2003-09-09
CITY OF BEVERLY
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Conservation Commission
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: September 9, 2003
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Lang (Chairman), Tony Paluzzi (Vice Chairman),
Linda Goodenough, Dr. Mayo Johnson, William Squibb, Ian
Hayes and Eileen Duff (arrives 7:50)
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT: Amy Maxner, Conservation Agent
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion (by tape)
Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY
New: 39 Albany Circle – construct 14 foot by 24-foot kitchen addition - Coughlin
Maxner briefly explains the project and states the applicant is proposing to construct a 14’ X 24’
kitchen addition in the Buffer Zone to an intermittent stream and small swath of BVW. The stream
channel and BVW is located behind a stonewall at the rear of the property, and the addition will be
approximately 71 feet from the edge of BVW. She explains the work is down gradient from the
resource area and thinks that this project will have negligible impact.
Mr. Coughlin states he was unaware that there were any Conservation Commission issues on his
property prior to Maxner contacting him, but is willing to answer any of the Commission’s
questions.
Paluzzi asks if the addition will have a full foundation, and if so where will the excavated soil go.
Coughlin states that it will be a full foundation and that the soil will be taken off site.
Lang asks where the stonewall is located. Coughlin states that it is at the rear of the property, and
the resource area is apparently located just behind the stonewall.
Lang asks if there are any more questions from the Commission. There are none.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 2
Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative #3 Determination, seconded by Goodenough. All members in
favor. Motion carries 6-0.
New: 13 Boyles Street – set existing boulders; minor regarding; replace lawn – repair/reseed
remaining lawn, install irrigation system - Low
Maxner explains the applicants are proposing to perform landscaping and grading activities within
the very outer limits of the Riverfront Area and Buffer Zone to BVW. She explains the applicants
are proposing to reposition several large boulders in the front yard and create a graded lawn area
with associated landscaping which include the planting of 2 trees.
Mr. Low briefly explains that the grading will be located within the area immediately around the
boulders up to the 48-foot contour, and that a portion of the proposed landscaping is 90 feet from
the BVW at its closest point.
Lang asks if that will be the limit of grading. Low states that it will be limited to just the area
around the boulders.
Paluzzi asks where the boulders will come from. Low states that they have existed at the site when
they bought the property, and they wish to reconfigure them for a more aesthetic appearance and to
make room for more usable lawn area.
Lang asks if there are any more questions from the Commission. There are none.
Goodenough moves to issue a Negative #3 Determination, seconded by Johnson. All members area
in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Duff arrives.
New: 57 Dodge Street – renovation of existing structure, construction of loading area,
landscaping and restructuring of parking area – S.R. Weiner & Associates
Steve Haight with Appledore Engineering presents for the applicants and gives a brief description of
the overall project. He explains that Shaw’s Supermarket will be moving into the old Ames
building and will be performing many site upgrades. The applicant is proposing to construct a steel
beam and wood post guardrail and perform landscaping activities in the Buffer Zone to a small
wetland area at the easterly corner of the site. Re-painting of the parking spaces will reconfigure
the parking lot area and island, and proposed plantings will include Day Lilies and a Linden tree.
Paluzzi asks what the size of the island parking area will be. Haight states that it will be
approximately 10’ x 10’.
Lang asks if there are any more questions from the Commission. There are none.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 3
Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative #3 Determination, seconded by Goodenough. All members are
in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
RECESS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings, seconded by Johnson. All members in favor. Motion
carries 7-0.
ABBREVIATED NOTICE OF RESOURCE AREA DELINEATION
Cont: off Lee Street and Folger Avenue – Resource Area Delineation – John and Angelina
Tanzella
John Dick of Hancock Environmental presents for the applicant. He states that Rebecca Haney and
Mark Borrelli from Coastal Zone Management have provided comments on the resource delineation
and their comments and recommendations have been incorporated into the plan. He states that the
200-foot Riverfront Area is a function of the Mean Annual High Water Line. He states that the last
three parcels on the west are almost entirely Coastal Bank resource area. He explains that the paper
streets depicted on the plan are defunct, and that a new road configuration will need to be
developed as part of the impending subdivision plan.
Maxner states that a letter from Coastal Zone Management approving the final plan with revisions
as they suggested dated July 28, 2003 has been submitted and is part of the record.
Lang asks if there are any questions from the Commission. There are none.
Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none.
Johnson moves to close the hearing, seconded by Paluzzi. All members are in favor. Motion
carries 7-0.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
New: 1A Independence Circle – DEP File #5-714 – Robert Warner
Maxner explains the Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions for this project
involving the construction of a single-family home of which a small portion of the yard fell within
the Buffer Zone to BVW located across the street. The Order conditioned work involving the
removal of a 200 square foot area of vegetation within the first 5 to 7 feet of the Buffer Zone to
create lawn. Maxner hands out photographs of the site, and states that the DEP File sign and
haybales and silt fence are still in place.
Paluzzi states that he visited the site earlier today and believes that everything looks fine and in
compliance.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 4
Goodenough states that the haybales and silt fence should be removed. Maxner states that she will
write a cover letter with the Certificate asking the applicant to remove them.
Lang asks if there are any questions or comments from the Commission. There are none.
Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none.
Johnson moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Duff. All members are in favor.
Motion carries 7-0.
New: Cabot St. & L.P. Henderson Rd. – DEP File #5-762 – New England Power Co.
Maxner explains the applicant is requesting a Certificate of Compliance for subsurface explorations
on L.P. Henderson Road, which was part of the fly ash investigation at the Vitale Site. Five (5) test
borings and monitoring wells were installed in BVW and are now complete. The Commission
issued standard conditions for this project.
Lang asks Elizabeth Greene from New England Power what will happen to the wells. Greene states
that they will remain in place and be used for future monitoring of the site for sampling. Greene
states that this Order was strictly for the installation of the wells, and they are meant to stay in
place, however they may be required to remove them years from now.
Lang asks if there are any questions from the Commission. Squibb asks how often the wells will be
monitored. Greene states that they will be tested on a seasonal basis.
Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none.
Johnson moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Goodenough. All members are in
favor. Motion carries 7-0.
NOTICE OF INTENT
Cont: Melvin Avenue – installation of in-ground swimming pool – Doherty
Maxner explains the applicant is proposing to construct an in-ground swimming pool in the Buffer
Zone to BVW and Riverfront Area to the Porter River. The project will involve approximately
2,300 square feet of disturbance and is located 50 feet from the top of Bank and about 12 feet from
BVW area. She states a site visit was conducted on Saturday, September 6, 2003.
Griffin provides an overview of the project. He explains the revised plans that move the pool to
honor the 25-foot No-Disturb Zone.
Lang opens the hearing up to public comment.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 5
Kathleen Rodgers, 1 Shortell Avenue, states that the proposed regarding of the land up to the pool
will adversely effect erosion and runoff into the wetland. Griffin responds that the pool deck will be
a raised surface at elevation 12’, and the top of the retaining wall surrounding the deck will be
12.5’. The southern edge of the deck will be 3 feet above existing grade, but that was necessary in
both versions of the plan.
Maxner asks if there is a drywell as part of the pool deck. Griffin states that the drywell is under the
deck.
Lang asks a clarifying question about the 100-year flood plain. Griffin states that elevation 10 is the
100-year flood plain, and that below that elevation it is considered Land Subject to Coastal Storm
Flowage (LSCSF). He states that there are no performance standards for LSCSF.
Kay Latter, 2 Shortell Avenue, asks how high the fence will be on the pool deck as it may interfere
with the view of the river. She also expresses concerns regarding the drainage of the pool,
backwash to the drywell. Griffin responds that the fence will follow the height requirements as
directed by zoning. He explains that the drywell will allow for infiltration of the backwash and
suggests that the pool not be drained within two weeks of chlorination.
Johnson expresses his appreciation for the applicant’s willingness to comply with Beverly’s
Wetlands Regulations in honoring the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone, as it provides more protection for
all the resource areas on the site.
Lang asks if there are any more questions from the Commission. There are none.
Lang asks if there are any more questions from the public. There are none.
Paluzzi moves to close the hearing, seconded by Duff . All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-
0.
New: 35R Prince Street – replace existing water service with new service – Ward
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Tim Ford presents for the applicant and explains the proposal is to replace the existing water main
with a new pipe of the same size and position. He explains the service comes off of Hale Street and
runs through the parking lot for Ebinger Hall at Endicott College. Approximately 10 square feet of
BVW associated with an intermittent stream channel will be disturbed to access the existing pipe
and replace it with the new one. The Buffer Zone impact will be approximately 600 square feet
leading up to the house from the parking lot. He explains that the resource areas are depicted on a
plan that has been approved by the Commission through a filing by the Endicott College. He
received permission to use this plan for this project, and that the wetland flags are still in place.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 6
Squibb asks how far the pipe is below the ground. Ford states that the main is approximately 5’ –
6’down and the stream is piped underneath the main.
Lang asks if dewatering will be necessary. Ford responds that he does not think dewatering will be
necessary.
Squibb asks how long the project will take. Ford states that he anticipates working within the
BVW for about 2 hours, and that the Buffer Zone work will last about 1 to 2 days.
Lang asks if there are any more questions from the Commission. There are none.
Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none.
Paluzzi moves to close the hearing, seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion
carries 7-0.
New: 16 Fosters Point – maintain dock, add gangway and floats, MacDougall
(Lang recuses himself from the portion of the meeting and leaves the room. Paluzzi presides as
Chairman.)
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Maxner states she received a call regarding the construction of a pier at 16 Fosters Point not
approved the by the Commission. A Cease and Desist was issued to the property owner, Carroll
MacDougall. Mr. MacDougall contracted the services of John Dick with Hancock Environmental.
John Dick presents for the applicant, and suggests that the applicant restore an area of the Salt
Marsh that is void of vegetation by planting cord grass in compensation for the temporary alteration
affected by the project. Sheets of plywood were laid down along the side as the pier was
constructed and flattened and damaged the marsh grass, but it seems to be rebounding. He asks for
a continuance because he is waiting for a DEP File number.
Squibb asks what type of wood was used for the posts. Dick states that pressure treated wood was
used.
Maxner states that the Enforcement Order should be ratified and a site visit be scheduled. She also
explains that a Chapter 91 license may be needed but that the state will not issue it until there is a
local permit (Order of Conditions) issued.
Duff moves to ratify the Cease and Desist Order issued to 16 Fosters Point, seconded by Johnson.
All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Dr. Johnson moves to continue the hearing to the September 30, 2003 meeting, pending a site visit
scheduled for Saturday, September 27, 2003 at 8:30 a.m., seconded by Hayes. All members are in
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 7
favor. Motion carries 6-0.
(Lang returns to the meeting.)
New: 4 Quincy Park Avenue – remove slate landing, patio, pool, brick walk, and construct
slate patio, full foundation under existing dwelling, two car garage, deck - Dellafera
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Attorney Robert McCann presents for the applicants. He provides an overview of the proposed
project. He explains the applicant is proposing to perform site renovations, which include the
construction of a full foundation under the house where only a partial exists now, construction of a
two car garage on a slab foundation, removal of existing swimming pool and slate patio and brick
walkway. He states that the garage will need a variance from the ZBA. A new deck and slate patio
will be constructed, and the area where the pool is removed will be new lawn. He explains the
activity will take place in the Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank, and within the 25-Foot No-Disturb
Zone. The project will result in a decrease in impervious area by 1,125 square feet and a decrease
of structures in the No-Disturb Zone. The applicants do not contemplate doing any work on the
seawall itself, but would like the Order of Conditions to allow for future repairs.
Paluzzi asks what type of equipment will be used to remove the pool. McCann responds that a
small bobcat will be used as the site it small and there are tight quarters to work within. Mr.
Dellafara states that the pool is a pre-formed metal structure, and it has been empty for about three
years.
Lang asks what the 100-year flood plain elevation is. McCann responds that it is at elevation 16
and the top of the seawall is at elevation 16.4.
Duff asks a clarifying question about the structures along the edge of the seawall. Delafara explains
that they are 8” wood ties, which will be removed as part of the project.
Goodenough asks where erosion control will be placed. McCann responds that silt fence will be
placed along the edge seawall.
Johnson states he would like to see the site before any decisions are made. Members agree.
Goodenough moves to continue the hearing to the September 30, 2003 meeting pending a site visit
scheduled for Saturday, September 27, 2003 at 9:15 a.m., seconded by Johnson. All members are
in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 8
New: 9, 10, 12 Curtis Point Road – landscaping, deck, remodeling, drainage system and
slope stabilization – Healey
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Peter Ogren from Hayes Engineering and Dan Skolski (architect) present for the applicant and
provide a brief overview of the project. Ogren explains the applicant is proposing to perform
property improvements in the Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank and the 25 Foot No-Disturbance Zone.
Proposed activities at #12 Curtis Point include house remodeling, deck work, pool replacement,
installation of a drainage system, as well as slope stabilization on the Coastal Bank, within the
Buffer Zone, the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone and Lang Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage.
Approximately 20 linear feet of the Coastal Bank will be disturbed by the slope stabilization
activities. Ogren states the resource areas at the site include Coastal Bank, Land Subject to Coastal
Storm Flowage.
Skolski explains the renovations to the house, deck and pool area.
Duff states a site visit may be beneficial.
Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to the September 30, 2003 meeting, pending a site visit
scheduled for September 27, 2003, seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries
7-0.
New: 84 West Street – remove existing, construct new garage and in-ground pool – Leone
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Bill Manuel from Wetlands Land Management represents the applicant and provides an overview of
the project. He explains the applicant is proposing to demolish an existing garage, construct a new
detached garage, reconfigure the driveway, install an in-ground swimming pool and perform
landscaping and grading activities. He reviews the resource areas on site, which include Land
Under Water, Inland Bank, Riverfront Area of Chubb Brook and Land Subject to Coastal Storm
Flowage which is at elevation 10.
Duff asks if the new garage will have a full foundation. Manuell states it will only be slab on grade
with a frost wall. He goes on to explain that the pool will have a concrete apron with a blue-stone
terrace leading to the house.
Maxner asks where the septic system is located. Manuell responds the septic system and leach field
is located at the front of the house.
Manxer asks what the total area of disturbance within the Riverfront Area will be. Manuell
responds that it will be approximately 16,000 square feet, which does exceed the maximum
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 9
allowable threshold of 10 % or 5,000 square feet, whichever is larger. He states that the
assumption that the Riverfront Area provides protection of the interests of the Act is rebuttable as
the area is currently lawn.
John Wager, 1 Beach Street, states he submitted comments in writing and states the water table is
very high and drainage is a very serious issue.
Lang states the Commission received two letters from members of the public, which are on record.
Lang asks where the runoff of these new impervious surfaces be channeled. Manuell states that
there are leaching drainage wells proposed to capture runoff.
Christopher Smallhorn, 82 West Street, states that the water table in this area is very high, and
drainage will only be exasperated by this project.
Lang states that the Commission is concerned by the issues raised at the meeting, and is sensitive to
neighbors’ concerns.
Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to September 30, 2003 meeting pending a site visit scheduled
for Saturday, September 27, 2003 at 10:30 a.m., seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor.
Motion carries 7-0.
New: Lot B off Haskell Street – construct single family home – Affiliated Managers Group
Maxner reads a letter from Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering on behalf of Affiliated Managers Group
withdrawing the Notice of Intent to allow time to address some of the issues that have been raised
relative to the filing before proceeding.
New: Off Boulder Lane – construct multi-use age-restricted housing development with
roads, utilities – Miles Group, Inc.
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Attorney Thomas Alexander introduces the project for the applicant which involves the
construction of a multi-use age restricted housing development with associated circulatory roads,
utilities, drainage, detention basins, and landscaping, portions of which will fall within the Buffer
Zone to BVW and Vernal Pools. He goes onto explain the applicant is proposing to construct 69
units of senior housing and the developed area will be approximately 10 acres of the 40-acre site.
William Manuell, Wetlands and Land Management, explains that there will be borings in the BVW
to investigate the placement of utilities to connect to Kennel Hill Drive.
Lang asks what will be done with the slurry. Manuell states it will be placed on the side of the work
area but not contained.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 10
Johnson asks if the utilities will be consolidated into one pipeline. Manuell states that there will be a
number of conduits for the utilities.
Squibb asks how far apart they will be placed. Ken Knowles, Meridian Engineering, states they will
be side by side.
Maxner states there are letters from the public and the Open Space Committee that need to entered
into the public record. Lang reads the letters from Pam Kampersal regarding her concerns about
the water supply, and from David Gardner regarding the Committee’s hope for access to Kennel
Hill Drive by way of a boardwalk and a sidewalk leading to Grapevine Road.
Lang states that this is a very large site with a lot of issues, and the Commission will conduct a site
visit before the next meeting.
Goodenough moves to continue the hearing to the September 30, 2003 meeting, pending a site visit
scheduled for Saturday, September 27, 2003 at 11:00 a.m.
New: 2 Boyles Street – construct roads, site grading, drainage, and utilities for subdivision
and construct five single family homes – Manor Homes at Whitehall
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Bill Manuel, Wetlands & Land Management, and Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, provide
overviews of the project. Griffin briefly explains the drainage, which is a series of Storm-Ceptors
that discharge into rock-lined detention basins that recharge to groundwater, and have overflow
spill ways into the various wetlands on the site, including the certified Vernal Pool.
Johnson reads a brochure distributed by the Friends of Chapman’s Corner regarding the possible
impacts of the development and asks Griffin to respond. Griffin states the statements in the
brochure do not accurately depict the proposed conditions.
Joanne Avallon, 17 Boyles Street, a member of Friends of Chapman’s Corner, requests that the
experts speak before the public.
Maxner states Ms. Avallon has provided a packet with comments and letters from their experts and
hands them out to the Commission members.
Attorney Tom Harrington, representing Friends of Chapman’s Corner, states the plan is ill-
conceived, shows little regard for the wetlands resources on site and the surrounding areas, falls
well short of the standards set forth by the Wetlands Protection Act and the Beverly Wetlands
Ordinance. On behalf of the Friends of Chapman’s Corner, he urges denial of the application as
soon as possible. He outlines the following concerns:
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 11
·
The applicant has taken little to no regard to the No-Disturbance Zones. Harrington states
that the Commission is authorized to waive the standard, however, before the standards are
waived, it must be demonstrated that there are no practicable alternatives that would allow
the project to proceed in full compliance with the regulation and that the project would
have no adverse affects on any of the interests protected by the Ordinance, and that the
project will improve the natural capacity of a resource area and protect the interests
identified in the Ordinance. Harrington states the applicant did not attempt to meet the
standards and therefore submits that anything within the 100-foot buffer zone must be
immediately be denied.
·
Harrington refers to wetland crossings in the local regulations as well as state regulations.
He states the Commission may grant a waiver for the construction and maintenance of a
new roadway or driveway through a wetland where no such means of access would
otherwise be available. There has been no demonstration that the applicant needs the
wetlands crossings to construct the project on the property. Therefore, both wetlands
crossings are illegal under the local wetlands bylaw and state regulations. In addition,
under the state Act, wetlands crossings are allowed only if there is no other practical access
to the site. Harrington states there has been no demonstration and the crossings should be
denied.
·
Harrington refers the Commission to Peter Shanahan’s Hydro-Geologic Report and outlines
the highlights of the report.
Michael DeRosa, DeRosa Environmental, states he has been hired to serve as wetlands expert for
the Friends of Chapman’s Corner, and provides an overview of his review of the project. He states
the Wetlands Protection Act and the City of Beverly Wetlands Ordinance is based on the premise to
avoid and minimize activity in and around wetlands and if wetlands need to be disturbed, mitigation
must be proposed. The idea is to avoid wetlands completely, stay out of the 100-foot Buffer Zone,
avoid filing with the Conservation Commissions and stay away from wetlands, particularly vernal
pools. Additionally, the Wetlands Protection Act sets forth that no party shall destroy or impair any
wetland area and that is the primary performance standard. DeRosa states this project does
everything possible to destroy and impair wetlands and leaves no wetland on the site untouched.
DeRosa provides an overview of his concerns:
·
The primary focus of the activity on the project is in the Vernal Pool area. There are
roadways, drainage basins, house construction, etc;
·
The areas of grading and retaining walls and other activities will require the removal of
canopy in order to do the work. Vernal pool species utilize the Vernal Pool for a very
small portion of the season. The majority of their life is spent in the upland areas. If the
upland habitat is eradicated, there will be substantial impacts to that population;
·
Discharges of storm water will degrade the water quality of the Vernal Pool;
·
Should the project be approved, DeRosa believes the local population will be eliminated
because of loss of Buffer Zone habitat and the loss of water quality;
·
DeRosa recommends that a copy of the notice be sent to Natural Heritage for their
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 12
review and comment;
·
Discharges, filling and alterations to Outstanding Resource Waters are not allowed under
that regulation without prior treatment and a very rigorous maintenance program;
·
The wetland crossings are not necessary as there are other means of upland access to the
site, and results in the destruction of mature upland forest to make room for the
replication area;
·
He does not suggest using Sweet Pepper Bush in the wetlands replication, which was
specified in the planting list, because it tends to crowd out other native species;
·
A 10-foot on center and 5-foot on center planting plan was proposed. DeRosa would
rather see an interspersed planting of shrubs in a more creative way.
DeRosa states protection of the wetland resource areas are not considered as part of this project.
He states that it should be developed and it is the applicant’s right to develop it, but the issue is that
it is done thoughtfully and not completely encroaching on the Vernal Pool and other resource areas.
The number of lots should be looked at in a more creative and thoughtful way.
Lang asks if members of the public have any clarifying questions.
Charles Noss, 10 Brackenbury Lane, asks a clarifying question about the height of the retaining
walls and road that will be near the Vernal Pool. Griffin responds the applicant has submitted plans
to the Planning Board that document in great detail the elevations of the retaining walls but does
not have the information at this meeting. He states the applicant is constrained by Planning Board
regulations by the design and slope of the roads (6%) and as a result there are cuts and fills that
might be a little greater than is necessary if allowed a 8% or 10% road slope.
Ed Doherty, 13 Eisenhower Avenue, expresses concern about inadequate drainage and site distance
on Eisenhower Avenue. Griffin responds that the applicant is proposing to do some regrading in
the area and there would be a retaining wall constructed along the property line to accommodate it.
The road will be lowered because the ground does go up rather steeply just beyond the end of
Eisenhower. The retaining wall allows the applicant to do that and still meet the 6% threshold.
Griffin also states there will be catch basins along the road.
Lang asks what the applicant’s status is with the Planning Board. Griffin responds that a public
hearing should be scheduled in October.
A member of the public asks a clarifying question regarding the replication area. Griffin responds
there is a retaining wall being proposed along the edge of the house on Lot #2 and there is a
replication area coming reasonably close to the house. He states the applicant meets all the
performance standards in the state Wetlands Protection Act and the City Ordinance.
A member of the public states the idea of the Wetlands Protection Act is to discourage development
within the 100 feet of the wetlands area and the applicant is building in the wetlands area. Griffin
responds that the replication plan meets the performance standards.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 13
Lang states it also clear that the applicant believes it can be within 100 feet of the Vernal Pool with
the house. He asks if the applicant does not think that part of the Regulations is applicable. Griffin
responds that the applicant believes that the filing predates that portion of the City of Beverly
Regulations.
Tom Harrington, Attorney for Chapman’s Corner group states it is clear that this filing is operating
th
under the new Regulations. The new Regulations were passed on June 17. Once it is on file for
seven days with the City Clerk, as per the City Charter, it becomes valid. He believes this is
inaccurate and refers to the case law of the Zoning Ordinances, which is clear on the effective date
of Ordinances, which is the day of passage by the board. In this case, the Regulations were passed
th
on July 17 and therefore effective then. If the applicant came in and had been complete prior to
mid July, they would have an argument. The hearing wasn’t even open until September and they
have been on file for the seven days in the City Clerk’s office. Harrington states he cannot find any
laws supporting the applicant’s position but did cite some laws supporting this position. He states it
is a policy decision and the Conservation Commission’s decision and the law backs the Commission.
Attorney Thomas Alexander states he met with the City Solicitor on this issue and he ruled verbally
that it was his opinion that the Regulations did not apply to this project because of the Charter
Provision, which specifies filing the document with the City Clerk.
A member of the public asks if it is the understanding of the Commission and the Petitioner that at
the completion of the project the Vernal Pool is to remain a viable habitat. Griffin states yes.
Joanne Avallon, 17 Boyles Street asks if the applicant will respect the canopy and vernal pool
species. The canopy is absolutely necessary for the vernal pool species. She refers to the Hawk
Hill Subdivision off Essex Street and expresses concern that if this project is approved there will not
be a tree left standing on the property. The upland habitat and Vernal Pool breeding species will be
nonexistent and the Commission will be substantially responsible for the annihilation of the local
Vernal Pool species at this property.
A member of the public asks what impact the proposed project will have on the recent drainage
improvements in the area. Lang responds that the Public Works Department will review the plan
and will provide comments.
Attorney Tom Harrington asks if the application has been deemed adequate (complete) by the
Commission. Lang responds that it is complete.
Harrington asks if the hearing will be continued pending a site walk. Lang responds that is correct.
Harrington asks if there are any extensions needed. Lang responds that he is certain that the
Commission will get the extensions that they ask for. If forced to vote, the Commission does not
have all the information needed to approve the project.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 14
Harrington states even if the filing is under the Ordinance only, the Commission is still entitled to
protect the Vernal Pool as it sees fit (with a 100 foot No Disturb Zone). He encourages the
Commission to still apply the same level of protection to the Vernal Pool, which clearly is a very
precious resource on site.
Attorney Thomas Alexander states the issue of applicability of the Regulations came up at the time
of filing and the Conservation Administrator, Amy Maxner, contacted the City Solicitor to
determine if it was subject to the Regulations. He states he believes that the City Solicitor verbally
ruled that it was adequate and that the regulations would not apply.
Lang states the point is that the Commission has the Ordinance and it is in effect.
A member of the public requests that the City Solicitor’s opinion be submitted in writing.
Joan Johnson, 367 Hale Street asks if there is a DEP number for the application. Maxner responds
there is no DEP number yet.
Lang states the Commission may ask for additional information once a site walk has been
conducted.
A member of the public asks a clarifying question regarding the process. Lang responds that is a
very difficult question. The Commission tries to do the best thing for every single application.
Whenever the process is finished, there are many people that are happy and many that are unhappy.
The process is not perfect.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street asks if the project will be one building or many builders. Griffin
responds at this time the proposal is for Manor Homes at Whitehall LLC to be responsible for the
roadway construction and the construction of the five homes and wetland replication area. The
construction of the subsequent lots at this point has not been decided.
A member of the public asks how the Commission knows which drainage calculations are correct.
Lang responds that on complex projects the Commission may elect to hire a consultant.
Lang asks if there are further questions from members of the public. There are none.
Paluzzi moves to continue 2 Boyles Street to September 30, 2003 pending a site visit on Sunday,
September 28, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries
7-0.
Paluzzi requests that the applicant stake out the detention/retention basins and the centerline of the
roads for the site walk.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 15
ORDERS OF CONDITIONS
Off Lee Street, Tanzella ANRAD
Paluzzi moves to approve the delineation of the resource areas as presented on the latest plan which
incorporated CZM’s recommendations, seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion
carries 7-0.
Melvin Avenue – installation of in-ground swimming pool – Doherty
Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions:
·
Standard conditions.
·
Applicant shall use silt fence along the edge of the property to catch debris.
·
No draining of the pool at the end of season within 2 weeks of chlorination.
·
Backwash to be directed to drywell.
Seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
35R Prince Street – replace existing water service with new service – Ward
Johnson moves to issue the following conditions:
·
Standard conditions.
Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Cont: 495 Cabot Street – DEP File #5-759 – Correspondence from Stevan Goldin
Maxner explains the Commission received a letter from Stevan Goldin requesting that the
Commission issue a Cease and Desist for unauthorized activity at 495 Cabot Street.
Attorney Thomas Alexander, representative for the owners of the property states this matter is
under the DEP’s jurisdiction and is currently before an adjudicatory hearing. He states dirt was
mistakenly dumped but later removed upon the request of the Commission. He states that the only
activity on site was the placement of hay bales so that there is no siltation going into the wetlands
while the dirt was being removed.
Lang states that the Commission should follow up with the DEP to find out if the Commission has
any obligation to act in this situation. Maxner agrees to contact the DEP to find determine this.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 16
5 Elm Top Lane – replanting plan – Elm Top Realty Trust
Maxner explains the applicant has submitted a replanting plan for 5 Elm Top Lane. She explains
that she, City Arborist Phil Klimowicz, Michael Hubbard and Michael Wasser visited the site on
August 14, 2003. Klimowicz made the following recommendations for restoration of the area:
·
At least ¾’s of the total caliper in inches that were taken should be replaced by new
plantings (i.e. if 1,000 inches were cut, then 750 inches should be replaced);
·
Vine management should be considered to protect existing and newly planted trees from
Bittersweet invasion;
·
During excavation and planting, work involving heavy machinery should be limited to 20
feet beyond the crown drip edge of the large existing trees to protect their root system;
·
The large oak located along the southeasterly property line is stable and the old wound
found on the backside is healing and sufficiently supports the tree.
Michael Wasser provides an overview of the Replanting Plan. He states the applicant has increased
the number of trees at the coastal bank and shrub plantings and perennial flowers in addition to the
seed mix that was initially planted to establish growth on the bank. The total caliper inches of trees
removed from the site equals 81.5 inches. The total caliper inches of new replacement trees will be
86.5 inches. There will be some grass planting.
The applicant is planning to remove a diseased oak tree and all of the invasives, including the
bittersweet vines.
Wasser provides an overview of the Maintenance Plan.
There is discussion about the proposal to mow and clip the coastal bank twice a year. Dr. Johnson
states the Coastal Bank is a special area and the less disturbed the better for the beach and the bank
itself, and would propose to prohibit mowing on the Coastal Bank.
Maxner asks about some of the tree species. In particular, River Birch, Pin Oak and some other
tree species. She states they are generally found in wetter soils and is not sure if they will survive in
an upland habitat. Wasser responds that they should do fine.
Duff moves to accept the Landscaping Plan submitted to the Beverly Conservation on August 28,
2003 as amended to prohibit mowing of the Coastal Bank, seconded by Goodenough. Paluzzi
opposed. Motion carries 6-1.
There is discussion regarding lifting the Enforcement Order.
Hubbard states if they can’t do work because of the appeal, why not lift the Cease and Desist. Lang
responds there is a lack of faith in the applicant’s ability to follow the rules.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 17
Attorney Alexander states the Cease and Desist was to take care of the bank and the plan has been
approved. He states it is in everybody’s interest to get this moving as soon as possible.
Lang states there should be no work until the DEP issues a Superceding Order. However it is in the
Commission’s best interest to try to rekindle the coastal bank and unless it is growing season, that
cannot be done until next season.
After further discussion, Lang asks if there is a motion to lift the existing Enforcement Order.
There is no such motion.
Cont: Tall Tree Drive – DEP File #5-760 – Thomas Carnevale
Attorney Thomas Alexander states this project was before the Conservation Commission and was
denied. A Superceding Order of Conditions was issued by the DEP and then appealed by the
Commission as well as a group of citizens. At the Pre-hearing Conference, there was agreement on
locating the house on the westerly side of the river on the upland side. Recently, it was discovered
that there is sewer easement running through the middle of the proposed house on the westerly
portion of the lot. Alexander states that the only option is to locate the house at its original
location.
Alexander states there are two options. The parties can agree and submit a Settlement Agreement
to DEP or go to trial on this.
Lang states that these options are not attractive, and suggests a third option. Lang states that there
is a significant amount of upland on the east bank, and recommends that the house be repositioned
and redesigned to better fit that side of the lot. He thinks the applicant will need setback waivers
from the ZBA.
Alexander states he has been before the ZBA and the Commission opposed it. Lang responds that
was only because other options were not considered at that time. If there are no other options, the
applicant might have a right for relief from the ZBA.
Maxner states the bottom line for this lot is that a house can be built there and if the ZBA option
doesn’t work out, that is when the Commission would need to think about what Conditions would
like to attach to construction of the house.
Alexander states the applicant would be willing to look at the option. He asks if the Commission
would support the applicant if he applied for a waiver from the ZBA.
Lang states he can’t speak for the Commission but he did speak against the project during the first
ZBA hearing, but that he would be willing to support a revised plan that results in less impact.
Members of the Commission agree this would be a more acceptable approach and encourages the
applicant to seek relief from the ZBA.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 18
New: 6 Chanticleer Drive – Kline
th
Maxner states she received a call on August 19 about unauthorized cutting of trees and alteration
of a drainage swale in the Buffer Zone at 6 Chanticleer Drive. Maxner conducted a site visit and
observed 4-5 trees cut in the Buffer Zone and portions of the swale being filled in with loam, a
portion of which is within the Buffer Zone. Maxner sent a letter to the Klines explaining the
jurisdiction of the Commission and the Settlement Plan for the subdivision showing the drainage
swale and no-cut zone.
th
Doug Kline states he started some landscaping in his backyard on August 18 and a neighbor called
th
Maxner regarding the work. Maxner came out on August 19 and sent a letter regarding the work
st
being done at the site. Kline sent a response letter dated September 1 with a list of materials
proposed by the landscaper. Since that time, he has developed a drawing and a revised list of
plantings.
Lang asks the proximity of Chubbs Brook to the house. Kline responds approximately 200 feet.
Lang recommends that the Klines file a Request for Determination of Applicability and the
Commission can revisit this at a subsequent meeting.
Maxner states the issue that the neighbor had was the drainage swale and that it is part of a
Settlement Agreement for the subdivision and may be separate from the Conservation
Commission’s jurisdiction. Kline responds he does not believe the Commission does not have
jurisdiction above the ditch.
Maxner states the RDA will address all activities in the Buffer Zone and that she will provide Mr.
Kline with all of the necessary application materials.
New: Enforcement Order – 431 Hale Street – Landmark School
th
Maxner explains that she received a phone call on August 26 about unauthorized cutting of trees
on the Coastal Bank at 431 Hale Street. Maxner conducted a site visit and observed 10-12 large
trees cut on the Coastal Bank and Buffer Zone. Maxner spoke with David Seiter, Director of
Facilities for Landmark and explained that all work needed to stop immediately. In her discussion
with Chairman Lang, an Enforcement Order was issued, which now needs to be ratified by the
Commission. The Landmark School has contacted Michael DeRosa to assist in resolving the
situation.
Paluzzi moves to ratify the Enforcement Order issued for 431 Hale Street, the Landmark School,
seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
Michael DeRosa states the Landmark School has hired him to prepare a restoration plan. He goes
on to explain that the school has a major function at that site this week and requests permission to
remove the cut trees and brush.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 19
Johnson moves to allow the school to remove the cut trees and brush, seconded by Paluzzi. Lang
and Goodenough opposed. Motion carries 5-2.
Maxner recommends scheduling a site visit. A site visit is scheduled for Sunday, September 28,
2003 at approximately 11:00 a.m.
New: Request for Modification to DEP File #5-741 – 17 Boyles Street – Avallon
Maxner explains that the existing Order governs the construction of an addition and a deck in
Riverfront Area and Buffer Zone to BVW.
Maxner explains that Ms. Avallon is proposing to reconfigure the driveway, add a front walkway
and perform grading and landscaping, which includes removing one 16-inch Oak near the southwest
corner of the house, and other site improvements. These proposed changes to the plan are located
within the outer limits of the Riverfront Area.
Joanne Avallon states she is proposing to move the driveway, pull out some tar, put down pavers
and replace a portion of lawn with perennials. She states that she wants to get rid of a lot of the
lawn and plant perennials, native plants, meadow grass, etc. She hopes to be able to afford the cost
of pavers and if she can it will result in less impervious surface than existing conditions. She is
proposing to remove one Oak tree.
Paluzzi moves to approve the Request for Modification to DEP File #5-741 for 17 Boyles Street,
seconded by Duff. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
New: Request for Modification to DEP File #5-790 – 65 Cross Lane - Martin Greenstein
Maxner explains that the Commission has received a letter from Martin Greenstein, 65 Cross Lane
requesting a modification to the existing Order that governs the construction of an addition to his
house in Riverfront Area.
Mr. Greenstein provides an overview of the proposed modification, which involves the raising of
the grade of his side yard along his driveway up to the level of the stone retaining wall.
Dr. Johnson moves to approve the Request for Modification to DEP File #5-790 for 65 Cross Lane,
seconded by Paluzzi. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
Correspondence from Charles Harris, 9 Ober Street
Maxner reads a letter to the Commission from Charles Charles Harris of 9 Ober Street requesting
permission to trim back branches overhanging his swimming pool. Maxner hands out photographs
provided by Mr. Harris for members to review.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Page 20
Maxner states there was substantial cutting of some of the trees on the Coastal Bank at this
property during the month of August, which was brought to her attention by Robert Hubbard who
owns the property next door. Manxer explained that Mrs. Harris did not allow her to take any
photographs of the cut vegetation. She states the tops of trees were trimmed for their view, and it
was more than 90% of the trees’ crown and she is not sure that would be considered pruning as
defined in the State Regulations. Maxner states that Mr. Harris explained to her that they do this
cutting every year.
Lang expresses concern that the Commission is getting involved with a neighborhood dispute.
A site visit is scheduled for Saturday, September 27, 2003 at 8:00 a.m.
The members agree that the Commission must be consistent with this particular type of situation,
and will revisit this at a later date to possibly develop a policy.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Paluzzi moves to accept the minutes dated May 13, 2003 as amended, seconded by Goodenough.
All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
Duff moves to accept the minutes dated June 3, 2003 as amended, seconded by Hayes. All
members are in favor. Paluzzi abstains. Motion carries 6-0.
Paluzzi moves to accept the minutes dated June 17, 2003, seconded by Goodenough. Duff
abstains. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Paluzzi moves to accept the minutes dated June 24, 2003, seconded by Duff. Goodenough and
Lang abstain. All members are in favor. Motion carries 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Paluzzi moves to adjourn, seconded by Dr. Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 11:30 p.m.