Loading...
2000-02-01 Draft CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Conservation Commission February 1, 2000 Chairman David Lang, Anthony Paluzzi, Jon Mazuy, Patricia Grimes, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Jay Donnelly, Richard Benevento Debra Hurlbutt, Assistant Planning Director Jeannine Dion Chairman Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Request for Determination of Applicability Amtrack ril~ht-of-waV - veRetation control/TEC Associates Wayne Duffet from TEC Associates states that pursuant to the Right-of-way Management Requirements you can not spray within ten feet of wetlands and within 100 feet of a buffer zone. The zones are considered illegal spray zones. What is before the Commission is the representation of the permanent marking system along the railroad tracks. Mr. Dttffet states the Request for Determination is for the 2000-2004 period of time. Lan4; asks if there are any questions from Commission members. Mazuy asks how the tracks are marked. Mr. Duffet states that Amtrack uses a color coded paint system. Paluzzi asks what is used to control the weeds. Mr. Duffet states that varies from year to year. The applicant can choose from a list of acceptable herbicides. The universal herbicide is Roundup. Lang asks how often the spraying occurs. Mr. Duffet responds that the spraying occurs once a year, usually the first two weeks of July. Lung asks if the Commission has choice as to which herbicides are used. Mr. Duffet responds no. The applicant is required to choose from the specific list ofherbicides. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page ~z Grimes moves to issue a Negative Determination #5, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries. Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearing, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries. LP Henderson Road - storage facilitvfr Ford Company Lang recuses himself from this portion of the meeting. Attorney Thomas Alexander appears on behalf of the applicant, T Ford Company. Alexander states this is a mini-storage facility that was before the Commission about two years ago. The property is owned by the Beverly Airport Commission. The Beverly Airport Commission has entered into an agreement with T Ford Company to lease out the property for this business and the T Ford Company, doing business as Beverly Airport Mini-Storage, Inc. will build the facility. Alexander states there have been delays over the past two years because this property was being studied for the city by Ransom Engineering. The study has been completed and cleared the property for future development. Alexander states the property has retained Special Permits from the Beverly Board of Appeals (for type of use) and the Beverly Planning Board (for development in the Watershed Overlay Protection District). Both of the permits have been extended for an additional year. Alexander states Hancock Engineering is doing the engineering work for the project. Vaclav Talacko from Hancock Engineering states the plans have been revised in response to some of the Conservation Commission's concerns. Talacko states the Beverly Salem Water Board requested the applicant change the direction of the water flow. He states the sewer has also been extended. Talacko states the applicant is proposing to remove the buildings (but leave the slabs), cover them with new concrete and then constract new buildings on top of current foundations. Paluzzi asks if there are any questions from Commission members. Mazuy asks if the swales have been changed. Talacko responds that the chiveway was reworked and there is a new culvert. Mazuy states he recalls there was some question about whether or not the swale was sufficient. Talacko responds that he is proposing to widen it. Grimes asks where all the storm water is draining to. Talacko responds that it will be trenched to large culverts way down on Trask Road. Paluzzi asks if the flow rates have changed. Talacko responds that the flow rates haven't really changed. Mazuy states that there is going to be more of a flow of water. Talacko states he misunderstood the question. He states there is no question that there is going to be some change but by the time Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 3 it gets to Trask Road, which is a 100-acre watershed, it will "get sort of lost." Talaeko states the water is being drained in this direction pursuant to the request of the Beverly Salem Water Board. Grimes asks how much excavation is planned. Talacko responds that there will be very little excavation. The only place there will be excavation will be for the drain line and for the footings. Donnelly states that statement is in conflict with Ransom Engineering's November 9, 1999 letter to the city engineer, Frank Killilea. The letter states that the storage buildings will be constructed on top of the existing concrete slab foundations. Talacko responds that Ransom somewhat misunderstood. The two buildings that are on existing slabs will be removed. The two new buildings will be constructed partially on the slabs of some other building and partially on what is now paved area. Talacko states none of the buildings have basements and the only excavation will be for the drain line. The contractor that will be excavating will have to be OSHA certified. Talacko states Tom Ford has a construction company which is well versed. Dounelly states the November 9, 1999 letter also states that it is the opinion of Ransom Engineering that "proposed demolition and construction activities do not likely result in exposure ... as long as those activities do not disturb soils present in depths greater than two feet below the grade." Donnelly states his impression of the letter is that if the excavation is one to two feet below the grade, some of the contaminated materials could be in the excavation. Talacko states what the letter says is that if there is excavation over two feet, there would be exposure to the construction person of hazardous materials, therefore they would have to take precautions in order to overcome that. Talacko states there will only be excavation for drainage and the remainder for a small channel. Grimes asks ifTalacko is stating that the drainage pipes will not be at a depth greater than two feet. Talacko responds that he is not saying that. He states the drainage pipes will be greater than two feet and precautions will have to be taken. Doanelly asks how the applicant will know if the material being excavated is contaminated. Talacko responds that the applicant will have to hire an environmental consultant. Dounelly states if the soils tested are contaminated, they must be dispQsed of properly. Talacko agrees. Mazuy asks if the applicant is building on slabs. Talacko responds that the applicant will have to excavate for the two additional buildings because there are no footings. (Benevento arrived at 7:25 p.m.) Paluzzi asks for the dimensions of the road. Talacko responds that it will be thirty-two (32) feet wide and there will be twenty (20) feet between the buildings. Paluzzi asks if there are questions from the Commission members. There are none. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 4 Paluzzi asks if there are questions or comments from the public. Hurlburt reads a Petition from Trask Street residents (with 21 signatures), which expresses concem about the project seriously aggravating current flooding problems. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street reads a letter dated February 15, 1998, winch expresses concern regarding the proximity of the project to Wenham Lake reservoir and its hydrological sensitive terrain. Talacko states the standard method was used for the calculations. If there is a licensed site professional (LSP) on site with the contractor, he would be the expert to deal with potential hazardous waste. Should any problems arise, they will be dealt with. Talacko states the applicant was requested to drain in the direction of Trask Road by the Beverly Salem Water Board. It would be cheaper to drain as originally planned. Mazuy stated the Commission saw Trask Road last spring and it was grossly flooded. He asks to what extent will there be an increased flow into that watershed. Taiacko responds that there is about a 60+ acre watershed. There is no questions that the hackyards and most of the basements of those houses flood. He states the houses are simply built too low and there is not very much anyone can do about that, even if the culvert under Trask Road is enlarged. The groundwater inundates hackyards and houses. Talacko states surface water has very little to do with the current problem and if the drainage is nm the other way, the hackyards and basements will still flood. Mazuy asks if Talacko has done calculations to determine the extent of the increased flow into that area. Talacko responds that he did some calculations. Grimes asks iftbe Phase II report has been submitted to the DEP. Bob Mezzetti, Airport Manager, states the Phase II report and an addendum to the Phase II report have been completed. Benevento asks if the applicant is contributing to the previous watershed or diverting it from the existing watershed to a different watershed. Talacko responds that the Beverly Salem Water Board requested the applicant divert the drainage to a different watershed, away from detention hasins for the airport in the hack. Benevento states his view is if the existing watershed is not altered, it becomes an issue of rate of flow. In terms of the volume, it is incumbent on the applicant that the flow not be increased. Taiacko responds that the site as it exists is impervious. It is not going to be increased to any degree. Peter Gilmore, former Chairman of the Conservation Commission and former City Councilor states he has a very difficult time understanding how a project like this, with such little, if any, public benefit could be considered for the location in the most ecologically and environmentally sensitive areas in the city. Gilmore states it surprises inm that in this conversation not one Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 5 member of the Commission even raised the issue of why this is an appropriate project for an area that is so close to a public water supply. Gilmore states he has been opposed to this project since it was first proposed. He states the Commission has historically opposed any encroachments into this particular area of the city. He states it is difficult for him to understand why a project like this, which has absolutely so little public benefit, could be considered. Gilmore states this is a fairly large self-storage facility and in spite 0fall the representation about how it is going to be regulated and monitored, he suggests that it is impossible. The question becomes in the most ecologically and environmentally sensitive area in the city, how do you allow the construction of a facility in which people are going to be able to come and go as they please to store materials, without regulation. Gilmore states the site got contaminated before and believes it will become contaminated again. He states listening to the presentation, members of the Commission and perhaps Ransom Engineering are somewhat surprised about the extent to which there is going to be excavation and disruption of the site. Gilmore states his understanding of the law and the way things work in this area is if DEP is not going to require remediation of the site, then they will require a licensed site professional to develop a use limitation for the site. Gilmore suggests to the Commission that if this project goes forward, at the very least wait until it checks with Ransom Engineering and be sure that excavation is approached in compliance with that use limitation. Gilmore states this does not look like a small project and recommends the Commission research how the soils will be disposed of and fred out who is going to monitor it. He states the Commission should not allow the proponent to choose the engineering firm that is going to monitor the site. Gilmore states he hopes the Commission opposes the project just because of the location. If the Commission does not oppose the project, he suggests the Commission have substantially more controls. Bob Farmer, 792 Cabot Street, Chairman of the Airport Commission states this project has been going on for four or so years. The site has been contaminated by the U.S. government, not the residents of Beverly. Farmer states he does not know how many times the Airport Commission has tried to pull tanks out of the ground because of drinking water and was not allowed to do so. The Airport Commission was family allowed to pull the tanks and Ransom Engineering performed studies, which took two years. He states the Airport Commission has been trying to clean the property up for years. He states the buildings are still there and they could put a machine shop hack in there right now. There are in excess of 30 toilet rooms in the buildings that run into an old septic system. The Beverly Airport Commission gave $440,000 out of its funds to the City of Beverly for sewage and water up the road, so the Airport Commission could improve things and make it a better place. Farmer states the Airport Commission did not want another machine shop up there because of the drinking water. There will be some rules and regulations about what goes on at the mini;storage facility and security cameras and inspections. Farmer states the proposal is for dry storage and one bathroom (eliminating 35 bathrooms). One individual will live there with one bathroom and one kitchen sink. Farmer states the area is clean now pursuant to the Ransom Engineering report. Farmer states if everybody was so interested in our drinking water, we would have got the second chance when the Batcheider Estate came up and we put the 40 room mansion right on the lake. Farmer states every single house on Tmsk Street was built in wetlands, so it is no surprise that any of the houses flood. Farmer states the mini-storage facility would not hurt the environment and certainly would not hurt drinking water. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 6 Benevento asks Farmer if the machine shops could be operational right now. Farmer responds that they could be put in that location now because the buildings are there right now. Benevento asks if there is restricted use on the buildings. Farmer responds that there is no restricted use on the buildings right now. He states the Airport Commission is as much concerned about the environment as everybody else. Farmer states dry storage facility is the way to go. It is clean and well secured. Bill Mahoney, a member of the Airport Commission and a registered professional engineer states them was a machine shop on the property built in 1950 by the govemment. In 1982 a pipeline was put in to take the rtmoff from all of the buildings into the septic area behind Guinard. In the meantime, the Guinard people were working around the clock making windshields for 747's. When the developer proposed to tear down the buildings, which have leaky roofs, bad oil burners, etc. it was decided that it was time to go for something different. Mahoney states he is not sure the drainage will be affected. Mahoney states the Airport Commission does not want another machine shop there. He states this proposal is the clean way to go and the right way to go. Joan Murphyof36 Longmeadow Road asks if them are any plans or provisions in the design to contain materials so they could not leak. Talacko responds that there is nothing that he is aware of in the building. The storage area is intended for household goods and office supplies, not industrial. Murphy states there is no way of knowing what people put in the facility. She asks if the area is tested periodically so that if there were any hazardous materials, you would know it and it could be removed before it was washed out. Murphy asks if them is any schedule for testing on a regular basis. Talacko responds that there is no testing schedule. Benevento asks if them will be restrictions on certain types of materials. Farmer responds that there are restrictions. Benevento states if the Commission were in favor of going forward, as part of the Order the Commission could put restrictions on the storage. Farmer states Mr. Ford assured the Airport Commission that he is going to watch night and day for any items which should not be stored at the mini-storage facility. Farmer states Mr. Ford told the Airport Commission that he will have the right in his contract to inspect. He states Ms. Murphy raises a good question. Alexander states there will always be somebody on site. The site currently has "some stuff' on it that presently drains to one way and when this project is done, the water that does drain from the site is going to be treated and it is going to go away ~om the water supply. Alexander states in many ways this is a net improvement environmentally to the site. Tony Musanti states she agrees with Peter Gilmore. She can't believe that the Commission would even consider talking about something that is sensitive only two feet down. The Vitale property is 30 feet down of contamination. Everything we do here upsets the apple cart. Ms. Musanti states you have to look at objective viewpoints from people who don't have a personal or fmancial interest in this. Ms. Musanti states you first have to look at the environment and not at profit with these kinds of projects in that area of the watershed. She states we have the Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 7 responsibility to protect the area. We are slowing chomping away at Wenham Lake and the area around it project by project. Ms. Musanti states that if there were a Master Plan ~'om day 1 we wouldn't be in this boat. She states her views have nothing to do with the mini-storage warehouse. Any project on the contaminated site is very sensitive in terms of how you approach it and how you handle the work. She states there should be no work at all because of the sensitivity of the area. Benevento asks if this project is going to remediate this site. Hurlburt responds that they are not going to do anything unless they excavate it. Ransom states in their letter that at that point there could be problems. If there are problems, an expert will be hired to be on site. Talacko states Ransom's November 9, 1999 letter states the underground tanks have been removed. He states all asbestos will be removed by licensed people prior to the building and demolition. Mazuy asks ifTalacko said that Ransom did not discover harmful chemicals below two feet. Talacko responds that they say there is a potential for hazardous material and therefore the construction personnel will have to be supervised. Leo White, 12 Stuart Lane, Nor~h Beverly and member of Airport Commission states that he has no financial or personal gain. He states he provides his time for free to the City of Beverly. White states the Ransom report states there is no contamination on the site and he is favor of the mini-storage facility. Mazuy asks if studies have been conducted regarding the degree of contamination of self-storage facilities. Alexander responds that there are none that he is aware of. Mazuy moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Dr. Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries. (Lang returns to the meeting) 9 Curtis Point Road - rio ran slope installation/Jerabek Bill Manuell from Hancock Environmental appears on behalf of the applicant. Manuell states another site walk was conducted and at the site walk he had the opportunity to point out that it is not possible to incorporate some of Rebecca Haney's suggestions. Manuell states he made revisions to the plan, while still achieving the goal of preserving the locust trees that are on the precipice of the slope. Manuell states the Wetland Protection Act classi~es banks two different ways. One classification is ifa bank is a sediment contributor to down drift beaches and the other classification is ifa bank has a vertical buffer to storm damage. He characterizes this bank as one that is vertical buffer to storm damage. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 8 Mazuy asks if it is Manuell's position that the only issue is whether or not the area that you propose to fill is subject to wave action and therefore a contributor to sediment or is it an issue that can be affected also by rain, wind and the like. Manuell responds that any elevated land form is subject to erosion, whether it be a solid piece of rock atop Mr. Washington or whether it be sand on Crane's Beach. When it rains and the wind blows and there is frost action, everything is subject to erosion. Manuell states if he has a good driving record for twenty years and he gets doing 30 mph in a 25 mph, do you characterize him as a chronic speeder. The answer, of course, is no. He states if you have a coastal bank that is characterized primarily by solid bedrock at the point where the waves hit the beach and some ten feet above it, do you characterize it as a sediment contributor or do you characterize it as a vertical buffer to storm damage? Manuell states he characterizes it in typical fashion, which is vertical buffer to storm damage. Mazuy asks if Manuell will admit that the fomes of erosion are caused first by wave action, but also rain, as it relates to the statute, is sediment control limited to wave action or is it also as it is affected by the natural elements of water washing the sediment into the ocean. Manuell responds that he believes it is wave action and he proceeds to read from M.G.L. Sec. 10.30 par. 2 "... unconsolidated sediment and exposed to vigorous wave action serve as a major continuous source of sediment for beaches, dunes and barrier beaches." Manuell states the key words are "continuous source of sediment." Mazuy states that by that definition, every bank on the coast is a sediment contributor. Manuell responds that in the absolute literal way, that is correct. ManueH states the distinction relies on storm frequency, it lies in two general types of geographic banks present in the Commonwealth. One is the type you fred on the Cape, which is a generally unconsolidated material and the other is the kind you find on the north shore, which is a bed rock type environment with a thin cover of glacial till. Dr. Johnson reads from a different sentence from the same section of M.G.L. which "... a particular coastal bank may serve beth as a sediment source and as a buffer or it may serve only one role." Dr. Johnson sees this bank as fulfilling both roles. Manuell states the different being the soil on top is not subject to continuous wave action. Lang reads an excerpt from Rebecca Haney's letter "... the Wetland Protection Act regulations state that a bank is significant to storm damage prevention and flood control if it supplies sediment regardless of volume, not that the bank must be supplying a significant volume sediment. In my opinion, this bank is a sediment contributor as described in the WPA." Lang states it is incumbent on the applicant to show that it is not a sediment contributor. Manuell states he respects Rebecca Haney, however she is not with DEP. Manuell states he did get a file number and did not receive any significant comments. Manuell states he feels the plan is a good compromise and solution that came out of the meeting with Rebecca. He thinks Haney's solutions are not feasible. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 9 Lang asks if the bank would be more stable without the trees. Manuell responds that he does not think so. He states that anytime you talk about stabilizing a site, the first thing you talk about is getting some type of vegetative cover. Lang states that trees, especially locust trees, move so much and, as a result, they tend to move soil when they move. Manuell states the whole purpose of the project is to save the trees. Benevento moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries. 19 BaW iew Avenue - coastal bank ramp & stain construction/Cathcart Edgar Catheart, the applicant appears before the Commission to request permission to construct a coastal bank ramp and stairs. Catheart states over a number of years there have been a number of piers, ramps, etc. in the area. He shows the Commission members a photograph taken approximately 30 years ago of his property. Lang asks if anyone from the public wishes to speak. There being none, Paluzzi moves to close public hearing, seconded by Dr. Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries. 10 Curtis Point Road - coastal bank iandscal}ing/MurphV Healey John Dick from Hancock Environmental appears on behalf of the applicant. Dick introduces Laura Gibson, the landscape architect and Mr. ConnoHy the subcontractor. He states he has been the beneficiary of several letters from Rebecca Haney over the years and her letters state banks function both as vertical buffers and as sediment contributors. Dick states almost every bank is like that. The bank in question is primarily ledge. On top of the ledge them are namerons small boulders and large boulders and on top of the ledge is a thin veneer of either till or artificial fill. There is erosion taking place against the edge of the wall at the top of the coastal bank. There is wind erosion and rain erosion. Dick quotes from the regulations "... When the bank is determined to be significant to storm damage prevention because it supplies sediment, any project shall not have adverse affect due to wave action of the movement of sediments from coastal banks to coastal beaches or land subject to tidal action." Dick states that you can't mess with the ability of fine material or even coarse materials. You can't interfere with that process. He states the applicant is proposing to do plantings and part of the process is provide a layer for which the plantings can go. Dick provides pictures of the site. He states the intention of the project is not to prevent erosion, but to restore the jumbled condition of the bank. The applicant is not proposing to armor the bank or change in a significant way the nature of the bank. Dick states the project is entirely within and consistent with the spirit and intent of the regulations. Paluzzi asks if the stone will be trucked in. Dick responds that it will be trucked in. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February I, 2000 Page 10 Mazuy moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries. 35 StandIcy Street - building & utility construction/Waring School John Scott from Rist, Shimway & Front appears on hehalf ofthe applicant. Scott states the school is proposing to construct a new academic building. The building and most of the site work is outside the buffer zone. A few elements of the project are within the setbacks. The lower part of the access road is in the setback. Benevento states if there is an alternative ronte to prevent cmssing the wetlands, the Commission would consider it. Benevento states the cost ofreplicating the wetlands would he quite costly. Lang agrees that it might he cheaper to go around the wetlands. Scott agrees that it might he cheaper to go around the wetlands. Lang ash if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Mazuy moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries. Sam Fonzo Drive, Lot 13C - building construction/Liberty Publishing Peter Ogren from Hayes Engineering appears on hehalfofthe applicant, Liberty Publishing. Ogren states there was a site visit and he asks the Commission if he can answer questions. Donnelly asks for clarification about the basins. Ogren responds that the retention/detention hasin is what the DEP is looking for now. The first part of the basin is used for water quality and the second part of the basin is used for quantity. Donnelly asks if the construction is feasible without disturbing the wetlands. Ogren states there is absolutely no wetland disturbance proposed. He states that is a stipulation in the Order of Conditions on Sam Fonzo Drive. Grimes comments that the parking lot is very close to the wetlands. Ogren states that the way the parking geometry works, the applicant really needs to he at that location. He states that there will he a boulder retaining wall which will ensure that people will not have the tendency to want to try to park there. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street reads from a document regarding 401 criteria and urges the Commission not to close the hearing this evening and requests another site visit. Ogren responds that the applicant has a 401 water quality certificate issued by the State. He states Ms. Mary is correct that you have to assess the entire project. He states that under the 401, he has an understanding that first of all there will not he additional wetlands filling, and the applicant will meet the storm water management on each site individually. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 11 Mazuy moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries. 147 West Street - window installation and associated reOairs/Harrin~ton Joe Grazado from GraTado Velleco Architects appears on behalf of the applicant, George Harringtom Mr. Gl'aTado states the applicant intends to perform renovations including some re- roofing, masonry, patio doors, window installation and removal of some conduit and cable. There will be no excavation and no equipment in wetlands. Mr. Grazado states most of the work is taking place inside the house however, the applicant is within six feet of the wetlands on both sides. Mr. Grazado states there will be a roll-offon site. Lang asks if there are any questions from Commission members. There are none. Benevento moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries. Cummings Center - 2-story oarking deck/Beverly Commerce Park Bruce Oveson appears on behalf of the applicant. He states the applicant is proposing the construction of a two-level parking garage. The dimension of the deck is 240 ft. x 110 ~. The construction is designed similar to the construction of the original garage. There are two existing catch basins within the footprint of the building. Mazuy asks if the amount ofrunoffwill change. Mr. Oveson responds the amount ofrunoffwill not change. Mr. Ovesen states the proposal is to keep the existing trees. One of the conditions of the site plan approval is to keep existing trees, replace damaged trees and add six evergreens to the site. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. George Whitney from the Harbor Management Authority states construction of a walkway was a condition of the first garage and should be a condition with this project. Whitney states no construction has commenced and he would like to see some action taken to get the walkway constructed. Mr. Oveson states one year ago February a plan was submitted for the walkway. There was a site visit and the walkway was discussed. At that time the Conservation Commission decided the proposal was fine but work could not proceed until a Chapter 91 is obtained. Mr. Oveson states he is ready to proceed this spring. Lang asks what is stopping the applicant from proceeding. Mr. Oveson responds that there is an Activity Use Limitation on the property. The Activity Use Limitation was put on the property as Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 12 a blanket of the entire parcel. It has different uses that require modification in Activity Use Limitation. As different uses have come up that require modification in activity use limitation, for example with a school, day care center or other limited activities, then a separate report needs to be filed. Mr. Oveson states this has been in process for almost three years now and he nor anybody else can resolve this. Hurlburt asks George Whitney if the Harbor Management Authority approved the plan. Whitney responds 'no'. Hurlbutt asks if the culvert has been inspected. Mr. Oreson responds that it has been inspected. Hurlburt states the Commission can condition the work perhaps stipulating that this garage shall not be constructed until the walkway is constructed. Benevento states the Licensing Agent's failure to respond is what is holding up the walkway because they haven't issued what the applicant is waiting for. He states imposing that condition upon the applicant would be unfair. Lang asks if the DEP has asked for additional information. Mr. Oveson responds that DEP has not. Mr. Oveson states he has been speaking with Tom Mcguire from the DEP and offered to do whatever is necessary to move this along. Tom has repeatedly told Mr. Oveson that he has a letter that explains the conditions. Mr. Oreson states he is always promised the letter within two weeks and he never receives it. George Whitney states he will make some telephone calls to the DEP to find out where this issue stands. Mazuy moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Benevento. AH members in favor. Motion carries. 2 Bovles Street - demolition debris & stump removal/Bartlett Estate John Dick from Hancock Environmental appears on behalf of the applicant, trustees of the Bartlett estate. Dick introduces Rich Quateman from Web Engineering. Dick states the site is in the process ofremediation. Quateman is cleaning the site. In the course of that work somebody discovered a rather extensive field of debris, mostly stumps and building rubble. There are some carpets and wire. Over the course of 20 to 30 years material was dumped out into a swale leading to a wetland on the site. The parcel is an 18 acre parcel on Boyle and Hale Street. The wetland is located at the center of the property and there is a large field of material, which is mostly outside the buffer zone. In the course of site maintenance over the years the parcel was ditched. At one time it was probably an isolated woodland pool and to some extent, in addition to being bordering vegetated wetland, it is also a vernal pool habitat. Dick states whether or not it is a functional vernal pool, he could not say because he has not seen it at that time of the year. It does have all the earmarks of a vernal pool. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 13 Dick states the applicant is trying to rake the material away from the wetland quickly, while the ground is frozen and while the contractor is on the site, if at all possible. He states to that end, the Notice of Intent inquires whether the Commission would be interested in issuing an Enfomement Order for this work. Dick states the applicant is ready to go on this job if the Commission wishes to issue an Enforcement Order. He states if that is not the case, a site visit can be scheduled as soon as possible. Benevento asks why the applicant is present with a Notice of Intent if he is requesting the Commission to consider issuing an Enforcement Order. Dick responds the applicam is asking for an Enforcement Order to accelerate the process because the applicant wants to get out there while the ground is frozen. It is easier to work under those conditions. Dick presents photos for the Commission to review. Quateman states that the trustees want the site clean and the procedure is to scrape all the material and put in fresh clean fill. He states the marching order is to make this a pristine property and the reason he is before the Commission tonight is in case anything suspect is found in the process. Hurlburt states she has visited the site however, she could not see much because of the snow. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street states that neighbors would like a site walk scheduled. Mary states a ditch referenced earlier is not a ditch, it is an intermittent stream. Benevento asks Mary if she is opposing cleaning up the site. Mary responds that she is not opposing cleanup. Dick states he does not dispute there is an intermittent stream on the property. A resident of 266 Hale Street states there is a lot going on at the site. They have taken down about 80 trees. He asked if there is a way the neighbors can be kept abreast of what is going on. He states he has been kicked off the property and treated very rudely when he recently visited the site. Lang responds that the Commission has to try to stick with the Conservation issues. Lang states the Board of Health can answer questions. Benevento states the clean-up is being monitored by the DEP. Mary again states a site visit should be scheduled. A resident of 40 Boyles Street asks if the vernal season is approaching, why didn't the applicant Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 14 come to the Conservation Commission sooner. Dick states the he was before the Commission a month ago describing the situation. He states he is not trying to hide anything. Dick states the site visit can be limited to members and parties involved. He does not think Mr. Quateman or the owners would have any objection to having a site visit prior to the initiation of work on the property. Lang asks if the owners of the property would object to abutters attending the site walk. Dick states he would have to call the owners but he does not think there would be an objections. Benevento moves the close the public hearing, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. A pre-construction site visit was scheduled to take phce on February 5, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. Order of Conditions LP Henderson Road - storage facilitvfr Ford Coml}anv Mazuy moves to issue the following conditions: 1. Licensed Site Professional (LSP) shall be subject to the approval of the Conservation Commission and during the excavation a LSP shall be on-site to do random sampling of all excavated materials to ensure that all material is backfilled and disposed is done so in compliance with all applicable laws; 2. Applicant shall install a dewatering structure when necessary; 3. LSP shall make recommendations for a periodic monitoring program subject to the approval of the Conservation Commission; 4. Asbestos materials shall be removed prior to demolitionl 5. Applicant shall conform to Special Condition #5 of the Planning Board's decision dated September 24, 1997 regarding baTardous material. Seconded by Benevento. Grimes is opposed. All others in favor. Motion carries. 9 Curtis Point Road - rid ran done installation/Jerabek Mazuy states he is befuddled as to whether the bank is a sediment contributor if it is subject to surface water, rain and wind as opposed to wave action because of it distance tiom the ocean. Mazuy states if every area which has any topsoil, no matter how high above the wave action, it contributes to sediment and therefore every possible embankment in the Commonwealth would be such a sediment contributor. He states there are no exceptions and this is the interpretation of Rebecca Haney but it does not make sense. Lang states it comes down to whose interpretation you want to listen to. Lang states there is a statutory requirement that when in doubt, vote against. Lang states it is unclear where to draw the line Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 15 Mazuy states the Commission must be conservative and vote against the applicant. Benevento asks if it is possible for the soil at the top of the hill to erode, go down to the bottom, get over the shelf, over the rocks and make it out to some tidal action. Benevento' asks if that would be considered significant or occasional. Donnelly states he thinks it would be negligible. Benevento agrees. Dr. Johnson states he considers the embankment a coastal bank which is a sediment contributor and on that basis he does not think the Commission should issue an Order of Conditions that would involve eliminating stones. You can not permit it because there is no way to do it and accomplish what the applicant wants. Lang agrees with Dr. Johnson and states Rebecca Haney' s letter states there is erosion that occurs and it is not a matter of volume. Mazuy moves to deny the application, seconded by Johnson. Benevento and Doanelly are opposed. Paluzzi abstains. Motion carries(4-2-1). 19 Ba~iew Avenue - coastal bank raml} & stairs construction/Cathcart Mazuy moves to issue the following conditions: 1. Standard conditions; 2. Rail shall be taken in each winter; 3. Applicant shall receive a Chapter 91 License prior to construction. Seconded by Palnzzi. All members in favor. 10 Curtis Point Road - coastal bank !andscal}inll/Murohv Healey Dr. Johnson states his sentiments are the same as with 9 Curtis Point Road. Dr. Johnson states he thinks it is a sediment contributor. Lang and Mazuy agree with Dr. Johnson. Mazuy moves to deny the application, seconded by Grimes. Paluzzi abstains. Motion carries (4- 2-1). 35 StandIcy Street - buildim~ & utility construetion/Warin~, School Benevento moves to issue the following conditions: I. Revise plan to show new location of water line to avoid the wetlands; 2. Revised plan showing water line going up Branch Lane 3. Standard Commission Conditions. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 16 seconded by Paluzzi. Mazuy absta'ms. Motion carries. Sam Fonzo Drive, Lot 13C - building construction/Liberty Publishina Benevento moves to issue the following conditions: 1. Build boulder wall with the overhand method from inside out so there is no encroachment into the wetland on the easterly side of the site through to the southerly side and around to the entrance to the site; 2. Siltation fence and hay hail line shall be the absolute limit of work; 3. Applicant shall provide a copy of the 401 Water Quality Certification 4. Standard Commission Conditions. Seconded by Paluzzi. Mazuy abstains. Motion carries. 147 West Street - window installation and associated repairs/Harrington Benevento moves to issue the following conditions: 1. Debris shall be removed by hand from the wetland on a daily basis; 2. Roil-off in front yard shall be placed in front of the house (away from the wetlands); 3. Notify Assistant Planner, Debbie Hurlburt 48 hours in advance of commencement of work; 4. Order &Conditions must be reported to the Registry of Deeds; 5. Siltation fence and hay bail line shall be the absolute limit of work 6. File number shall be displayed on site as stated in General Condition #9. Seconded by Pal,77i. All members in favor. Motion carries. Cummings Center - 2-story parking deck/Beverly Commerce Park PalnT~i moves to issue the following conditions: 1. Standard conditions; 2. Applicant shall obtain the proper license (Chapter 91) prior to construction of the garage. Seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries. 2 Bovles Street - demolition debris & stump removal/Bartlett Estate Benevento moves to issue the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall conduct a pre-construction meeting with the Conservation Commission members; 2. Standard conditions. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 17 3. All material excavated from the site shall be removed and legally disposed of; 4. Applicant shall notify the Conservation Commission ofthe presence ofany hazardous materials. Seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries. Certification of Compliance 6 Lakeside Avenue - DEP File #5-677 - Robert Levin Mazuy moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries. 100 Sohier Road - DEP File #5-551 - IT Corporation Mazuy moves to Issue a Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries. Longview Terrace - DEP File #5-596 - IT Corporation Mazuy moves to ~ssue a Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carnes. 39 Tozer Road - DEP Files #5-550 & 5-610 - IT Cort, oration Mazuy moves to ~ssue a Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Benevento. All members m favor. Motion carries. Shortmeadow Road - DEP File 5-628 - IT Corporation Mazuy moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Benevento. All members m favor. Motion tames. Walden Street - DEP File #5-595 - IT Corporation Mazuy moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Benevento. All members m favor. Motion carries. Columbia Road - DEP File #5-630 - IT Corporation Mazuy moves to ~ssue a Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion earlies. Hill Street - DEP File #5-306 - Johnny Annle~ed's, Inc. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 18 Mazuy moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance on the basis that the work on the site was never undertaken, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries. Other Business Gulf of Maine bill Hurlburr states as discussed at the previous meeting the Commission received a bill from the Gulf of Maine in excess of $3,000. Hurlbutt states she spoke with Gulf of Maine and they wanted the Commission to know that the services were legitimate. Hurlburt told Gulf of Maine that the Commission knew that but was not comfortable with the amount of the bill. Gulf of Maine reduced the bill by $1,000. Mazuy moves to approve the bill of Gulf of Maine in the amount of $2,321.25, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries. 17 Riverview Street - Sentic System Hurlburt states that an Emergency Certification was issued for 17 Riverview Street. Hurlburt states she received a telephone call that a septic system was leaking and flowing back into their basement. Hurlhurt states she asked the resident to request the Board of Health to visit the site to verify the emergency situation. Hurlburt states she called Chairman Lang and he approved the Emergency Certification. Hurlbun states the Commission has to ratify the Chairman's decision to issue the Emergency Certification. Paluzzi moves to ratify the Emergency Certification for 17 Riverview Street, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries. Standlev Street ComOost Facility Hurlbun states she recently visited the Standley Street Compost Facility and it looks very nice. Hurlbun provides pictures for Commission members to view. Meeting Place Circle Hurlbun states at the last meeting the Commission issued an amended Order of Conditions for Meeting Place Circle. DEP was in the midst of reviewing and they weren't sure if they were going to accept the withdrawal of appeal from Tom Neve because of concerns about who is going to maintain the storm water management. Ralph Perkins wrote a letter to Tom Neve stating he will accept the withdrawal only on the hasis that a homeowner's association is named and not leave the city responsible for ma'mtenance. Hurlbun states the Commission has to vote to approve the amendment stating that the homeowner's association will take care of the storm water management and not the City of Beverly. Mazuy moves to approve the amended Order of Conditious citing that there will be a Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2000 Page 19 homeowner's association created which will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the storm water devices, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries. Beverly Salem Water Board Lang states the Commission received the results of the Beverly Salem Water Board tests from Menzie Cura, Associates. Lang states they flunked the test (aluminum, iron, manganese and copper). Lang recommends putting this topic on the agenda of the next scheduled meeting. The meeting is adjourned at 11: 15 p.m.