2001-02-26
CITY OF BEVERLY
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Conservation Commission
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: February 26, 2001
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:Anthony Paluzzi, Patricia Grimes, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Jay
Donnelly, Richard Benevento
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Lang, Jon Mazuy
OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Hurlburt, Assistant Planning Director
RECORDER: Karen Bradley
Vice-Chairman Paluzzi calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Old/New Business
Otis Road (Brimbal Avenue Landfill) – DEP File #5-646 – brook testing
City Engineer Frank Killilea states that at the last meeting on January 9, 2001 the Commission
requested surface water sampling in the stream north of Route 128 in the vicinity of the North
Shore Music Theater. Robert Winn of Malcolm Pirnie is present at the meeting and states that
the sampling is complete and hands out the results to the Commission. He explains that samples
were taken at three different locations:
Sample Location 1 – Across from the Route 128 Landfill
Sample Location 2 – Parking lot of the Music Theater
Sample Location 3 – Stream after the wetland area
Note: See Attachment A of the February 26, 2001 letter from Malcolm Pirnie.
He explains that the results (Attachment B of the February 26, 2001 letter from Malcolm Pirnie)
of the samples show elevated levels of iron and manganese in the surface water. He states that
these levels are most likely caused by the groundwater that has been found leaking into the drain
inlet at the wetland. Winn states that he has recommended to the City that the drain inlet be
sealed off.
Winn explains that the chloride level is also elevated and could also be a result of the
groundwater leaking. He mentions that the ammonia nitrogen and coliform levels are somewhat
elevated but phosphate is not. He states that the source of these pollutants can be from a variety
of different sources but there is no direct link to groundwater or surface water from the landfill.
He mentions that the coliform level could be a result of animals in the area but without further
investigation he could not be certain.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 2
Winn states that the City has approved sealing off the drain inlet and that should prevent any
additional groundwater flow from the landfill site. He states that this would leave only surface
water to flow into the wetland.
Grimes asks when the drain inlet will be sealed. Winn states that this should be completed
within the next month or two.
Donnelly states that the results show four sample locations and there are only three locations
shown on the Sample Location map. Winn states that the forth sample location is a blind sample
which was actually taken at Sample Location 2. He states that the lab is unaware of the location
of the blind sample and the purpose of the blind sample is to make sure that the lab is performing
the tests accurately. Donnelly asks if the same blind sample location testing was done for both
coliform and manganese. Winn states that it was done the same. Donnelly asks what the normal
count for coliform is in an upland stream. Killilea states that the normal count is 200 or lower.
Johnson asks what the procedure is to seal off the drain inlet. Winn states that sealing the barrel
will prevent the groundwater from seeping in. He states that the surface water will flow above
the barrel.
Grimes states that the Commission would like to be informed when this is completed.
Paluzzi asks if any excavation will have to be done in order to seal the barrel. Winn states that
no excavation will take place.
Donnelly asks what the source of the coliform pollution could be. He states he has concern that
this could contributing to the Norwood Pond issue. Winn states that he believes the source is
probably animals. Donnelly states that finding out the source will make certain that this is not
contributing to Norwood Pond. Winn explains that the wetland before Sample Location 3 is
functioning properly based on the fact that the coliform level drops at Sample Location 3 to 130
which is the level that is going into Norwood Pond.
Hurlburt states that she will fax Lang this information tomorrow for his approval. If Lang is in
agreement, the Certificate of Compliance will be issued.
Winn hands out a second letter also dated February 26, 2001 requesting a Certificate of
Compliance. He explains the work at the site has been completed in accordance with the Order
of Conditions, with only minor additional maintenance work to be completed by the contractor
(see attached). Winn states that this work should be complete by early spring.
Grimes asks why the Commission can’t wait until spring to issue the certificate.
Paluzzi states that when all work is complete, the Certificate of Compliance will be issued.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 3
Hurlburt states there is a DEP form requesting a Certificate of Compliance that must be filled out
and submitted with the as-built plan to the Commission.
Paluzzi asks if there are any further questions from the Commission. There are none.
Paluzzi asks if there are any questions from the public.
Ron Johnson of 172 Brimbal Avenue asks if there will be further testing after the sealing is
complete. Winn states that there will be no further testing. Johnson asks how will it be known
that the landfill is no longer the cause for the pollution. Winn states that the landfill is
continually tested. Johnson questions the animal activity being the cause of the coliform levels.
Winn explains that there are streams on both sides and another stream that flows into that area
which makes animal activity a likely cause. Killilea states that there are limits to the testing of
this area.
Request for Determination of Applicability
New: 45 Enon Street – rip-rap installation 100 feet from resource area – Paul Kourloulis
Elizabeth Wallis from Hayes Engineering states the applicant is seeking determination on
whether the riprap wall that is to be installed is within the 100-foot buffer zone to the pond.
Wallis explains that there will be no activity in the buffer zone and the closest impact to the
buffer zone will be a riprap retaining wall on the northeast side of the property. She states the
retaining wall will be 3 feet away from the buffer zone. She also states there will be a drainpipe
that will also be 3 feet away from the buffer zone coming out of the proposed detention pond.
Wallis asks if any members of the Commission have visited the site recently. Donnelly and
Paluzzi state that they have been to the site recently. Wallis states that there have been no
change to the resource areas since the last Determination was issued which has expired. She
states that it is their intent to renew that Determination.
Benevento asks if there are new wetland flags present. Wallis states that the existing flags are
the original flags from 1997. She states that new flags can be put in place if the Commission
would like.
Donnelly asks if the new storm drain system will change the volume of storm runoff that leads to
the detention pond. Wallis states that the system has been designed not to change the amount of
runoff into the detention pond. Donnelly asks if the proposed area of parking will change.
Wallis states that the parking area will be larger.
Benevento asks if the amount of impervious area will be changing. Wallis states that the
maximum impervious coverage changes from 48% to 70% for the proposed project.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 4
Donnelly states that based on the proposed changes of the site, there will be more runoff to
manage. He states that the proposed project will have more vehicles parked that will result in a
higher risk of pollution as well as higher flowage into the detention area. Wallis states that the
proposed detention pond will hold up to 2 feet of water.
Benevento asks what the proposed design is for stormwater management and have those
calculations been submitted to the City Engineer for review so that it is known what the
detention pond can handle. Wallis states that the drainage study was submitted on
February 10, 2001.
Benevento asks Killilea if he has reviewed this. Killilea states that he has reviewed some
calculations before the Planning Board but is unsure if there is more recent information
available. Attorney Tom Alexander confirms that those figures reviewed by Killilea are the most
recent information and is the same information that was reviewed by the Planning Board.
Benevento asks if this is the same plan that went before the Site Plan Review, or has the plan
changed. Alexander states that the plan has not changed.
Grimes asks what they are looking for from the Commission. Hurlburt explains that they want to
determine if the work that they are doing is within the jurisdiction of the Conservation
Commission. She states that the last Determination on the site has expired.
Benevento states that he would like a copy of the drainage calculations showing the oil and gas
separation prior to the next meeting.
Paluzzi requests that new flags be put into place prior to the site walk with the 100-foot buffer
line marked. The site walk is scheduled to take place March 10, 2001 at 9:00 a.m.
Paluzzi asks if there are any questions from the public.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street asks if the public can attend the site walk. Alexander states that the
public can attend.
Benevento moves to continue the Request for Determination to the next meeting on March 20,
2001 with a site visit scheduled for March 10, 2001 at 9:00 a.m., seconded by Grimes. All
members in favor. Motion carries 5-0.
Hurlburt suggests addressing another issue at this time so that the City Engineer is present to
update the Commission.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 5
Old/New Business
9 Pine Knoll Drive – follow-up
City Engineer Killilea explains to the Commission that in response to a letter from a resident at 9
Knoll Drive the City intends to conduct testing to determine if there is a leak in the sewer. He
explains that they plan to put some dye into the sewer to make this determination. Killilea
explains that all the sewers in the area have been air tested at 5 PSI and pressure was held for one
hour. He states that at one sewer the pressure dropped and they successfully sealed the joints
that were causing the loss of pressure. Killilea is in the opinion that the sewers are not the source
of contamination however, the dye testing will be conducted once the good weather begins.
Johnson asks if Killilea has a more likely reason for the contamination. Killilea states that the
when the homeowner took the sample it is possible that some of the sediment was scooped up
into that sample which could have been polluted from vegetation or animals. Killilea states that
another sample could be taken if the Commission feels that is necessary.
Grimes asks how the dye testing will be monitored. Killilea states that once the dye is put into
the sewer a sample will be taken from the stream one to two weeks later to see if there is any dye
present.
Benevento suggests flushing out the sewer. Killilea states that all the drains are above the sill
therefore flushing the sewer would have no effect.
Paluzzi asks is the pipes have been inspected that outlet into the stream. Killilea states that the
sample that was taken is upstream of that pipe and he is uncertain of the condition of that pipe.
Hurlburt asks if Killilea has spoken to the Board of Health. Killilea states that Collins and Burke
are in agreement to conduct the tests.
Hurlburt states that it would be interesting to see what the results of another sample from the
stream would be. Killilea agrees and states that another sample will be taken after the dye testing
is complete.
Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation
Cont. : Sam Fonzo Drive – Resource Area Delineation – Fonzo Realty Trust
Elizabeth Wallis updates the Commission stating that this was continued at the last meeting on
January 9, 2001 due to snow cover.
Benevento moves to continue to the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation to the
next meeting on March 20, 2001 with a site walk scheduled for March 10, 2001 at 9:30 a.m.,
seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries 5-0.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 6
Certificate of Compliance
Cont.: Common Lane – DEP File #5-654 – Steve Wickers
Hurlburt states that she went to the site earlier today and states that everything is in good order.
She asks if any of the Commission members have visited the site. Paluzzi states that he had been
to the site and is in agreement with Hurlburt.
Donnelly moves to approve the Certificate of Compliance for Common Lane – DEP File #5-654,
seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries 5-0.
Cont.: Lot 5/Meeting Place Circle – DEP File #5-676 – Lisa & Bob McKenna
Hurlburt states that she and Paluzzi went out to the site and explains that the site still has some
snow on a portion of the front lot but that it appears very stable with good ground cover.
Hurlburt stated that it appears that the area in front may be the adjacent lot.
Johnson states that he went to 5 Meadow Road and could not locate the site. Hurlburt explains
that the site is Lot 5 on Meeting Place Circle.
Grimes moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance for Lot 5/Meeting Place Circle, seconded by
Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries 5-0.
New: 198 Common Lane – DEP File #5-608 – Peter Farmer
Donnelly states that he has reviewed the site and is in the opinion that a good job was done in
protecting the wetlands.
Johnson states that he visited the site and the area was nicely grassed in.
Donnelly moves to approve the Certificate of Compliance for 198 Common Lane – DEP File
#5-608, seconded by Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries 5-0.
Old/New Business
Cummings Center
Hurlburt updates the Commission that two and a half years ago, the Commission approved the
construction of a three story parking structure and a walkway located between buildings 800 and
900 at the Cummings Center. One of the Special Conditions for the Order is that the proposed
walking path must be reviewed and approved by the Commission and the Harbor Authority. She
states that Cummings Properties is still waiting for the DEP’s approval regarding the Chapter 91
license for the second parking structure. Until the license is issued, the walkway construction
cannot begin. Hurlburt explains that the Harbor Authority suggested writing a letter to DEP
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 7
stating that the Harbor Authority, the Planning Department and, if the Commission agrees, the
Conservation Commission are not opposed in delaying the construction of the lower part of the
walkway, however, would like to begin construction on the other areas of the walkway. Hurlburt
asks the Commission if they will agree to the terms of this letter.
Benevento asks what benefit this would have for the Conservation Commission if they were to
get involved. Hurlburt states that the Harbor Authority is very anxious to begin construction of
the walkway to enable public access. Hurlburt explains that the troublesome area of the
walkway is between the two buildings where it is very tight. The Harbor Authority is pushing to
get the walkway area to be as close to the pond as possible. Benevento asks if the walkway will
be useable if this specific area is not completed. Hurlburt states that it would be useable.
Hurlburt states that construction of this walkway is already approved but construction cannot
begin on the walkway until the Chapter 91 license is issued. She states that the basis for this
letter is to move forward with the construction of the parking deck.
Benevento asks if there were any walkways approved with the first parking garage. Hurlburt
states that there were but Cummings just recently received the Chapter 91 license in December
2000 for those walkways. Benevento asks if the Chapter 91 license does not get issued for the
second parking deck, do the walkway get completed. Hurlburt is not sure the answer to that.
Paluzzi asks if there are any questions from the public.
Carl Benne, 44 Hillcrest Avenue states that the conditions that Cummings Properties agreed to is
that the walkways are to be ten feet wide and they are to connect to the Stop and Shop walkway
and then to continue up McKay Street to the other end of the Shoe Pond. Benne states that this
has not been completed and asks if there is a plan available to review the proposed layout of the
walkways. Benevento states that DEP issues the licenses based on the conditions of the site. He
states that Benne’s issue would be better handled by the DEP.
Toni Musanti, 12 Willow Street states that there is list of conditions that Cummings Properties
have not met since the construction of the first garage resulting in the delay from DEP to issue
the Chapter 91 license for the second parking structure. She states that Cummings Properties is
not following the proper protocol.
Benevento asks Hurlburt to explain the troublesome area of the walkway. Hurlburt states that
the troublesome section is between buildings 800 and 900 where the road narrows. She explains
that there are parking spaces facing the lower pond. The Harbor Authority wants to put the
walkway in close to the pond that will eliminate some of those parking spaces. Hurlburt is not
sure how many spaces will be eliminated. She states that the rest of the walkway will be
completed during construction of the parking deck.
Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street presents the plan for the second parking deck. She states
that the parking structure is within 42 feet from the shoreline and it should be 100 feet away.
Maglio states that this is the reason that the Chapter 91 license has not been issued.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 8
Donnelly states that he would like to review the plan prior to endorsing the letter. He is not
convinced that the letter will change anything.
Benevento states that he will not endorse anything that is substandard to what Chapter 91
requires.
Johnson states that he will not endorse a letter that he cannot review.
Benevento moves not to endorse the letter to be drafted to the DEP requesting the Chapter 91
license for Cummings Properties, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries 5-
0.
Approval of Minutes
Donnelly requests a change to Page 5 of the January 30, 2001 minutes. The section quoting
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street should read “Title V system to be installed above groundwater”.
Johnson moves to approve the January 30, 2001 minutes as amended, seconded by Grimes. All
members in favor. Benevento abstains. Motion carries 4-0-1.
Other Business
Mr. Carpenter, 189 Hale Street is present and states that he is requesting to complete some
landscaping work which would require the removal of debris and dead trees.
Benevento asks if this area is in the resource area or the buffer zone. Carpenter states that it is in
the buffer zone. He explains that he is concerned with the safety of his children and shows the
Commission photographs of the site. He states that there is one dead tree and two other trees that
are cracked and would like to remove those trees as well as clean up the area in the front away
from the resource area.
Benevento asks when he would like to complete this work. Carpenter states that he would like to
complete the work as soon as possible.
Donnelly states that he would like to see the trees in question. He states that he is concerned
with the boundaries of the wetlands. He asks if there are wetland flags present. Carpenter states
that there are flags present. Donnelly asks Carpenter to mark the trees in question.
Benevento states that approval will be given after the Commission reviews the site. He states
that if Carpenter does not hear back from the Commission he is to assume that approval has been
granted.
Some of the members of the Commission state that there should be clarification on some of the
regulations regarding determinations made by the Commission. Hurlburt states that she will
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
February 26, 2001
Page 9
send the Commission members the regulations regarding public hearings and public meetings to
clarify any questions the Commission may have.
Johnson moves to adjourn, seconded by Donnelly. All members in favor. Motion carries 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:00 p.m.