2014-04-05CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Conservation Commission
April 5, 2014
Christine Bertoni - Chair, Robert Buchsbaum - Vice Chair,
Paul Knight, Robert Russo, and Bill Squibb
Tony Paluzzi & Stephanie Herbster
Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner
Amy Maxner
Bertoni calls the meeting to order at 10:40 a.m. at Beverly City Hall, 3 rd Floor Conference Room
B, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA.
Discussion Re: Issuance of Order of Conditions (Public Hearing Closed) 890 Hale Street —
erect fence along property boundary — Robert & Elaine Seliger
Bertoni turns attention to the primary agenda item, which is the Commission's deliberation and
decision on 890 Hale Street Notice of Intent.
Maxner reminds the Commission that it is making two separate decisions on this application, one
under the State Wetlands Protection Act and one under the Beverly Wetlands Protection
Ordinance. She suggests that perhaps the Commission can start its deliberation under the State
Act.
Bertoni reviews the project noting that it entails installation of a 6 -foot high chain link fence
within bordering vegetated wetland and buffer zone, with 27 post footings to be within the
wetland and 43 within the buffer zone along with some invasive plant management and debris
removal. Bertoni turns attention to the information provided by the applicant, members review
and discuss the materials presented in the record.
Maxner reads from 310 CMR 10.02 (2) (b) and 310 CMR 10.55 (4). Extensive discussion
ensues relative to the performance standards under the State Act, proposed wetland impacts,
square footage and replication requirements. Members discuss potential conditions to apply to
the State decision. Maxner notes that 24 linear feet of bank alteration is called out in the
application, but explains that only pertains to the span of the fence over the streams, not physical
alteration of the bank.
Maxner suggests that if the Commission is comfortable with its deliberation over the State Act it
can vote on an Order of Conditions.
Buchsbaum moves to approve the project under the State Act subject to compliance with general
conditions and the following Special Conditions as discussed:
1. The bottom member of the fence shall be NO LESS than 4 inches above grade within the
bordering vegetated wetland and buffer zone and NO LESS than 8 inches above mean
high water over the stream channels between footings.
2. The concrete footings and associate fence posts shall be located a minimum of eight (8)
feet from the centerlines of the stream channels on each side to allow for at least a 16-
foot span over the stream channels. (This specification was described by the project
wetland consultant during the April 1, 2014 hearing, and is a required condition of this
Order).
3. Pursuant to and in compliance with 310 CMR 10.55 (4) b., compensatory wetland
replication of not less than 45 square feet shall be created within existing lawn area along
the eastern side of the wetland.
4. The plantings within the wetland replication area shall be of conservation grade.
The motion is seconded by Squibb. All in favor motion carries 5 -0.
Bertoni turns attention to the Beverly Ordinance and Regulations, with Maxner reviewing the
purpose of the Ordinance and Regulations and the Commission's authority to require mitigation
measures it determines necessary to offset impacts to the resource areas. She reads from the
relevant sections of the Regulations that outline performance standards for the 25 -foot no disturb
zone and wetlands, as well as waiver criteria for no disturb zone alteration, wetland fill impacts,
and replication and mitigation requirements. Maxner adds that when wetland replication is
involved, the Commission has required oversight by a wetland professional, monitoring and
survivorship of a percentage of the plantings.
Buchsbaum expresses his opinion that the fence constitutes a permanent structure in the wetland
which will have impact on wildlife habitat by impeding wildlife movement, noting that despite
the ability of smaller mammals' and amphibians' ability to navigate under the fence, larger
mammals will not be able to. Bertoni concurs, noting that the project wetland scientist indicated
there was abundant evidence was observed of many different species, large and small, utilize this
wetland as a habitat resource. Squibb states his sympathy with the applicant's trespassing
problems but thinks that perhaps the problem will subside once they live on property full time.
General discussion ensues as to members' observations of site conditions both within the
wetland, buffer zone and lawn areas.
An extensive discussion ensues as to the burden of proof the applicant carries in demonstrating
feasibility of alternatives and providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to the
interests protected by the Ordinance, with members reviewing materials presented in the record
and points of discussion during the public hearings.
Members consider alternative locations for the fence as discussed with the applicant during the
public hearings. Members express their general agreement that the applicant provided a
convincing argument for installing the fence along the property boundary as any other location
would essentially relinquish use of portions of the property to others, and that perhaps the fence
will deter negative impacts to the wetland caused by people throwing trash etc.
Beverly Conservation Commission
April 5, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 5
Members discuss and consider at length the wetland resource area's and buffer zone's
significance to the interests protected by the Ordinance, each no disturb zone waiver criterion,
and whether the project proposal met those criteria.
Maxner suggests the Commission consider potential conditions it might apply should it decide to
approve the project and then determine whether a set of conditions as proposed can serve to
protect the interests of the Ordinance. Lengthy discussion ensues as to potential conditions and
additional mitigation that might be applied to the project in order to offset project impacts.
Maxner suggests that if the Commission is comfortable with its deliberation over the Ordinance
it can vote on an Order of Conditions.
Buchsbaum moves to approve the project subject to compliance with the Beverly Conservation
Commission Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions as discussed:
1. The bottom member of the fence shall be NO LESS than 4 inches above grade within the
bordering vegetated wetland and buffer zone and NO LESS than 8 inches above mean
high water over the stream channels between footings.
2. The concrete footings and associate fence posts shall be located a minimum of eight (8)
feet from the centerlines of the stream channels on each side to allow for at least a 16-
foot span over the stream channels. (This specification was described by the project
wetland consultant during the April 1, 2014 hearing, and is a required condition of this
Order).
3. As described in the March 24, 2014 Project Narrative, prepared by the project wetland
consultant John Dick of Hancock Associates, the proposed Mitigation measures (pages 3
and 4) shall be a requirement of this Order.
4. As described in the April 2, 2014 letter prepared by Robert & Elaine Seliger (the
applicants), the proposed maintenance plan as bulleted shall be a requirement of this
Order.
5. Pursuant to and in compliance with Beverly Wetlands Protection Regulations a
compensatory wetland replication plan, prepared by a qualified wetland professional,
shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission for its review and approval in time
for its May 20, 2014 meeting, and shall meet the following specifications:
a. Wetland replication shall be an area of 140 square feet;
b. Wetland replication area shall be located within existing lawn area along the
eastern side of the wetland;
c. The plan shall comply with Beverly Wetland Protection Regulations Section V.
D. 2. and Section V.I. F.;
d. Plantings within the wetland replication area shall be of conservation grade;
e. Appropriate erosion controls shall be depicted on the plan to protect the existing
wetland during work to create the replication area;
f. The plan shall include nesting boxes for bats and /or birds that utilize this habitat.
Specifications (i.e. material, size, height, location, etc...) for the nest boxes shall
be tailored for target species;
Beverly Conservation Commission
April 5, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 5
g. The plan shall reflect the new extent of the corresponding 25' No Disturb Zone
and 100' Buffer Zone as they relate to the configuration of the wetland replication
area;
h. Once reviewed and approved by the Commission, the wetland replication plan
shall be executed no later than the Fall of 2014.
6. A qualified wetland professional shall be on site to monitor and supervise the following
phases of the project (the Conservation Administrator shall be informed as each phase is
about to commence):
a. Initial fence post excavation and installation of shrubs within the wetland;
b. Excavation of wetland replication area to ensure that proper groundwater
elevations are met and to ensure understanding of the final elevation of finish
grade before finish grading is performed;
c. At the start of installation of plant material within the wetland replication area to
ensure understanding of proper plant installation;
d. The wetland professional shall provide an initial consultation with the party that
will perform the invasive species removal and management to ensure specie
identification and understanding of removal methods.
7. A written report detailing plant survivorship within the wetland replication area and the
progress /success of the invasive species management program shall be submitted to the
Commission two growing seasons after wetland replication plant installation has been
completed.
8. Mowing and maintenance of lawn within the 25 -Foot No Disturb Zone (25' NDZ) shall
cease. The 25' NDZ shall be allowed to reestablish a native plant community, as it would
naturally occur. Invasive species removal and management shall be an allowable activity
within this zone.
9. Pursuant to Beverly Wetlands Protection Regulations Section III. C. 4.b., weather
resistant monuments shall be installed at each intersection where property boundaries and
the 25' NDZ meet, and then at 50 -foot intervals along the limit of the 25' NDZ on both
sides of the wetland as it occurs on the subject property, bearing the following language:
"No Disturbance of Any Kind Beyond This Point Per Order of the Beverly Conservation
Commission ". The monuments shall project no less than one foot above grade to ensure
visibility in the field.
The motion is seconded by Squibb. All in favor, the motion carries 5 -0. Bertoni confirms with
Maxner that the findings borne out from the Commission's discussion will be incorporated into
the final Order. Maxner states that the Commission's findings is a separate section of the
decision and will be written to reflect the Commission's deliberation this morning.
122 Standley Street — Unauthorized Tree Removal
Maxner, Bertoni & Buchsbaum describe their observations of unauthorized tree removal
conducted at 122 Standley Street. Maxner notes that the property contains a portion of a
perennial stream, fringe BVW, 200 -Foot Riverfront Area and buffer zone. Members discuss
course of action to address these violations.
Beverly Conservation Commission
April 5, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
Knight moves to issue an enforcement letter that requires the following corrective actions as
discussed:
➢ All work shall cease within the wetland, the associated 100 -Foot Buffer Zone and
200 -Foot Riverfront Area;
➢ A site plan (i.e. a bird's eye view of site) shall be submitted that depicts approximate
limits of all wetland resource boundaries, 200 -Foot Riverfront Area, edge of
Bordering Vegetated wetland, 100 -Foot Buffer Zone and associated 25 -Foot No
Disturbance Zone present on site;
➢ The site plan shall include a re- planting restoration plan with a plant schedule,
prepared by a professional wetland scientist; said plan shall restore the 25 -Foot No
Disturb Zone with native trees (not less than three (3) trees), and shrubs; proposed
tree specimens shall be of the largest caliper possible to replace that which were cut;
➢ The plan shall be submitted in time for the May 20, 2014 Commission meeting; Said
plan shall be presented to the Commission for review and approval, and may be
further revised pursuant to the Commission's recommendations. As part of the
Commission's approval of the plan, a deadline shall be established by which the
restoration plantings must be installed.
The motion is seconded by Squibb. All in favor the motion carries 5 -0.
155 Hart Street - Tree Removal Request
Maxner provides copies of an arborist's report regarding a maple tree that has uprooted along the
stream channel at 155 Hart Street, noting that the tree is currently leaning on other healthy trees
and potential stream blockage impacts should it completely fall. She reads from the report
noting that the trunk will be cut flush to the ground and allowed to re- sprout. The Commission
reviews photos of the subject tree.
Knight moves to allow removal of the tree subject to the following condition:
• the tree shall be cut flush and the stump and root ball are left in tact to allow for re- sprout.
The motion is seconded by Russo. All in favor the motion carries 5 -0.
There being no further business to discuss, Knight moves to adjourn the meeting. The motion is
seconded by Buchsbaum. All in favor the motion carries 5 -0.
The meeting is adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Beverly Conservation Commission
April 5, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 5