearing and would like to visit the site again. Lang agrees. He states he would like to revisit the site to view the replication area and walk the 40 feet of hank. He would like to send a letter, in the meantime, to Frank Killilea, City Engineer and CDM regarding the drainage studies. Grimes states she would like a more comprehensive Operations and Maintenance Plan. Lang states he would like to protect as many trees as possible and would like to see the applicant flag specific trees that are within the footprint of the houses. Lang asks if there is further discussion. There is none. Donnelly moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Paluzzi. Paluzzi, Mazuy, Grimes, Lang, Dr. Johnson are opposed. Motion fails (1-5). Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing until October 10, 2000 pending a site visit scheduled on October 17, 2000 at 10:30 a.m., second by Grimes. Paluzzi Mazuy, Grimes, Lang, Dr. Johnson are in favor. Donnelly is opposed. Motion carries (5-1). (Cont.) 500 Cummings Center - (181 Elliott Street) - site development, foundation and building construction - Beverly Commerce Park [Lang recuses himself from this portion of the meeting.] Brace Oveson, Project Architect, appears on behalf of the applicant and introduces Bob Griffin from Griffin Engineering. Oveson explains how the water drains from the parking lot. He states the building is not subject to Chapter 91 became it does not sit on any fill. Griffin addresses the question about the applicability of Standard #5 to the project. He explains that in the submittal he noted that the site did not qualify as a higher potential use load site, therefore Standard #5 was not applicable. He has reviewed the likely traffic pattern that could be Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes :September 18, 2000 Page 5 generated from a project of this square footage and determined a range of approximately 1,200 to 1,800 trips per day (over the 1,000 trips per day number). That would appear to trigger Standard #5, however, of the parking that is going to be created by the project (approximately 650 spaces), about 200 are tributary to the upper pond. The balance (450 spaces) drains to an existing drainage system that is beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. Griffin states he believes Standard #5 does not apply. Griffin explains that what Standard #5 triggers is a requirement that certain Best Management Practices (BMP's) be used in treating the storm water from the site. BMP's require that the site have a pollution prevention plan (i.e. control chemicals used on the property; maintain storm water control devices; spill prevention plans, etc.). While Cummings may not have a pollution prevention plan submitted to the Conservation Commission, Griffin suggests the practices used at the site are consistent with what would be required by a pollution prevention plan. He adds an Operations and Maintenance Plan has been submitted which calls for preventive maintenance and periodic clean out of the deep sump catch basins, water quality inlets and water quality swale, that are associated with this project. The applicant is also providing a snow management plan. In summary, Griffin states the applicant meets the intent of Standard #5. Oveson states he will provide a "decisive dates list" which identifies the maintenance activities and a snow management plan. Grimes questions and disagrees with Griffin's interpretation of Standard #5. She also asked about Standard #2 and that she did not think that they were exempt. Mazuy had questions regarding soil storage area. Donnelly asks what method of construction will be utilized for the foundation. Oveson responds that he is proposing a pile foundation, which will require minimal excavation. Donnclly asks if there will be a sub-grade basement. Oveson responds there will not be a sub- grade basement. Paluzzi asks if there are questions from members of the public. A member of the public asks who is responsible for making the pond suitable for swimming and fishing, etc. 0veson responds that title property is under an Activity and Use Limitation, which is a legal vehicle that allowed the property to be redeveloped. The Activity and Use Limitation prohibits playing ball, swimming, fishing, growing vegetables, schools, etc. Anything else is allowed. He adds that under the current ownership of the property, nobody would be allowed to swim in thc ponds, anyway, because of the liability. A member of the public expresses concern about thc "odd color" of the pond and the lack of presence of wildlife. Oveson responds a couple of years ago, there were biologists from DEP to check the state of the upper pond. There was an accelerated growth of algae due to a hot and dry summer. He adds that he could provide two months worth of complaints from tenants about Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2000 Page 6 geese and ducks and disagrees regarding the lack of wildlife. He states there are more snapping tuffies and fish than there were in the pond four years ago. Stella Mae Seamans, 840 Hale Street asks if there are other buildings in the city situated within the 100-foot buffer zone. The Conservation Commission responds that there are many buildings within the 100-foot buffer zone. Pam Kampersal, 241 Dodge Street expresses concem about the encroachment of the building 60 feet into the 100-foot buffer zone and asks if those rules can be changed. Paluzzi responds that would have to go before the City Council with a proposed City bylaw. Dr. Johnson moves to close the hearing, second by Donnelly. All members in favor. Motion carries. [Lang returns to the meeting.] Adjacent to 38 East Corning Street - single family home construction - Harding Bill Manuell from Wetlands and Land Management appears on behalf of the applicant. He states a site walk was held on Saturday and he was asked by the Commission to examine some soils and vegetation in a couple more areas, which he will provide to the Commission in the near future. He asks that the meeting be continued until the next meeting. Manuell states another important issue is the determination of a ditch being either intermittent or perennial. He states after rain on Friday, the ditch barely had a centimeter of water in it and believes it is intermittent. Manuell states there is a lingering question about whether storm water management policy is applicable to this project. He contends that because the parcel was divided into two lots and Form A lots are considered subdivisions when you are considering the storm water management policy, they typically do not apply to subdivisions of four or fewer lots. They don't apply to existing discharges (only new discharges). Manuell provides a copy of the storm water standard to the Commission. Manuell states the distance of the parcel to Rice's Beach is over ¼ mile away. He states it needs to be determined whether an existing discharge 1,500 feet from a swimming beach is a direct discharge to a critical area. He maintains that it is not. Manuell states he spoke with Mr. Harding and believes he will be coming in to the next meeting with a revised plan with a smaller footprint. Lang asks how many soil samples are being taken. Manuell responds that he has placed three flags where the testing will be taking place. Lang asks if there are questions from members of the public. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2000 Page 7 Bill O'Brien, 45B Neptune Street asks what the Conservation Commission's concerns are. Lang responds that the Commission visited the site last Saturday and looked at the wetland flags. The ground appeared to be wet. Soil samples were taken, which were dark and organic rich. Others had some evidence that they were wetlands. Lang states it looks like the wetland area could enlarge, which would alter the location of the house and possibly eliminate it. Kevin Mahan, 40 East Coming Street asks ifa perennial stream was located on the USGS map. Manuell responds "no". Mazuy moves to continue the hearing to the next scheduled meeting on October 10, 2000, second by Donnelly. All members in favor. Motion carries. Old/New Business Tall Tree Drive - review of plans for culvert installntion Dave Oulette from Marchionda & Associates appears on behalf of the applicant. He states that as part of the Order of Conditions the applicant was required to provide detailed plans of the modification to the two existing 36" culverts and construction of the new headwall to the Conservation Commission prior to commencement of activity. He provides detail of the project. He states Debbie Hurlburt has spoken with the National Heritage people. National Heritage is interested in maintaining some migratory routes from the vernal pools to the upland parts of the site. There was discussion about changing the bituminous berm to the Cape Cod type berm (which has less of a grade change) or eliminate the berm altogether and pitch the driveways away from the vernal pool. They also discussed installing a couple of culverts under the driveways to act as migratory routes. Hurlburt states she spoke with Amy from National Heritage about the following issues: · Making the vernal pool as it was supposed to be -- in the entire 50-foot grade. Move the silt fence so it does not intrude on the vernal pool. · Concern about the migratory route of the wood frogs and salamanders, which are upland species. * Possibility of installing either Cape Cod betas or no berm at all. · Concern about too many trees being cut down because the species need "leaf litter" to survive. · Question about the number of culverts (two or three). Hurlburt states she spoke with Frank Killilea and he requires only two culverts. Mazuy asks iftbe applicant intend to cut a lot of trees. Oulette responds cutting will be required for minor grading associated with the roadway and construction of the driveways. He does not see a problem maintaining most of the trees in the area. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2000 Page 8 The Commission discusses a condition prohibiting cutting trees within 50 feet of the vernal pool without the permission of the Conservation Commission. There is discussion about pitching the driveways away from the vernal pool. Mazuy expresses concern about salt going into the vernal pool. Paluzzi asks what the distance is from the vernal pool to the nearest driveway. Oulette responds approximately 5 feet. Dr. Johnson reminds the Commission that the three house lots were the result of a compromise that protects the rest of the acreage from development. There is discussion about the installation of pipe culverts under the driveways to provide a habitat tunnel. paluzzi moves to require the following for the vernal pool: 1. Cape Cod berm. 2. Installation of two culverts under each driveway (12 inches wide, round half-filled with dirt), 3. Mark all trees to be taken down. Conservation Agent will visit the site to check the trees after flagged, 4. Vernal pool needs to be noted that it is to the 50-foot contour. seconded by Donnelly. Motion carries 5-1. (Grimes opposed). David Peterson, representative of one of the owners, states the property has remained dmrrlant for a number of years due to inteffamily squabbling over this property and several other assets. Because the work discussed is time sensitive and because they have not yet closed on the property, the owners are concerned that an extension is necessary. Peterson requests a one-year extension. Paluzzi moves to grant an extension, second by Donnelly. Mazuy is opposed. Motion carries. Essex County Greenbelt membership Paluzzi moves to pay $50 membership fee to the Essex County Greenbelt, second by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries. IT Corp Release Abatement Measure Status Report available Hurlburt states the aforementioned report is available for review. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2000 Page 9 Other 130 Lothrop Street Hurlburt states that Tony Musanti has requested to speak to the Commission regarding an abutting property (130 Lothrop Street). Hurlburt states someone has been doing work on the property, which DEP had ruled was land subject to coastal stomt towage. The DEP determined that if any additional work was done, they had to file with the Commission. She states she contacted the new owner and provided information, which she thought he understood. Ms. Musanti informed Hurlburt that he has been doing work all weekend in areas that he should not have been doing work. Musanti provides a detailed history regarding the abutting property. She states the neighbor is trying to make a lawn out of an area that floods every winter (according to FEMA it is a flood basin). The neighbor is filling, planting and has installed a fence onto the property. She states the previous owner was pumping and was given permission to hitch his pump into an abandoned city storm drain. The abandoned storm drain is broken and her yard, and several other yards, now flood. Musanti states the house is on a floating foundation, which now has a porch around the back. The neighbor stores a lawn mower under the porch. The neighbor is pumping and it is a~ecting her property and other properties and that every time the neighbor plants, they take up flood storage. She provides pictures of the property. Lang recommends inviting the neighbor to the next meeting to discuss the details of the Superseding Order. Musanti states she resides at 12 Willow Street. Other affected properties are 6 and 8 Willow Street. Norwood Pond Para Kampersal expresses concern regarding the orange stream which is still running to Norwood Pond. Kampersal states she spoke with Frank Killilea who indicated the orange stream is fixed and can not be coming from the landfill. Lang states if that is tree, the Commission should take some action. He does not want leachate to get into Norwood Pond. Lang volunteers to visit the site and recommends taking another water sample of Norwood Pond. palu~i moves to spend up to $250 for water samples of leachatc going into Norwood Pond, second by Donnelly. All members in favor. Motion carries. Kampersal expresses concern regarding the safety of the dam. Lang recommends visiting the dam on October 7th. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2000 Page 10 Order of Conditions 500 Cummings Center (181 Elliott Street) - site development, foundation and buildin~ construction - Beverly Commerce Park Grimes moves to issue the following conditions: 5. Standard Conditions, 6. Submittal to and approval of a Pollution Prevention Plan to the Conservation Commission prior to commencement of activities on the site, 7. Submittal to and approval of a Snow Management Plan to the Conservation Commission prior to commencement of activities on the site, 8. Submittal to and approval of an Operations and Maintenance Schedule Plan to the Conservation Commission prior to commencement of activities on the site. Second by Donnelly. All members in favor. Motion carries. Approval of Minutes Mazuy moves to approve the minutes dated August 29, 2000 as amended, second by Paluzzi. Motion carries. Paluzzi moves to adjourn, second by Donnelly. All members in favor. Motion carries. The meeting adjourns at 10:25 p.m.