2015-09-01CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Conservation Commission
September 1, 2015
Chair Christine Bertoni, Vice Chair Robert Buchsbaum, Jay
Donnelly, Tony Paluzzi, Bill Squibb
Richard Grandoni
Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner
Jane Dooley
Bertoni calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 3 d Floor Council Chambers,
191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA.
Recess for Public Hearings
Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Seconded by Donnelly. The motion carries 5 -0.
NOTICES OF INTENT and /or ABBREVIATED NOTICES OF INTENT
Cont: 5 Quincy Park, DEP File #5 -1117 — Jack Altshuler
Bob Griffin representing the applicant describes how project involves construction of rip rap
revetment to protect the existing concrete seawall which runs nearly the entire length of the
seaward side of 5 Quincy Park property for 100'. He notes they have been working to address
comments from Division of Marine Fisheries and DEP and have submitted a summary of their
findings to the Commission. DMF noted that the area is mapped as suitable shellfish area for
soft shell clams, however he explains he performed test pits along the beach in front of the
seawall where the toe of the rip rap would be placed, and there was no evidence of soft shell
clam activity and the sediment characteristics were not conducive for clam habitat needs. There
is the slight possibility that blue shell mussels could grow on the revetment. Griffin opines that
there would not be any significant impact on shellfish growth due to the revetment work.
Griffin explains that the advantage of the revetment which will have holes to provide non-
uniform surface will reduce wave reflection, noting a similar revetment was built a few years ago
in area and has held up well. There is a concrete apron at the top of the wall into the lawn which
helps prevent erosion when waves top the wall. Griffin states the coastal bank is a man -made
structure, noting that the sediment in the beach is compact and dense and capable of supporting
rip rap stones. The proposal is to embed a toe beyond the base of the wall into the beach for 3'.
Coastal Beach impact is calculated at 1300 square feet. The revised wall will be more resistant to
weather at the site with less chance of erosion under the revetment. No design changes have
Conservation Commission
September 1, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 9
occurred since the Commission first discussed the project. Excavated material will be removed
from the area unless otherwise directed by the Commission. The project will require a Chapter
91 license.
Discussion ensues about how it would be costly to relocate wall back so toe would not be in
public beach, with 6 Quincy Park having a seawall that is in worst condition. Means and
methods of work include: area to be accessed with construction vehicles at low tide by way of
Water Street landing.
Bertoni asks if there are any questions from the audience. Rick Marciano of McKay Street, asks
about how the public could walk along here at low tide. Griffin responds that people can simply
walk around the rip rap toe.
Bertoni asks if there are any questions from the audience. There are none.
There being no further questions or comments from the Commission, Paluzzi moves to close the
hearing. Seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 4 -0 -1 with Donnelly abstaining.
Cont: 16 Bayview Avenue, DEP File #5 -1141— construct fixed concrete pier, with associated
gangway and floating dock — Tom Doherty
Maxner notes the Commission received a request for continuance to the September 22, 2015
meeting. Buchsbaum moves to continue. Seconded by Paluzzi. The motion carries 5 -0.
Cont: 400 Hale Street — construct access roadway to northeast campus area — Endicott
College c/o Dennis Monaco
Joe Orzel of Wetlands Preservation Inc., Charlie Wear of Meridian Associates, and Dennis
Monaco of Endicott are present for the applicant. Orzel addresses the Commission and provides
an detailed overview of the proposed mitigation program including three main phases: 1) tree
and shrub replacement for those removed from No Disturb Zones (i.e., several large trees
primarily eastern hemlock, black birch, red oak, white pine), 2) vernal pool habitat enhancement
by planting 2' to 3' high button bush within the vernal pool for egg attachment sites, plantings in
buffer zone and 3) removal of trash in the buffer zone twice a year. Discussion ensues about 22
eastern hemlock to be replaced with red spruce, white pine and white spruce, with Buchsbaum
questioning if red spruce are hardy enough for this New England planting zone. Orzel and
Buchsbaum discuss the attributes of red spruce, with Buchsbaum noting a native to this part of
New England may be more appropriate.
Orzel hands out a written alternatives analysis and accompanying plan that summarizes
alternative locations for the physical plant building relative to wetland resources and access
issues at other locations on the campus. Discussion ensues about whether or not the alternatives
likely have the same elimination properties in the future for other projects. Donnelly expresses
concern that the College is not considering all alternatives including structured parking that
would significantly reduce footprints of projects. He asks that the College seriously investigate
this option.
Conservation Commission
September 1, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 9
Orzel turns to Wear for stormwater drainage review. Wear reviews the City Engineer's last set of
comments, noting how connection to utilities is well out of buffer zone as is hydrant to water
connection, which may not concern the Commission. He notes that 5' shoulders will be included
on the plan with 2' of gravel and 3' of grass which will assist with infiltration. Also he notes
consideration has been given to truck turning regulations but no changes were made relative to
that. For gravity sewer three specific locations for drain manholes and impervious barrier around
trenches will be added to plan. Two pump stations are on Hale Street. The Commission addresses
how ledge on site is broken and large excavator should be able to pull it away.
Bertoni expresses her reservations about the project because the College does not have any
specific plans for the site beyond the road at this point and thus the full impact of the project as a
whole is unknown. Monaco notes that the existing Physical Plant building at the site is too small
for the College's needs with limited storage space for materials. He notes that beyond the
Physical Plan he does not know what the College will plan for the area. Maxner suggests that
this line of discussion be discontinued as the question of build out plans has been asked
numerous times with no answer forthcoming. She recommends that the Commission focus its
review on the alternatives analysis and whether the applicant has met its burden of proof and if
mitigation offered is adequate for the scope of work in the NDZ and extent of waivers requested.
She offers to draft a set of conditions for consideration at the next meeting that may provide an
Order should the Commission vote to approve the project (i.e., the Commission could condition
how the roadway is used once the final use for the site is determined). She asks that the
Commission members review all material submitted to date and develop a list of findings relative
to waiver criteria in the Beverly Wetlands Regulations.
Donnelly mentions how the College has been growing and how this is the time that analysis be
done for parking structure and associated costs.
Bertoni asks if there are any questions from the audience.
Rick Marciano of McKay Street, speaks to tracing the deed to when City of Beverly owned
property in 1988 relative to Witch Lane dirt road and interest in the College making a good faith
effort to keep trail system open to the public. Jonathan Loring, 502 Hale Street, speaks to former
carriage roads and access to wood lots. He expresses concern about what the College could put at
the site and potential increase in traffic, as a new resident hall is being added to the College's
campus now.
There being no further comments or questions, Buchsbaum moves to continue the hearing until
the September 22, 2015 meeting. Seconded by Paluzzi. The motion carries 5 -0.
Cont: 17 Victor Avenue — repair eroding stream bank — Anthonv Paluzzi
Paluzzi recuses himself as a Commissioner and provides a presentation of the project. He notes
he is proposing to repair a section of stream bank that is eroding, which is immediately adjacent
to the existing garage. The proposed work is to repair area by installing an 18' wall set on
foundation using crushed stone to fill block wall with a cap over culvert, loam installed as well
Conservation Commission
September 1, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 9
as native grasses. A wooden dam would be used to divert any floow during work period
estimated to be three days. He explains the excavated dirt will be removed, new loam installed
and seeding done. Bertoni asks if the elevation of stream bed will be changed. Paluzzi stated it
will not. Discussion ensues about potential for flooding and how runoff drains from Prospect
Hill to Essex Street to the neighborhood area. Alternative analysis was done and solution with
the wall is standard. Bob Griffin representing the applicant states that this solution will stabilize
the bank and protect the garage foundation, and notes excavation below the bottom of the stream
bed is expected to be 6" and crushed stone would be installed.. Maxner notes that DEP
comments were received on the initial submittal and DEP weighed in on how a professional
contractor should be used to do the work who is familiar with erosion and turbidity. Maxner
forwarded the formalized plan to DEP and is not sure if they will submit final comments. Paluzzi
states he would like to get the work done at the end of the month. Straw waddles and filter sock
are proposed for erosion control. Any sediment accumulated at erosion control will be taken
offsite.
Bertoni asks if there are any questions from the audience. There are none.
There being no further questions or comments from the Commission, Donnelly moves to close
the hearing. Seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 4 -0 -1 with Paluzzi abstaining.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Cont: 28 Whitehall Circle, DEP File #5 -1133 — enhancement planting plan - Manor Homes
Development, LLC c/o David Carnevale
Bob Griffin representing the applicant speaks to pro- active enhancement planting plan to
mitigate construction of the retaining wall around the proposed pool which may impact the root
system of the large oak tree slated for preservation, despite the Commission's special condition
that the wall be built to respect the tree's drip edge. The mitigation plan proposes six shrubs (i.e.,
silky dogwood, sweet pepper bush) as well as mulch, in addition to the previously proposed
maple trees. The Commission reviews the plan. Species of shrubs are discussed. Survivorship is
discussed, with members agreeing 100% survivorship 2 -years post installation is required.
Maxner notes the Commission should issue a Minor Modification to the Order to ensure
recording, thus ensuring leverage for compliance in carrying out this planting plan.
Donnelly moves to approve the Minor Modification. Seconded by Paluzzi. The motion carries 5-
0.
Cont: Chapmans' Corner Estates Subdivision Roadway, DEP File #5 -862 — discussion
regarding outstanding fines per January 23, 2013 Enforcement Order — Manor Homes
Development, LLC c/o David Carnevale
Maxner reminds members the Commission took enforcement action and imposed fines for non-
compliance with the Order in early 2013 for project proponent's failure to keep the roadway and
catch basins free of sediment. Follow up reporting of maintenance /monitoring activities were
not been submitted resulting in fines (totaling $1,200 - $200 a day for 6 days) which are still
Conservation Commission
September 1, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 9
outstanding. She notes these issues were discussed with the project engineer at a previous
meeting and did not take final action.
Discussion ensues about whether the fines should be paid with Bertoni noting the threat of fines
resulted in compliance with the Enforcement Order. Griffin notes that there was an unusual storm
event and sediment did not go any further than detention basins thus no impact to the wetlands
occurred. He states that the current system could handle any future storm events and reiterates
that the subdivision project is nearly complete.
Donnelly moves that the applicant pay the fine of $1,200 by October 1, 2015. There was no
second to the motion. The motion fails.
Buchsbaum moves to rescind the fine. Seconded by Paluzzi. The motion fails 2 -2 -1, with Paluzzi
and Buchsbaum in favor, Bertoni and Donnelly opposed and Squibb abstaining. The Commission
agrees will vote again on this issue at its next meeting when Rick Grandoni is in attendance to
perhaps resolve the vote one way or another.
Cont: Planning Board Request for Comments — 11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue Initial OSRD Site
Plan Review — PD Building, LLC
Bob Griffin project engineer explains this 6 -acre site with frontage on Sunnycrest Avenue and
most of wetland behind houses on Hayes Avenue. The Commission will recall issuing an Order
of Resource Delineation confirming wetland resource areas consisting of BVW and bank earlier
this summer for this property. He notes the yield plan shows two small cul de sacs and 8 new
houses including preservation of house at 11 Sunnycrest Avenue and demolition of 15
Sunnycrest. There will be an area for detention pond as well.
Griffin explains the OSRD conceptual plans noting the differences between them. The
Commission reviews the plans and general discussion ensues as to preferred features of the
concept plans. Maxner asks if the applicant can anticipate the Planning Board to require an NOI
for the yield plan. Griffin states he is hopeful that won't be the case and asks if the Commission
could support not requiring an NOI. Members discuss the yield plan relative to buffer zone
impacts, with Buchsbaum noting that the 25' NDZ is respected. General discussion ensues with
the following points noted by Commission members:
• all three conceptual plans avoid work or impact of any kind within the 100 -foot buffer
zone associated with the wetland. The Commission supports any and all efforts to keep
work and impacts outside the wetlands and buffer zone as the definitive plans are
developed.
• both Concept Plan A and Concept Plan C propose two less lots /units than what the
conventional plan yields. Plan A and Plan C result in less density, disturbance and
impervious surfaces that would otherwise necessitate mitigation. Concept Plan A appears
to best fit into the character of the neighborhood while affording the new lot owners clear
and separate boundary lines and roadway frontage thereby reducing the potential for
abutter conflicts over shared easements and the like.
• it is the Commission's sense that perhaps time and resources are best spent further
developing the 7 -lot concept plans as opposed to preparing, reviewing and processing a
Notice of Intent for a yield plan that will not get constructed.
Conservation Commission
September 1, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 9
Buchsbaum moves that the Commission write a letter to the Planning Board with the
Commission's comments as discussed. Seconded by Paluzzi. The motion carries 5 -0.
New: 50 (52) Dunham Road, DEP File #5 -1123 - unauthorized clearing within buffer zone —
Cummings Properties, Anderson Clark, LLP
Steve Drohosky, Mike Aveni and Dennis Clark are present for Cummings. Maxner explains that
during a site inspection conducted in July by Chair Bertoni and Vice Chair Buchsbaum, herself,
Steve Drohosky, Mike Aveni and Dennis Clark at 50 Dunham Road relative to the pending
ANRAD litigation, unauthorized tree and vegetation clearing was observed within the 100 -foot
buffer zone and no disturb zone. Chair and Vice Chair asked that the limits of clearing be field
delineated and placed on a plan to present to the Commission. Mike Aveni explains that the area
was surveyed by Hancock Associates to confirm exactly where the clearing occurred and
provides an updated plan showing limits of clearing relative to buffer zones and no disturb zones.
The limits of clearing on the plan identified some areas that were cleared inside of those zones.
Aveni explains the proposal is to allow encroached areas to revegetate naturally with shrubs and
erosion and sediment controls will be moved to appropriate location. The area had been intended
to be used as a materials storage area and there is interest in a future access road to area.
Members review the clearing plan, with Bertoni noting that restoration of this area should be
more aggressive and demarcation of the limits of NDZ and buffer zone need to be installed
clearly visible in the field. Donnelly agrees noting that a full restoration plan should be
developed with habitat enhances included. Discussion as to possible issuance of an Enforcement
Order requiring full restoration of the NDZ and buffer zones.
Squibb moves to issue the Enforcement Order with the following conditions as discussed:
➢ Continue to cease and desist from any further work within this area entirely;
➢ Secure the services of a wetland scientist or other qualified environmental consultant to
assist in the following:
o Prepare a restoration plan that shows:
■ Jurisdictional wetland resources, vernal pools, and 100 -foot buffer zones
and no disturb zones;
■ The areas and descriptions of clearing impact within jurisdictional areas;
■ A restorative planting plan that reestablishes these areas with native trees
at not less than a 1:1 replacement ratio for trees removed of not less than
4 ", native shrubs and herbaceous plantings to stabilize the soil and restore
plant diversity, structure and enhance both vernal pool and pond habitat;
■ The plan shall reintroduce ground habitat features that provide food,
shelter, migratory and overwintering areas for wildlife species that utilize
the vernal pool and associated wetland and the pond;
• The planting plan should include species, size, number and general
locations of proposed plant material;
• The plan shall include signage to be installed along the edges of the no
disturb zones and buffer zones to clearly demarcate the limits of these
zones in the field;
Conservation Commission
September 1, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 9
Limits of the buffer zones and no disturb zones shall be flagged in the
field for observation by the Commission;
This plan shall be submitted to the Commission no later than 12:00 noon
on Tuesday October 6, 2015;
Fines of $100 per day shall be assessed for everyday that said plan is not
submitted after 12:00 noon on Tuesday October 6, 2015.
Seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 5 -0.
Aveni asks the Commission for guidance as to Cummings' proposed to plant beautification trees
(i.e., Japanese cherry) along the access drive to create a boulevard -type entrance to the
commercial park. He notes that the planting areas are in existing manicured lawn. This would be
in the buffer zone and adjacent to certified vernal pool. Commission members agree that an RDA
should be sufficient for the scope of this proposal.
Cont: Waring School Field Encroachment Resolution Proposed Resolution Action Plan —
Waring School c/o Atty. Tom Harrington
Attorney Tom Harrington and Joanne Avalon representing the Waring School. Harrington notes
that revisions to the Resolution Action Plan and MOU were made. He notes that Greenbelt is
working on drafting the CR. He briefly reviews the Article 97 Disposition process. Members
review the Action Plan and MOU, with Bertoni noting that it looks to be in order but would
require City Solicitor review and approval. Members agree to forward to the City Solicitor.
Paluzzi moves to continue to the September 22, 2015 meeting pending City Solicitor review and
approval. Seconded by Squibb. The motion carries 5 -0.
New: Planning Board Request for Comments — 44 & 52 Standley Street Definitive OSRD
Site Plan Application — RC Realty Trust c/o Thomas Carnevale
Discussion ensues with Mike Rosati, Marchianda Associates, representing the applicant as to the
definitive OSRD plan that developed through the initial review phase. Rosati provides an
overview of the plan which incorporates the Commissions' comments. Buchsbaum notes that
this plan reflects what the Commission looked for during the initial review process. Members
review and generally discuss the elements of the plan.
Maxner notes the comment letter would note that this is the favored plan that came out of the
initial review process, and that the Commission is amenable to accepting the open space
ownership, and demarcation of the open space at the back of the lots should be required.
Paluzzi moves that the Commission write a letter with this evening's discussion points to the
Planning Board. Seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 5 -0.
Review of Minor Project Permits Issued by Agent
Maxner notes she has issued no Minor Permits since the last meeting.
Expenditure Approvals
There were no expenditures for the Commission's approval this evening.
Conservation Commission
September 1, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 9
Approval of Minutes
Buchsbaum moves to approve March 3, 2015 minutes as amended. Seconded by Bertoni. The
motion carries 3 -0 -2 with Donnelly and Squibb abstaining.
Orders of Conditions
5 Quincy Park, DEP File #5 -1117 — Jack Altshuler
Discussion ensues as to possible conditions to apply to the project. Buchsbaum moves to issue
Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions as discussed:
1. The Conservation Commission reserves the right to reopen the public hearing should
DEP, through its Chapter 91 licensing process, submit comments that alter the proposed
project design.
2. If the design of the revetment return at the neighboring property line change from what is
show on approved plan, prior to implementation in the field the applicant shall submit a
request for Minor Modification to the Commission for its review and approval.
3. All stones used in construction of the revetment shall be clean and free of any dirt, sand
or debris.
4. As described in the Notice of Intent, a track - mounted excavator will be allowed to
traverse the beach during a receding tide to the work area, gaining access from Water
Street Ramp located to the west. No construction equipment of any kind shall be stored
within the wetland resource areas, on the beach or buffer zone.
5. As described in the Notice of Intent, the stone used in construction of the revetment shall
be an average size of 3 feet in diameter, between 1,000 and 6,000 lbs, with an average of
3,000 lbs.
6. Sand that is excavated from the footprint of the toe of the revetment shall be left on the
beach and spread out evenly along the length of the excavation area. It is anticipated that
the subsequent tide(s) will redistribute the sand naturally.
Seconded by Squibb. The motion carries 4 -0 -1 with Donnelly abstaining.
17 Victor Avenue, DEP File #5 -1157 — Anthony Paluzzi
Discussion ensues as to possible conditions to apply to the project. Bucsbaum moves to issue
Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions as discussed:
1. This work shall be undertaken by a professional contractor who has done this type of
project and is familiar with erosion and turbidity control.
2. To ensure compliance with Special Condition #1 above, the contractor shall provide
references for projects working in wetland resource areas that he /she has undertaken and
completed in the recent past.
3. Work shall take place during low flow periods, however if dewatering of seeping
groundwater and /or diverting any flows of the brook from within the work area is
necessary, the contractor shall be present proposed dewatering /flow diversion methods to
the Conservation Agent prior to any work commencing for review and approval.
Conservation Commission
September 1, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 9
Seconded by Bertoni. The motion carries 4 -0 -1 with Paluzzi abstaining.
Adjournment
Paluzzi moves to adjourn at 11:15 p.m. Seconded by Donnelly. The motion carries 5 -0. The next
regular meeting of the Conservation Commission is Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at Beverly
City Hall, 3 d Floor Council Chambers, 191 Cabot Street.