Loading...
2002-12-10City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board: Conservation Commission Subcommittee: Date: December 10, 2002 Board members present: David Lang, Linda Goodenough, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Jon Mazuy, Anthony Paluzzi, William Squibb (arrived 7:15 p.m.) Board members absent: Eileen Duff Others present: Debra Hurlburt, Planning Director (arrived 7:30 p.m.) and Amy Maxner, Conservation Agent Recorder: Amy Maxner Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Old/New Business Carmen Frattaroli of Beaver Pond Road stated that he is having flooding problems caused by beaver activity, and has applied with the Board of Health for a ten-day emergency permit. He and his neighbors have also hired a licensed professional to trap and take the beavers away. Mr. Frattaroli also states that he wishes to breach the dam, and indicated that the Commission granted him permission two years ago to breach the same dam. Mazuy asks what happens to the beavers when they are trapped? Fratarroli states that the licensed trapper kills them. Mazuy asks if there are any systems to prevent the beavers from coming to this area. Frattaroli responds yes, but that these systems probably will not take care of the problem, and that even the proposed approach will most likely not eliminate the problem. He stated that this might be a yearly or bi-yearly necessity. Maxner asks if there is a science to how many beavers are taken. Frattaroli stated that the trapper takes as many beavers as he can within the ten-day period that the permit is valid for. Paluzzi motions to allow Mr. Frattaroli to breach the dam and take out the beavers, Goodenough seconds, Mazuy opposed, motion carries 4-1. (Squibb not present for this item) Paluzzi moves to recess for a public hearing, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries 5- 0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2002 Page 2 of 8 Notice of Intent Cont: 76 Paine Avenue – sheet piling installation – Harold C. Booth c/o BNB Trust Dept. Peter Ogren with Hayes Engineering reviews project and reiterates the proponent’s position for the proposed project. In response to a letter written by Rebecca Haney from CZM, he explains that moving the wall would be a burden for the applicant due to the enormous cost, and that it would require a Chapter 91 license. He briefly presents an alternative that would involve large boulder toe protection that would be sloped 3:1. This alternative would need Chapter 91 license for non-water use, and he doubts that they would attain approval for it. Lang asks how far the boulder toe protection would have to stretch out into the beach in order to attain the 3:1 slope. Ogren estimates that it would stretch out maybe 27 to 30 feet, which would be in conflict with Chapter 91. Johnson states that he is sympathetic to the applicant’s situation and feels that this proposed structure would probably address the problem for a substantial amount of time. Paluzzi asks if the concrete apron would still be used with the alternative. Ogren responds yes. Mazuy asks how many years would the propose solution last. Ogren states that that is a hard question to answer, but states that it would last well beyond his lifetime. Squibb asks in the event that the wall does fail, what would the applicant do then. Lang responds that the applicant would most likely come back before the Commission and request that the rubble from the wall be placed as rip-rap in front of the sheet piling. Lang asks if there are any more questions from the members. There are none. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Mazuy moves to close the hearing, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Cont: 391R Elliott Street – construction of single family home – William & Linda Beard Maxner reads a letter from the applicant’s representative requesting a continuance until the next Commission meeting. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2002 Page 3 of 8 Mazuy moves to continue the hearing until the next scheduled meeting January 7, 2003, Paluzzi seconds. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. New: 65 Cross Lane – construction of two-story addition – Martin and Deborah Greenstein Maxner reads the legal notice. Martin Greenstein and Michael Rauseo of Rauseo Construction present the project. Greenstein states that his family is growing and both he and his wife work out of their house and they are in need of more space. Lang states that this looks like a very straightforward project. Paluzzi states that he visited the site and it looks like there will be no problems in approving this project. He asks the applicant about the excavated soil, and if it will be hauled off site. Rauseo states that it will most likely be hauled off site. Paluzzi requested that if any excavated soil is stored on site, that it be placed as far away from the resource area as possible and that it be ringed with erosion control. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. Leroy Hut, 74 Cross Lane expresses his concern about the location of the addition in relation to his property line. He added that there is a city easement on the property that the city should ensure is not being built over. Greenstein states the both Gerry Marsalla and Frank Killilea are aware of this easement and that they will be alerted if needs to be moved. Lang asks if there are any more questions from the members. There are none. Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. New: 5 Elm Top Lane – razing of existing house and construction of single family home – Elm Top Realty Trust Maxner reads the legal notice. Maxner reads a letter from the applicant’s representative requesting a continuance until the next scheduled meeting. Mazuy moves to continue this item until the next meeting scheduled for January 7, 2003, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2002 Page 4 of 8 Orders of Conditions 76 Paine Avenue – sheet piling installation – Harold C. Booth c/o BNB Trust Dept. Lang believes that if the wall were moved back, the coastal dune would be lost. Mazuy states nobody really knows what is going to happen and that the biggest variable in the longevity of the wall is the occurrence of large coastal storms. His concern is the areas on both sides of the wall and how they will be impacted. Mazuy moves to issue an approval of the project subject to the Commission’s standard coastal conditions. Seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. 65 Cross Lane – construction of two-story addition – Martin and Deborah Greenstein Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions: 1.) Standard conditions. 2.) Special Condition: If any excavated soil is not immediately hauled off site, it shall be placed as far away from the resource area as possible, and ringed with siltation control. Seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Certificate of Compliance 9 Tall Tree Drive, Lot 2 – DEP #5-631 – Thomas Carnevale The Commission members brought up several concerns regarding this property and these concerns could not be addressed, as the applicant was not present. Maxner agreed to write the applicant a letter outlining the following concerns and request his presence at the next meeting scheduled for January 7, 2003: § The vernal pool directly in front of the house if a very sensitive resource area and it should be called out on the plan; § Perpetual protection of the vernal pool should be made very clear to the new owner and members want to review the language to be placed in the covenant document to make sure that the use of fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides and road salt is specifically addressed; § The Commission had questions concerning the placement of the 2 12-inch PVC pipes underneath the driveway, which are necessary for the movement of vernal pool amphibians to from the resource area; Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2002 Page 5 of 8 § The Commission would like to know why there is no bituminous “Cape Cod” berm incorporated into the side of the driveway, as Hurlburt reminded the members that this berm is also needed for the movement of the vernal pool amphibians. Mazuy moves to table this item to the next meeting so that the applicant can address these issues. Seconded by Dr. Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Old/New Business Modification to DEP File #5-532 – 17 Hull Street – Centerville School Peter Seamans, from the City of Beverly Engineering Department, states that the Centerville School is requesting an expansion on the proposed concrete play area in order to make a full sized 60’ x 60’ basketball court. Seamans states that this proposal would involve filling of wetlands either to the south or east. Lang states that he recalls that there may be a vernal pool in that location, and that if any filling were to occur, the Commission would require a 2:1 replacement of resource replication area. Goodenough asks if it could be put on the other side. Ron Bouchard, Director of Buildings and Grounds, responds there is no room anywhere else on the school property. Hurlburt reminds Commission that under the City Wetlands Ordinance uncertified vernal pools are now protected. Lang states that the Commission is willing to work with them, but would like to find out if the school would accept going with a smaller court. Hurlburt suggests that Seamans come by Conservation office and she or Maxner could advise him how to proceed. She stated that this would most likely involve an amendment to the Order of Conditions which would require a legal notice and public hearing process. Discussion – 27 Brackenbury Lane Members recall the site visit conducted at this property back on November 23, 2002. At this site visit, the members observed cutting and clearing of vegetation in a wetland area. Mr. Keeley showed the members the area and explained that he was attempting to “clean the area up”. Mazuy states that the Commission should ask Mr. Keeley to have a wetlands scientist prepare a restoration plan. Mazuy also states that the size of the trees to be planted should not be as big as those that were cut down as the amount of excavation required for their planting would be too disruptive. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2002 Page 6 of 8 Paluzzi emphasized that only native species should be used. He also suggests that the Commission supply Mr. Keeley with a list of wetland scientists that it has had frequent dealings with in order to help in his search. Squibb asks what happens if Mr. Keeley fails to comply with this request. Mazuy stated that the Commission should take this step first and proceed from here. Paluzzi moves to have Maxner write a letter to Mr. Keeley informing him that the Commission requests a restoration and re-planting plan, Mazuy seconds. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Discussion – 30 Longmeadow Road Maxner explains to the Commission that Tim Brennan, Building Inspector, informed her and Hurlburt that there may be a possible wetlands violation at this residence. Mr. Brennan escorted Maxner onto the property on Monday December 2, 2002 at which time Maxner observed a large storage shed and deck extending into what looked like possible wetlands. She stated that she could not be sure that the area where the deck and shed were placed was wetlands, but that it most definitely very close to wetlands and in the buffer zone. Maxner went on to inform the Commission that these structures were not located on Mr. Lavita’s property (owner of 30 Longmeadow), but in fact were on Mr. Arthur Booras’s property. She contacted Mr. Booras to find out if he was aware that this construction had occurred on his property, he stated that he was not, and that he would like the Building Department to take it up with Mr. Lavita. Tim Brennan informed Maxner that his department insisted that Mr. Lavita obtain a building permit for this activity, but Brennan has not heard back from him. Mazuy moves that a letter be written to Mr. Lavita requesting proof from him that he is not in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act or Beverly’s Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Paluzzi seconds. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Discussion – 495 Cabot Street Squibb recuses himself and leaves the room. Lang states that upon further consideration and consultation with the City Solicitor, he thinks that the Commission should not request a remand of this project. Mazuy agrees, as he thinks that no real progress will be made to come to a compromised version of the development. Hurlburt states that she wanted to make a clarification regarding the Commission’s earlier decision to request a remand. She wanted to know if it was the member’s recollection that they expected a completely new Notice of Intent with the remand. Lang states that he recalls discussion about a new filing, but that it was the Commission’s understanding that it would not be returned to the Commission under a new filing. He states that the changes made to the plan were the only thing the Commission was going to review and consider. Mazuy agrees with Lang’s recollection, and stated that as a matter of law a new filing would not be possible. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2002 Page 7 of 8 Hurlburt suggests that when the members review the minutes from October 29, 2002 that the section of those minutes dealing with this discussion should be read carefully, and if inaccuracies are found they should be corrected. Lang questions how the statements made by Squibb in those minutes should be reconciled. Mazuy stated that they should not be taken out, but that any inaccuracies should be changed only. Thomas Alexander asks for the opportunity to speak about this item. The members see no problem with Alexander speaking. Alexander stated that he would like to be notified when this item is placed on the agenda in order that he may be present for any discussions. He wanted to emphasize that, in his opinion, the changes made to the plan were minor. He also states that the Cabot Street Neighborhood Association filed a motion for a remand and a stay, and attached the unapproved minutes of October 29, 2002 to that motion and submitted it to the DEP. Mazuy moves for a letter to be written to the DEP stating that the Conservation Commission will not seek a remand and does not wish to review the changes made to the plan, Paluzzi seconds. Motion carries 5-0-1. Approval of Minutes Goodenough moves to approve the October 29, 2002 meeting minutes as amended, seconded by Dr. Johnson. Motion carries 4-0-2. Mazuy and Squibb abstain. Paluzzi moves to approve the November 19, 2002 meeting minutes as written, seconded by Mazuy. Motion carries 5-0-1. Squibb abstains. Discussion of Wetlands Regulations Members went through Section 1 of the city’s Draft Wetlands Regulations and made changes where appropriate as they would apply to the recently adopted Wetlands Protection Ordinance. A short discussion ensued regarding the application of fees to Request for Determinations as well as other filings. The Commission wanted to avoid being arbitrary in their fee schedule and asked Maxner to research other town’s and cities fees. She agreed to have that information available for the next meeting. A short discussion ensued regarding the inclusion of associate members to the Commission. Hurlburt suggested that the City Charter be researched for rules governing this issue. Maxner agreed to have that information available for the next meeting. It was agreed that Sections 2 and 3 would be reviewed and amended at the next meeting. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2002 Page 8 of 8 Hurlburt stated that this was technically her last meeting as the Commission’s representative and that she was honored and privileged to have worked with such a dedicated and professional Board, and will miss the direct interaction with members. The members stated that they would miss her and thanked her for her hard work and diligence as the Commission’s administrator. Adjournment Mazuy moves to adjourn, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:20 p.m.