Loading...
2002-01-08 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Conservation Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: January 8, 2002 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman David Lang, Anthony Paluzzi, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Jay Donnelly, Jon Mazuy, Richard Benevento, Linda Goodenough BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Hurlburt, Acting Planning Director RECORDER: Jeannine Dion Chairman Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Request for Determination of Applicability 150 Sohier Road – remedial activities in buffer zone – IT Corporation The purpose of the filing is to allow IT Corporation to conduct remedial activities in the buffer zone. Jeff Plant appears on behalf of IT Corporation. He requests amending the Order of Conditions that was issued on two issues: 1. Separate out 31 Tozer Road from the Order of Conditions. 2. Waste storage. Plant states that a Notice of Intent was filed, for which the Commission has issued an Order of Conditions. The request was for the installation of the wells in a buffer zone. He believes there will not be any impact of the permanganate application. Rick Lewis provided a map of the area highlighting the area, which is being treated by the injection of sodium permanganate. Sodium permanganate is an oxidant, which will be injected into the soils of the areas to destroy the chemical solvents in the area. The injection of the oxidant migrates through the soil and if it contacts any of the chlorinated solvent, it breaks them down into CO and chloride and mineralizes them, so they become non-toxic. 2 There are two goals for the project: 1) to chemically destroy all of the contaminants in the area and 2) ensure that there is no impact to the stream. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 2 Lewis states there were a number of precautions taken in the design. 1. Calculated how much oxidant would be needed for the area and cut that amount in half. The proposal is to apply half of the oxidant this year, monitor it for a year and then come back and apply whatever amount is necessary to complete the reaction in the area. 2. Vertical gradient in the groundwater if vertically downward. The groundwater table is very flat but there is a significant vertical gradient where the solvents and the contaminants in the area have wanted to migrate vertically downward. 3. Monitoring well will monitor permanganate, solvents and other parameters that change in the groundwater as a result of this treatment. 4. Most of the injection is much deeper than the stream itself. 5. This is not the first time he has done treatment this close to a stream. Lang expresses concern that the stream will turn purple and will kill biological life in the stream. Benevento asks what is the more important issue to consider, the concern for wildlife or the cleaning and removal of the toxins. Lang responds that the issues are all important. Lewis responds that he considers them both equally important. Lewis states that IT has already conducted a pilot test (injected close to 1,000 gallons into a well) last year. The water quality cleaned up in wells as much as 100 feet away but the oxidant itself did not migrate. Lang asks if the applicant is trying to inject the permanganate in the areas that are contaminated and then the contamination will stop because the “hot spots” were taken care of? Lewis responds that is a correct describes that there will be a series of clean areas and he is hoping that the areas between the “clean areas” will become cleaner. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. A member of the public asks what happens with the permanganate that stays in the soil. Lewis responds that manganese is left behind and it is not very toxic. You would have to have a relatively high concentration before it ever became toxic. Bill Squibb asks if this is the only alternative. Lewis responds that originally they were pumping the groundwater at the site. The pumping has been going on for 10 years and the concentrations have gone down a little bit – but not very much. This treatment should be complete in a couple of years. Lang informs members of the public that the applicant is before the Commission tonight for one injection. They are planning to come back in the future for some of the other areas. Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative Determination #3, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 3 Motion carries 7-0. Plant states that the second item he would like to request is the following: 1. The amendment of the Order of Conditions, specifically, Special Condition #4 – storage waste. Applicant requests that 30 day limit to store waste be extended to 90 days for 150 Sohier Road property. Hurlburt states that the party that appealed this project to the DEP does not have a problem with separating out 31 Tozer Road. Mazuy moves to segregate 31 Tozer Road from the original application and change the 30-day time limitation for storage on the buffer zone to 90 days on the condition that it is stored in a designated area, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. 103 Cross Lane – replace drain pipe/manhole & home addition Ms. Davidyan states that the water on the property has gotten worse over recent years. She decided to replace the drainpipe and manhole to correct the problem. The project was brought to the attention of the Conservation Commission Agent by an abutter indicating that work was being conducted in a buffer zone without permits. Davidyan was told to cease work until a permit was granted. She did not know she needed to obtain a permit to do the work. Gary Ciavola, 109 Cross Lane states there has been a longstanding water problem in the area. He asks how the Conservation Commission reviews the engineering work. Donnelly responds that the Conservation Commission reviews the proposal based on the objectives of the project and his impression of this project is that it is very minor. The grades in the yard have not changed significantly, the sub drain system has been improved and the impact to the stream is insignificant. Benevento states what is important to the Commission is not necessarily that you are correcting a drainage problem in your backyard but rather how any work done in your backyard affects the resource area. Mazuy moves to issue a Negative #3 Determination, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-1 (Lang opposed). Hurlburt states the applicant also wanted to discuss the home addition. Paluzzi moves to reconsider the previous motion, seconded by Goodenough. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Hurlburt states that when the issue came up with the manhole and pipe, Davidyan indicated that in Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 4 the spring she would be putting an addition onto the home. Hurlburt recommended that she come before the Commission on both issues. Benevento asks if the work has commenced on the addition. Davidyan responds that the work has not commenced yet. Benevento moves to issue a Negative #3 Determination to include the house addition, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearing, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. 147 West Street – patio, trellis, planting beds, garage, addition – Harrington Craig Bosworth appears on behalf of the applicant, George Harrington. He states the site consists of wetlands on the east side of the property and Chubb’s Brook is on the back side of the property. The intent is to try to build a one-car garage, breezeway, patio and planting beds (Phase I). The applicant would like to start in the spring. At some point in time the sewer lines are supposed to be coming down West Street. The applicant would like to tie into the sewer line and, at that time, build more habitable space (Phase II). The applicant would like two approvals in place now, so that when the time comes, they can proceed with the projects. There is discussion regarding where the applicant will tie into the sewer line. Lang recommends within five feet from the road. Benevento moves to close the hearing, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Tall Tree Drive – single family home construction – Carnevale Richard Kirby of LEC Environmental appears on behalf of the applicant. The plan is the same plan that the Conservation Commission reviewed two weeks ago. He states the entire property is within the 0 to 100 foot riverfront area and there are also wetland resource areas (B.V.W. and bordering land subject to flooding) associated with a perennial stream. The applicant is proposing a single family dwelling with a garage, bituminous concrete driveway and minor site grading. Due to the lot configuration some wetland alternations will be required. Since the last public hearing, the applicant has found a way to pull the house further back from the resource areas by choosing a different shaped house. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 5 Benevento states at the last hearing there was discussion regarding locating the house out of the resource area and in the upland area. He asks if that has been a consideration since the last hearing. Kirby responds that the applicant did consider it. With setback requirements, it places the corner of the house right on the bank. If you look at the regulations, it states that you can alter up to 5,000 square feet providing you replace it. The general provisions for a riverfront area, however, say that you must maintain to the maximum extent feasible a strip of undisturbed vegetation that is at least 100 feet wide. Kirby states that is saying that you need to stay as far from the river as you can, while maintaining that strip of vegetation. In order to meet the provisions for both the BVW and the riverfront area, he placed the dwelling as far from the stream as possible. Benevento states if you were to put the dwelling in the upland area, only a portion of the bank would be affected, as opposed to 725 square feet of wetlands to be filled. Kirby responds that the riverfront area is the limiting factor. Benevento asks if there is 10 feet from the back of the house to the edge of the wetland. Curtin responds that is correct. Benevento expresses concern that the backyard will begin to “migrate.” Kirby responds to the Commission’s concerns as follows: · The applicant has reshaped and relocated the house, such that it is 13 feet further from the river than it was previously. · Reduced the wetland alteration from 1,180 square feet to 775 square feet. · Garage and driveway associated with the house have been shifted to the eastern portion of the property (further away from the river). · There will be no filling of land subject to flooding. · At the site visit, some Conservation Commission were concerned about removal of some large trees in the area. The applicant is proposing to keep 6 large red maple trees, excavate around them, and leave a 250 square foot area of undisturbed soil around the trees. Lang states some projects just don’t fit on sites and this project does not fit particularly on this site. Benevento states he understands that the engineer has gone to great pains in terms of citing how the regulations will allow certain aspects of this project. In a practical sense, you look at a house sitting in a resource area with a 10 foot backyard, that ultimately is either going to be expanded upon. He would rather see a small piece of bank with a suitable yard that is less apt to have an impact on the resource area than have a house in the resource area. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 6 Kirby states the whole property is in the riverfront area and it was recorded with the Registry of Deeds before the Rivers Act was enacted. Mazuy moves the close the hearing, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. 495 Cabot Street – 1 store commercial/retail and 2.5 story commercial/residential building construction – Town & Country Homes Richard Benevento recuses himself from voting on this matter. Bob Griffin from Griffin Engineering appears on behalf of the applicant, Town & Country Homes. He shows the plan that was presented in December. The proposal is to build two commercial buildings. The rear of the building would be six condominium-type units. Residential use in the back and commercial use in the front of the building. There is an existing residence and garage on the parcel. The project requires 821 square feet of wetlands impact and the applicant is proposing wetland replication areas. There was discussion that the existing drain appears to be crushed at some location and does not appear to be functioning well. The applicant is proposing reconstruction, through a city easement. Griffin states the Commission suggested that the applicant consider providing 2 to 1 wetlands mitigation. At the site walk on Saturday, another plan was proposed. Griffin outlines the changes from the previous plan: · Reorientation of the pool (so as to increase the wetlands replication area). · DEP asked that the replication area be at the same elevation as the existing wetlands. · DEP asked that there be a wider vegetated buffer between the pavement and mitigation area. · DEP requested that the recharge structures be 2 feet above the groundwater table. Instead, the design for the recharge was changed to provide a recharge trench (the trench will receive roof runoff only). · Pool filter backwash will be directed into a drain, which is consistent with the plumbing code. Benevento asks if percolation tests have been conducted. Griffin responds that no percolation tests have been done. Lang asks what sort of wetland vegetation will be used for replication. Griffin responds he will be trying to mimic the existing wetlands (wetland seed mix, arrow wood, red maple and one of two other shrubs and plants). Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 7 Bill Squibb, 509 Cabot Street states he is opposed to building in the 100-foot buffer and wetlands. Paul Sommer, Sommer Environmental Technologies states he looked through the Notice of Intent and it seems there are several engineering details that are not part of this filing. He states the Notice of Intent claims the project has a “limited” impact on the buffer zone. He disagrees and states that virtually every bit of buffer zone (19,600 square feet) on the property is being directly impacted by the project. This is an aggressive plan that essentially eliminates the buffer zone from the project. There are a lot of design issues that need to be addressed and he recommends that the Commission request drainage calculations. Dave Balentine, 15 Roosevelt Avenue expresses concern regarding the proximity of the wetland replication to his property and possibly losing a Willow tree on the property. Griffin states he would be willing to take some elevations of the Willow tree to address the point more specifically. Ms. Azarian, 509 Cabot Street expresses concern regarding drainage. Ward Councilor Roger Morency of 8 Columbia Road expresses concern regarding the displacement of soil and how it will affect the mitigation area. Lang asks how deep the water table is. Griffin responds 31.4. Lang asks what the elevation of the pool is. Griffin responds 36 at one end and 30 at the other end. Lang states that the pool is below the water table. Griffin states the displacement of soil and water table is a very temporal thing and groundwater elevations should not be connected to long term positioning of the pool. Lang asks why. Griffin states the water table being displaced during construction of the pool but when the pool is place, it is an impermeable area and should not affect groundwater patterns in the area. Donnelly asks if calculations have been conducted for the 100 year storm. Griffin states the conditions will be better than they are now. Donnelly asks if that is the case even though the impervious surface will be greater than it is now. Griffin responds “yes.” Benevento states the issues of concern regarding the buffer zone are valid. Lang states he would like the applicant to provide topographical information and cross-section. Donnelly would like the applicant to provide storm water calculations and the extent of flooding of a 100-year storm. Paluzzi asks that the location of the Willow tree be shown on the plan. Griffin will provide the information requested before the next meeting (on January 23, 2002). Mazuy moves to continue the hearing to the next meeting on January 29, 2002, seconded by Paluzzi. Benevento abstains. Motion carries 6-0-1. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 8 Benevento recommends that the Commission have the applicant check to see if an Order was recorded. If it was, the other Order should be closed out before this hearing is closed on this filing. Orders of Condition 147 West Street Benevento moves to issue the following conditions: 1. Standard conditions. 2. Remove concrete southeast portion of the property 3. Applicant shall provide a revised plan indicating the location of the sewer line (within approximately 15 feet from the center line of the roadway). 4. Septic tank shall be crushed and filled (per Beverly Board of Health code) if connected with city sewer. Seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Tall Tree Drive – single family home construction – Carnevale Hurlburt states the property is grand fathered and the Commission could make a condition that 10,000 square feet of the property can be donated to the Conservation Commission and the boundaries could be clearly delineated. Benevento states he does not understand why the footprint could not fit on the upland area comfortably without significantly impacting the resource area. Mazuy states that it is a tiny lot, on a riverfront and has an intermittent stream running through the middle of it. In order to do the project, you would have to cut down a substantial number of trees for the replication area. Donnelly states this proposal has unacceptable impacts on the riverfront area. Hurlburt reminds members that this is a grandfathered lot. Lang states the property has several resource areas: perennial stream and intermittent streams, filling of wetlands. The area is under water and he does not believe you can build on the site. Dr. Johnson states he is not happy about the proposed house but it seems the developer has made an effort to exist within the regulations. The developer’s offer to possibly put in a condition to give some land to the Conservation Commission, would make him inclined to approve it. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 9 Paluzzi moves to grant an Order of Conditions, seconded by Dr. Johnson. 1-6-0 (Johnson in favor, Benevento recuses himself from voting). Motion fails. The reasons for denial: · Application as submitted does not adequately provide safeguards to the resource areas such as Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Riverfront Area, Intermittent Stream, and Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, due to the house’s proximity to the resource areas. · The number of trees to be removed. · Impact to the hydrology and plant life causing wildlife habitat loss. · Replication areas: 250 square feet of space around the red maples would only give a 1 to 1 compensation. · Application did not explore additional alternatives to size of the dwelling. · Other alternatives were not reviewed (such as Zoning Board of Appeal Variance) to locate the dwelling in the upland area. Old/New Business Modification to DEP File #5-631 – Lot 1 & Lot 2 – Tall Tree Drive Mazuy moves to accept the Modification to DEP File #5-631 – Lot 1 – Tall Tree Drive, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Certificate of Compliance DEP File #5-646 – Otis Road – City of Beverly Benevento states he spoke with Frank Killilea, who could not attend the meeting. Killilea informed Benevento that he believed the letter from Malcolm Pernie addressed all of the concerns. Lang asks if this could be tabled until a future meeting. Benevento moves to table this until a future meeting, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Hurlburt will speak with David Adams regarding the progress of the testing of leachate. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 10 Approval of Minutes Benevento moves to approve the October 30, 2001 meeting minutes, seconded by Paluzzi. Goodenough abstains. Motion carries 6-0-1. Donnelly moves to approve the November 20, 2001 meeting minutes, seconded by Dr. Johnson. Goodenough abstains. Motion carries 6-0-1. Donnelly moves to approve the December 11, 2001 meeting minutes, seconded by Mazuy. Donnelly and Goodenough abstain. Motion carries 5-0-2. Dr. Johnson moves to adjourn, seconded by Donnelly. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. The meeting is adjourned at 10:00 p.m.