Loading...
2000-03-21City of Beverly Conservation Commission CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Conservation Commission March 2t, 2000 Chairman David Lang, Anthony Pah~zzi; Jon Mazuy, Patricia Grimes, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Jay Donnelly and Richard Benevento Debra Hurlburr, Assistant Planning Director Chairman Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Request for Determination of Anlfficabilitv 673 Hale Street - stone wall & walkway construction, nlantinl~s, etc./Ozols Bill Manuell from Hancock Environmental appears on behalf of the applicant Ana Ozols. Manuell states he was invited to the property several weeks ago. He states that he observed that the work was within the 100 feet of a protected resource area, intermittent stream, that emanates from a wetland on the opposite side of the railroad tracks. The work that is involved is essentially constructing a timber retaining wall, placement of some fill and indigenous plant species. Manuell states the applicant is asking for a Negative Determination #3, specifying that the work is within an area of jurisdiction that work can proceed without any impact to the resource areas. Manuell states he wrote a letter of opinion and advised the applicant to utilize standard mulching practices, if the work is going to cease for any length of time. He states if work ceases for a period of 30 days, they should mulch it. The material that is on site is barely granular and he is not very concerned about siltation. There is a timber wall which was constructed right at the property line and it doesn't appear that anything is getting beyond the wall. The applicant wants to incorporate some terrace walls into the landscaping. The whole effect would be to raise the grade and flatten out the slope that is there now. Manuell states it should work to control any of the runoff that is Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 2 coming down the driveway that goes to the rear houses, which is a secondary benefit that the applicant is trying to realize fi'om this project. He states the applicant is proposing to build a series of walls or terraces, which would in effect raise the grade up, flatten out the grade where the overland flow is going. The impervious fill material will serve to infiltrate some additional runoff, to a small degree. Manuell states he also talked about a residential type catch basin, and outlet the discharge with a perforated black plastic pipe. Manuell states between the landscaping change in the grade and capturing some of the surface water, it would probably help a small degree to alleviate some of the water that is going over the site and onto the neighboring land. Manuell states he is told there is concern about flooding on neighboring land hacking up from what is coming through the intermittent streank He states it is very clear what is happening in the neighboring yard and what is causing the flooding. There is a small diameter pipe, some sort of drain that goes an elevated landform on the abutting property. The elevated landform, which is about 20 feet wide and approximately 1 to 11/2 feet above the existing grade, is acting like a big broad weir. When the pipe gets overwhelmed from the water coming iv., the water is going to back up onto the neighboring land. It may reach some of the applicant's property. It is very hard to tell. The limit of the applicant's property is very close to the elevation of the top of that earthen wear. Some flooding may go onto the applicant's property. Manuell states if any does reach the property, it is going to he a very small amount. He states no matter what goes on the property, the limit of flooding on the neighboring property is controlled by the elevation of the earthen dart~ No matter what happens, upgrading it, the limit of flooding will never get any deeper on the neighboring property, because the control is downgrading. Manuell states the applicant is asking for a Negative Determination. The work on the property is probably no closer than 50 feet to the intermittent strean~ When all is said and done, there will be a timber wall and a rock terrace wall that will serve as a barrier to any sediment movement prior to it being stab'dized. The ultimate landscaping treatment is for a series of mulch paths, planted gardens and a little bit of lawn. Manuell state the site would be stabilized within a couple months of the beginning of the growing season. With proper mulching and, if need be erosion controls, the applicant should be able to proceed with this based on the landscaping plan before the Commission. Manuell states it should not have any impact on the abutting property. Lang asks Manuell if the small diameter pipe is plugged. Manuell responds that he is not sure if it is plugged. Lang states that there is an area that was described as pan of a road. Ozols responds that it was an ancient road before the railroad tracks came through. Lang states there might be a drainpipe underneath it that collapsed. Manuell states that there is water coming in very efficiently but then it gets trapped and can't get out very efficiently. Lang adds if the applicant would like to solve that problem, that would be a separate project. Manuell states that he knows there is concern that the work that is going on at the applicant's Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 3 property may exacerbate the flooding on abutting property. He states that would not happen and the fill material being placed on the applicant's property would not have any bearing at all on the flooding on the adjacent property. Lang asks if the native grasses will be maintained. Manuell responds that it is on the plan as remaining undisturbed. Lang states that the apphcant explained that the wall might impinge on that area a little bit. He requests that all the native grasses stay intact and the wall stays on the uphill side. Manuell states that should not be a problem. Lang asks if Commission members have any questions. Donnelly asks if the applicant intends to install the perforated pipe and catch bash. Manuell responds 'yes'. Lang reads a letter ~'om Joan Johnson, abutter to the property. Robert Seaman, 675 Hale Street states he has been a property owner at that location for over 50 years. Seaman provides historical information regarding the applicant's property. He states that the house is attractive and the Ozois have done wonderful planning and it is becoming more attractive to all the neighbors. Seaman states there is a runoffproblem and he is delighted that action is being taken to resolve it. Seaman adds that he hopes the issue can be resolved so that his good neighbors remain where they are and continue to improve the property. Lang asks fithere are other conunents from the public. Paln77i moves to issue a Negative Determination of Applicability #3, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries. Lang states that he would like to add a stipulation that the native grass remain on the site. He recommends that Ms. Hurlburt visit the site prior to the commencement of work and mark the areas that the Commission would like to remain. 132 Common Lane - porch removal & replacement & foundation/Cunninlham The applicant, Robert Cunningham introduces Jeff Woodward, the representative that will do the work for hink Cunningham states there is an existing screen porch on the back of his house which is about 17 It. wide X 15 R. He is proposing removing the porch and replacing it with a more permanent weatherproofed room. The dimension of the proposed room would be 17 it. X 20 it. The new room will sit on a foundation. Excavation will be necessary to enable a 4-foot truss wall to be installed. The work will be done with a hackhoe. Cunningham states the plan is to keep any excavation fill as close to ~he hole as possible and unused material will I:e trucked off the property. Lang asks how long the area is from the stream and wetland boundaries. Cunningham responds Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 4 that the closest point to the new property is approximately 60 feet. Cunningham states the time frame for the excavation work is about two weeks. The time frame for the entire project is approximately 4 to 6 weeks. Lang asks if the applicant is planning to use hay bales. Cunningham responds that he will comply with the Conservation Commission's request to do ,so. Lang asks if there are any questions from Conservation Commission members. Donnelly asks iftbe applicant intends to cut hack any of the woods. Cunningham responds that he does not intend to cut down trees. Mazuy asks if the applicant expects to encounter water in the excavation. Mr. Woodward responds that he does not expect to because he is only planning to go down four feet below grade. He states the existing foundation is eight feet below grade and the basement is dry. Paluzzi asks for clarification on the footing drain that goes into the stream channel. Cunningham responds that he has been told it is a PVC pipe that goes from a french drain around the house. Lang asks how long the applicant has owned the house. Cunningham responds he has owned the house approximately three years. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Grimes moves to issue a Negative Determination of Applicability #3, seconded by Painful. All members in favor. Motion carries. Lang recommends Debbie Hurlburt visit the site and make recommendation regarding the placement of hay bales. Hurlburt states she can go out and indicate on the property where she thinks the hay bales should go before construction. Hurlburt adds that will be one of the conditions. Lang adds that if the applicant is planning to store soil for any period of time he should be sure it is within the area where the hay bales are located. 125 Common Lane - buildinS addition & exitand foundation/French William French appears before the Commission. He states he is planning to add to an existing foundation. Hurlburr states the foundation exists and the applicant wants to add to the front of it. She states there is lawn. a lot of ledge outcropping and a little valley where the stream is located. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page S Dr. Johnson states he noticed that the property has been cleared right to the edge of the wetland in the back of the house. He asks if the clearing of the land to the wetland edge and the building on the property was done to the Commission's approval. Hurlbun states she has a record of the house construction on record but she does not think the shed was approved by the Commission. French responds that he keeps the wetland as clear as possible. Beneveuto moves to issue a Negative Determination of Applicability #3, seconded by Grimes. Lang abstains (6-0-1). Motion carries. Motion by PalnT~i to recess for public hearings, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries. Notice of Intent 2 Brookwood Road - Access road construction & associated work/Brookwood School John Moran from Thomas Neve Associates appears on behalf on Brookwood School regard'rag construction of an access road to the Brookwood School. A portion of the road is traveling through the City of Beverly before it enters Manchester. Moran states there was a site visit last Saturday and the Commission has raised some issues. Moran states the first issue pertains to an area that Commission rnemhers feel may be an altered wetland, located around the 200-202 series wetland. He has spoken with his botanist and he informed Moran that there is a large transition zone from the field to the edge of the wetland. Moran recommends to meet the Commission's i~gent on the site to do soil borings and determine the location of the wetlands, flit is determined that there is filled wetland at that location. He adds that he has photographs taken at approximately 1990 which shows the area as being a lawn. He will provide the pictures to the Commission's agent. Moran states flit is determined that there is a wetland filled, they will provide a planting schedule to mitigate said wetland. The second issue raised pertains to a water main. Moran states that several years back (1997) he received an Order of Conditions for the installation of a water main from Hale Street to the Brookwood School that traveled along the existing wood road, went underneath the wetland, hack up and traversed hack to the school. He states he spoke with Mr. Neve this afiemoon, who is responsible for permitting and construction supervision on the job. At the site visit some of the members believed there were trees that were cut down that weren't approved. Moran states he does not have any problems re-walking the site with the Commission to determine fithere were trees cut down without permission. If it is determined that trees were cut down, he does not have any problems re-vegetating the area. Moran states he proposed a paved surface with gravel shoulders with loam and seeded side slopes for the access road. The reason for this proposal is because based on the work through the buftbr Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 6 zone, when you install something that requires little or no maintenance, you are better off. He adds a gravel driveway will require more maintenance. The access will be a heavily traveled one way road. Moran states he believes a paved surface would be the best surface in this area. With regards to buffer zones and wetland issues, in the past he has felt that a paved surface with gravel shoulders and loamed and seeded side slopes provides enough mitigation for the surrounding wetlands. He states it has come to his attention that this is a possible fish rim and he adds that he has no experience with regards to whether this would affect a fish run. Moran states there will be a gentleman, who is experienced on this topic who will be making a presentation on this topic. Moran states he will be asking for a continuance so that the issues regarding the wetland and the old water main may be discussed. Grimes asks what kinds of pollution, erosion and sediment controls will be in place so that Chubbs Brook and the ocean is not affected. Moran responds that they are going to work on an erosion and sediment control plan. He adds that during construction everything is easily controlled through the use of hay bales and silt fences. Alter construction mitigation measures will be designed for the location around Chubbs Creek. With regards to the width of the disturbance usually associated with buffer zones and intermittent streams, gravel shoulders with loamed and seeded side slopes provide mitigation for runoffand sediments and it also decreases erosion due to the fact that you have well established slopes and you do not get erosive velocities coming off the sides of these channels. If it is determined that something more needs to be designed to protect the area, he has already started to think about grass swales that actually are infiltration trenches. Grimes asks about pollution controls. She adds that she is concemed about discharge from cars going over the road into the brook. Moran states it is not a parking area, so cars will not be parked in the location. It is regular travel access. Grimes states she is concerned about anything that is dripping and salt, that is put down during winter, is going to go right down into the brook. Moran responds that sand will be used during the winter and mitigation measures would be designed to handle the increased sand in the area so that there would not be any adverse affects on the brook. Grimes states that she has not seen any information in the report regarding mitigation and asks ira report is forthcoming. Moran responds that he will be providing a report, plans or details addressing those issues. Lang asks if there are any questions from commission members. Paluzzi asks what the weight limit is for the bridge. Moran responds that a structural engineer did the calculations and he could provide the calculations to the Commission. Benevento asks if delivery trucks will be going over the access road. Moran responds that deliveries will not be going through that access. Benevento states H20 loading would be required. Moran states that the expert Brad Chase was not able to attend the meeting. Chase is the ~sheries biologist who has been monitoring all the fish runs in the area and has prepared a report on this Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 7 issue. Moran introduces Robert Bucksbaum who is the Marine Ecologist for the area from the Massachusetts Audobon Society. Mr. Buckshum, 12 Bertram Street states he did not come to the meeting to appear as an expert. He is representing himself. He works for Mass. Audobon but he is not speaking for Mass. Audohen. Buchsbaum states he has spoken with Mr. Chase about the smelts. The smelt runs are down in this part of the state. Buckshum states one of Chase's concerns is siltation of the spawning sites and things like sand that get washed down into the strean~ The other issue is overall land clearing associated with the project. Bucksham states the fish run is designated on a Mass GIS map. Lang states Chubbs Creek is not to he conlsed with Chubks Brook. Lang asks ifChubbs Brook also a smelt run. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street states there are usually fish there. Benevento asks if the Commission should provide some type of mitigation for the application of salt, if, by chance, the maintenance person happens to put salt down, instead of sand. Moran responds that the Brookwood only operates on sand. They do not use salt except for the location directly in front of the doors of the school. Rick Chute, an employee of the school states the school uses calcium chloride for the wallways. Donnelly asks what is done with the sand in the spring. Chute states they sweep it up and the remains go to the side of the driveway. Mazuy asks when the stone layer was placed on the road. Moran states he does not. He adds Mr. Neve will research that issue further. Mazuy asks if the roadway was widened since the Commission was there two years ago. Moran states he was not involved in that filing but he can research it further. Lang states it will be interesting to speak with Dr. Chase bocause it looks like there are some issues. One of the issues is the use of sand and salt. He adds that it seems that the smelts are most susceptible in the springtime. Lang states several years ago he worked at the Quabbin Reservoir for the USGS and he did a lot of sampling during the springtime events. He states they were measuring a pH of a snow melt/run off events of 2.9 and 3.5, that was leaching a lot of metals, aluminum in particular. Lang states that when the pH gets that low, because of acid rain accumulations it was bringing this big slug of aluminum, which is pretty toxic. Donnelly asks the applicant to review the calculations for the storm water and its effects downstream and the culvert under Route 127. Moran responds that he was hired by Brookwood about I ½ to 2 years ago to start working on a review of the existing culvert under Hale Street. Thomas Neve and Associates conducted an analysis of the whole watershed contributing to the culvert in order to design another culvert, as this one has faded and causing flooding upstream, Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 8 which was affecting the access road to the school. Moran states he has taken the calculations, which were reviewed and approved by the state and recalculated the impervious area from the watershed associated with the portion where the work will be conducted. Moran states he also has taken into consideration several proposed additions that the school may be looking at in the future, as well as the removal of two buildings. Moran states there is a net increase of about acre of impervinus area in a 25-acre watershed. In that 25 acre watershed there is already 7.8 acres of impervious area. He adds that by adding '/2 acre of impervious area does not affect the runoff curve number for the associated 25-acre watershed. One main reason is that ~ acre is only about 2% of the total volume or the total area of the watershed. Moran states the increase of impervious area and the removal of trees to open space does not affect the volume or rote of nmoffassociated with this development therefore there is no need to contact the state and there is no need for mitigation measures as the culvert was designed according to the original calculations. Lang asks if members of the public have comments. Larry Ralph, 252 Essex Street states he believes some mitigation should take place regarding the potential use of salt. He states he worked for the same organization for 25 years and was responsible for maintenance. Ralph adds that 10 m 15 years down the road people can't remember why you do things. He recommends looking toward the future in the event somebody start using salt? Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street asks fithere is enough room for a channel on either side of the road. Moran responds that there is not a proposed channel yet. In the areas before you get to the crossing, you have enough room to propose a drainage channel that will intercept flow and direct it in any direction we like to direct it. Lang asks fithere are mere questions. There are none. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2000, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries. 253 Essex Street - house construction & utilities/Richard & Cindv Paone John Levie appears on hehalfofthe applicants. Levie states the proposal is to construct a standard cape which will be sited as far to the right on the property line as possible. The driveway will also be sited to the fight, in order to keep the runoffto the right side of the property. Paluzzi asks what the cellar floor elevation. Levie responds that the cellar floor will be approximately 6 inches above the road, which is approximately at 2-foot lift, with stone underneath to keep it dry. Dr. Johnson asks if the lot was an existing lot prior to 1995. Hurlburt states that it was not. She states the division of the lot was approved in 1964 and was not a recorded separate lot until 1998. Therefore, it was not a recorded lot before the Rivers Act went into efli~ct. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 9 Larry Ralph, 252 Essex Street states in years of normal rainfall it does not dry out and runs 12 months during the year. He states it does dry out in years where there is extensive drought. He adds that he has worked on the Charles River for 25 years and he has seen that go down to a mere trickle. Richard Obear, a resident of Cole Street, states he has walked the applicant's property approx'unately 3 days a week during the summer and walked through the woods many times and it was dry as a bone last summer. Henry McCloughlin, 25A Essex Street states he has lived in his home for 22 years and the stream is wet year round, even during the dry times. He states there are areas where it goes underground and appears to he dry but it is nmning underground and it reappears again. Isabel Wilson, 255 Essex Street, a direct abutter to the applicant, states the stream runs through her property on two sides. Wilson states except in times of extreme drought the stream runs. Lang recommends continuing to a future meeting because it is incumbent upon the applicant to convince the Conservation Commission that the perennial stream does or does not exist. Lang adds that if it is a perennial stream, then the apphcant must adhere to the Rivers Act and there are some issues that need to be addressed. Lang states if it does dry up periodically (there are specific criteria in the regulations), an engineer must read that and report to the Commission as to whether or not this fits the criteria. Benevento states he needs clarification between intermittent and perennial streams. Benevento asks if "Alternatives Analysis" applies to the applicant. Hurlburt responds it would apply if it was a lot that was created previous to 1996. Benevento moves to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2000, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries. McPherson Drive - reDlace bulkhead with stone revetment/Bass Haven Yacht Club Attomey Scott Houseman appears on hehalfofthe applicant. He introduces Fred Dusnaf, Senior Engineer at Dusnaf Engineering Associates. Houseman states he was before the Commission several months ago regarding the demolition of the wharf. The Commission has issued an Order of Conditions and the wharf has been taken down. The applicant is before the Commission to facilitate the next and final stage of property improvements at Bass Haven Yacht Club. Houseman states the proposal is to have a ma'mtenance project and replace the bulkhead, which is in disrepa;$, with a stone revetment. Houseman states the bulkhead has water that comes up from behind during high tide. It is currently getting filled in with soil and rocks, which are between the shed and the bulkhead. Over the years attempts have been made to shore up the wooden bulkhead by putting a variety of things Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 10 in to reinforce the structure, which now constitute debris. Mazuy asks what the protective device is. Houseman states it is a containment room which was used during the removal of the wh~. Houseman shows pictures of the property to the Commission members and public. Houseman states that the property historically was part of the United Shoe Manufacturing Company. The bulkhead is 100 years old (it was licensed in 1904) and remains licensed under Chapter 91. It used to be the case that this was part of a dock for access to the boats. The clubhouse used to be in a different location. Houseman states the applicant is proposing to mitigate the concrete by taking it up and putting planting in. The applicant has retained the services of the Massachusetts Resources Commission, Department of Agriculture who is providing a species list of upland grasses for stab'dization of the area. Houseman states when the concrete is removed, it would be graded off, smoothed and upland grasses/shrubs would be planted. The intention is to improve the resource. Hoeman states the project has two parts. The first part is the replacement of the wooden bulkhead with a revetment. The second part is mitigating the resource area by taking out concrete pad and putting in some ground cover (for stabilization) and letting it fill in over time with native grasses. Houseman states the plans have been revised since the application was submitted. He provides the revised plans to Commission members. Benevento asks if the applicant expects any discoveries when the concrete pads are being removed. Housem~an responds 'no'. He states Stop & Shop did an extensive multiphase evaluation and remediation of this property. The applicant has the results of soils in the area and there is nothing that would be of particular concern. Houseman adds that the entire parcel is subject to an activities and use limitation. Chapter 21E states than depending on the use of the property, you only have to clean up to a certain threshold. Houseman notes several changes to the original plans. Benevento asks if the applicant will he submitting a new package. Houseman responds that he will provide a new package. Houseman introduces Fred Dusnaf, the consulting engineer. Dusnafstates the main thrust of the submission is 265 feet ofrevetment and the removal of an old dock and concrete. Dusnaf states in the past year there have been meetings with National Marine Fisheries who represented the Army Corp of Engineers and Fisheries Wildlife, the DEP and Coastal Zone Management. They all felt that even the extended work would not negatively affect the local area. Dusnafstates the basin was studied. The flows are very shallow. The proposed revetment is very heav2¢. The Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 11 applicant is proposing to place a fence (barricade type or a post and rail) along the top of slope all the way to the clubhouse. Benevento asks how deep the applicant anticipates excavating at the base of the revetent. Dusnaf responds approximately 3 feet. Benevento asks if borings will he done. Dusnaf states there will he an onsite assessment. Mazuy asks fithere will he excavation for the revetment. Dusnafresponds that will he up to the general contractor. He states the contractor will probably work in sections and work between the tie backs, remove the material to at least the top of slope, slide it back and then start removing the material (lumber). Donnelly states there will he soma excavation of soil and asks how the applicant plans to prevent erosion. Dnsnafstates they are proposing a floating boom. Palnzzi asks what the applicant will be doing with the excavated materials. Houseman responds that the timhen will he disposed of through a licensed facility. In terms of the soil, there will not he much material because the revetment will fill in the area. Benevento asks what other erosion control measures are being put in. Dusnafresponds that there will be enviro fence and hay bales to protect the salt marsh area. Houseman adds that along the section of the revetment, the proposal is that fithere is any siltation, the floating boom will catch it as it goes down at low tide and catch floating material as it goes up during high tide. Hoeman states there are several reasons for the stone revetment. The property is presently licensed for a wooden bulkhead but a stone revetment provides a number of positive attributes. The stone will last longer than a wooden bulkhead and secondly, from a resource perspective, a sloped stone revetment provides an awful lot ofbabitat area for marine life. Grimes states her concern is to ensure a minimal impact to the river. Houseman states he would he open to any suggestions from the Commission on how to control siltation. Grimes states she would like the suggestions to come from the applicant. Benevento moves to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2000, seconded by PaJnzTi. All members in favor. Motion carries. A site visit is scheduled on April 8, 2000. Modification Request - Sam Fonzo Drive - Liberty Publishinll, Inc. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 12 Richard Williams from Hayes Engineering appears on behalf of Liberty Publishing. William's states minor revisions have been made to plan. Most of the revisions are outside the buffer zone. Among the changes: elimination of some parking spaces; extending the silt fence; recon~guration of the drainage pipes in the parking lot; change in the grading between the parking lot and the building; moved the handicap ramp; added a note on the plan to explain the type of curbing; added a note specifying the type of seed with regard to storm water management (a specific wetland seed mix). Mazuy moves to approve the modification request, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries (7-0). Discussion with Menzie Cura re~ardinl~ the Beverly/Salem Water Supply report Gerry Cura from Menzie Cura Associates is present for discussion regarding the Beverly/Salem Water Supply report. Lang states the Conservation Commission hired Menzie Cura to evaluate some sediment data that was collected by the consultant for the Beverly/Salem Water Board. He states Rebecca Lacey and Lang went out and collected another sample last December on the shore of Wenham Lake. Lang states Menzie Cura is highly reputable (probably the best) and he thought it would give the Conservation Commission an independent analysis of the wetlands conditions and what needs to he done next. Lang states the local newspaper took a photograph of a creek that flowed into Wenham Lake at low tide - late November/early December, before the lake had refilled. The photograph revealed a bright orange staining of high iron. The picture was given to the Conservation Commission and the Commission asked the Beverly/Salem Water Board about it. There were concerns because at the time the Commission members went out there and the sludge dewatering area is right adjacent to this tributary and they had three or four different pipes that went from the sludge dewatering area into the drainage stream. Lang states there were a lot ofwetland issues that the Commission thought it had jurisdiction over. He adds there has not been any foreclosure on the issue, although they have taken the hard pipe offof that area and redefined the area where they do the sludge dewatering. The area is not lined so any infiltration from this area infiltrates the groundwater and goes to the stream in a matter of weeks or months. Lang states Frank Killilea is the Public Works Director and a member of the Beverly/Salem Water Board and present at tonight's meeting. Lang informs Killilea he is welcome to speak if he wishes. Killilea responds that his role at the meeting is as the City Engineer. He adds that the Beverly/Salem Water Board has voted that only the beard will speak on issues and not individual members of the board. Lang states this has been an outstanding issue and at the last meeting the Commission voted to send Menzie Cura's report to the DEP for their analysis and recommendations. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 13 Cura states he recognizes that this is not a Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) site. The MCP is the plan which the state uses to deal with hazardous waste sites and site that are metal contaminated. He states he followed the guidance that program provides for trying to address ecological risks. Cura states he looked at the concentrations of metals that were analyzed in the fbur samples. Three of the samples were along the berm and compared them individually to some benchmarks. The benchmarks are mostly developed by the National Engineer's and Atmospheric Administration and they are very explicit about how to use the benchmarks. They say don't use the benchmarks as individual criteria. The more of the benchmarks that you exceed in a sample, the more likely you are to have ecological risk in that sample to the sediment dwelling organisms. Cura states many states use these as screen level criteria, which if you exceed any of these benchmarks, there is potential for ecological risk. The potential probably isn't very high if you only exceed one criteria but in the interest of a very conservative assessment, even if you exceed one criteria, Massachusetts would then say you need to do some more work. Cura states that is where the current sample is. He states all the stations (S1, S2 and S3) exceeded two or more of the benchmarks for various metals. Sample S1 exceeded the screening level criteria for aluminum, copper, iron, lead and manganese. The other two samples (52 and S3) exceed the screening level criteria for copper and manganese. Cura adds that sample C1 does not exceed any of the effect ranges. Cura states there is some potential for ecological risk associated with the sediments defined by S1, S2 and S3. Benevento asks how you define the potential risk. Cura responds that to date there are no assigned specific probabilities. He adds the risk is more likely at station S1 than S2 and S3 and risk is probably enough that the State would say you can't come to the conclusion of no significant risk. Lang asks what DEP will do with this report. Cura states that he can not imagine DEP would take a position on this, however, they might send an opinion. He recommends sending the letter to Office of Research and Samples. Cura states you are only working with three samples so you don't have a very clear delineation of the problem. He adds the observation of the lack of vegetation in the wetland is a difficult problem to address. It may be as equally due to physical modification of wetland due to the paniculates that have been draining. Cura states Sanford Ecological did do some leaching tests with combined S1, S2 and S3 samples and concluded that the metals probably aren't biodegradable. He states biodegradability is complicated but it is encouraging that the material seems to be fairly tightly bound to the sediments. He adds there are other kinds of tests one can propose to look more directly at biodegradability. Cura states the problem needs to be watched and he recommends taking more samples to really Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 14 delineate the extend of contamination and the extent of possible effect on sediments. Cura states the impact may not be due to metals and recommends taking samples starting at S 1 and C1 in a concentric fashion. Cura also recommends retaining a botanist to go through the site to see how badly impacted the site is in terms of vegetation. Mazuy states he has heard a lot of encouraging remarks tonight and asks if there is a problem with this area or is it not clear without further testing. Cura states that Lang thinks there is a problem with vegetation, so that is a problem. Cura states late spring/early summer is the best time to test vegetation. A member states that he thinks he has heard that vegetation could be affected more from sediments and less from metals. Cura recommends getting the opinion of a biologist ifa problem is suspected. Cura states as far as the metals are concerned, it does not look like the metals are a widespread problem. He adds that there also are not a whole lot of samples. The staining does not necessarily translate to a problem but it is usually iron. Lang states he feels a little better. The Commission got a sense that it is not a real serious issue. It is a potential issue and it would be great to do some more testing there and perhaps the Commission can convince the Beverly/Salem Water Board to do some testing. Lang recommends waiting until the summer to retain a botanist to visit the site. Donnelly states this is always going to bother him because of the idea of dumping tiltrate into a drinking supply. Killilea states it is a common practice. Modification - Dix Park City Engineer, Frank Ki[lilea states there is a contract on the 2001 local drains. The third Order of Conditions was to come back to the Conservation Commission with the impact on the wetland. Killflea states that an analysis model has been run and it has been determined that the impact is .02 instead of .025. So it is less than the Commission allowed for. Further, in settling the appeal one drain has been moved and we look to get Commission approval for this modification. Motion made by Paluzzi to issue a modification, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Old/New Business Commission members instructed Ms. Hurlburr to coatact Mr. Brad Chase to invite him to the next Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 15 Meetinl~ Place Circle There is discussion regarding the Special Condition regarding Meeting Place Circle. Hurlburr reads: the Special Condition was placed on these Order of Conditions that state a revised plan showing the locations and type of physical barriers shall be submitted to the Commission for their review and approval prior to commencement activity. She states they have submitted a plan to show the installation of 3 to 4 foot diameter boulders. They are half buried and are shown in the 20-foot wide no cut zone. Hurlburr reads from the Transmithal Sheet from Neve Associates: Two prints show the proposed location of boulders which will mark the 20 foot no cut zone, as required. I have highlighted same and sent the plan to builder/contractor. Hurlburt states the problem with things like this, is you still get can get the lawnmover through the boulders. She adds on Virginia Avenue extension the Commission required the same thing, but the boulders were placed more closely together. Lang states that was not the intent. He adds the rocks do not have to be 4-foot rocks but they need to be closer together. Paluzzi suggests sending it back and tell them to put more rocks irt Grinds agrees. Hurlburt states Lang recommending the applicant to put in two-foot rocks, four feet on center. Benevento suggests requiring rocks weighing no less than 300 lbs. Motion made by Benevento to send a letter to Neve stating that they need larger boulders, closer together, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Menzie Cura Bill Hurlburt states the Commission has received a bill in the amount of $3,000. Paluzzi moves to approve the Menzie Cura bill in the amount of $3,000, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries. Landfill Hurlbun reads a letter from Frank Killilea, City Engineer about the Landfill. The Comrnission wrote a letter expressing concern about erosion that can be seen fiom Route 12g and to address it. Killilea responds as follows: 1) Malcolm Pernie has been at the site several times during the months of Febrnary and March and has recently assessed the general condition of the site. The contractor was awarded substantial completion on December 7, 1999, however, given the contractor was delayed due Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 16 to the weather and other conditions, seeding was not completed on the north end of the site until alter the desired growing season. Although erosion has occurred on the north end of the site adjacent to Ronte 128, the remainder of the site shows little sign or erosion and grass is beginning to grow. 2) In accordance with the landfill closure coreractor documents, the contractor (DRL) is required to repair any erosion damage and reseed as necessary until a healthy uniform grass is established. DRL Corporation is aware of the erosion at the north end of the site and has visited the site several times in February, 2000. DRL intends to repair the erosion damage once the weather improves and the soils at the site dry sufficiently to allow track movement and reseeding. 3) Malcolm Pernie will again assess the condition on the site on Thursday, March 23, 2000 and aRer this assessment will formulate a plan with DRL for erosion repairs and any requirements for further erosion mitigation. Mazuy asks if anyone on the Commission has visited the site to see if any erosion ks getting into the wetland. Paluni states he has seen it ~'om the road. Lang recommends visiting the landfill. The site visit will take place on March 25th. 2 Bovles Street - Preconstruction Site Inspection Hurlbun states the Commission had requested a Preconstmction Site Inspection of 2 Boyles Street, the Bartlett Estate. Hurlbun states she has been advised that no one is allowed on the site except for the Conservation Commission, because of the risks associated with the site. She adds that she received a letter from George Olsberg, 4 Boyles Street and he stated that he spoke with the Northern Trust Company, Mr. Lettingham and he stated at the express wish of the bank abutters would be excluded from the inspection. Hurlburt suggests having a report written up so the abutters may know more about the property. Lang states he wants to know why the neighbors can't go. If there are really safety and health issues, the board needs to be fully apprised of it. Mazuy states it is always the right ofpropetty owners to allow or not allow the public to attend a site visit. There are some lawyers who are very particular about letting people on the property. Lang states if they are saying they don't want people on the property because there is environmental risk, the Commission should know about it. Lang states they are looking for pesticides on the site because there used to be greenhouses. DDT was potentially used at the location. Lang suggests Ms. Hurlburt check with the engineer, John Dick about potential environmental risk. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 17 A site visit is scheduled to take place Saturday, March 25th at 9:30 a.m. Approval of Minutes Grimes moves to approve the February 29, 2000 meeting minutes, seconded by Mazuy (6-0-1). Bencvcnto abstains. Motion carries. Open Space and Recreation Committee Hurlburr states she submitted the Open Space and Recreation Committee memo to the Conservation Commission. They are looking for recotnmendations. The meeting is adjourned at 11:00 p.m.