Loading...
2003-02-26 City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board: Conservation Commission Subcommittee: Date: February 26, 2003 Place: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street Board members present: ChairmanDavid Lang, Linda Goodenough, Anthony Paluzzi, William Squibb (arrived 7:10), Eileen Duff (arrived 7:20) Board members absent: Dr. Mayo Johnson Others present: Amy Ellert-Maxner, Environmental Planner Recorder: Amy Ellert-Maxner (Tape) Chairman Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. (Squibb arrives). Request for Determination of Applicability New: 287-289 Hale Street – installation of three HVAC units – Endicott College Maxner reads the legal notice. Bill Vitkosky, project manager for Endicott College, gives a general overview of the renovations occurring on the South Campus with timelines for the different activities to occur. Joe Orzel, Gulf of Maine Research Center, representative for the applicant, presents the RDA for the chiller units. He reviews the delineation of wetlands, which he prepared last year and the location of the chiller units in relation to the resource areas. Units will be located on 14 x 7 foot concrete pads and there will be no further disturbance to the buffer zone. Lang asks what sort of chemicals do the units have enclosed and what maintenance is performed? Vitkosky responds freon and chilled water which contains a 25% glycol content. Lang asked if the units bleed as other air conditioning units do. Vitkosky responds there is no condensation, it dissipates or evaporates into the atmosphere. (Duff arrives at 7:20 p.m.) Lang asks if a secondary containment could be placed around these units or if a lip could be added to the concrete? Vitkosky responds a lip would retain rainwater and create a catch-22 situation, as the glycol would go down a drain. Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 2 Paluzzi asks how much excavation would be required. Vitkosky responds there will be minor excavation. No trees will be removed. Maxner asks if any heavy machinery will be used to access behind Bierkoe Hall. Vitkosky responds a backhoe will be used to excavate one foot deep and will access the area via a paved way behind Bierkoe Hall and that the limits of work will be demarcated. Paluzzi asked what kind of tires it would have and if there would be any trees removed. Vitkosky responds the backhoe would have rubber tires and no trees will be removed. Lang asks if there are any additional questions from the Commission. There are none. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, expresses concerns that Conservation Commission should conduct a site walk, that there are resource areas and wildlife habitat, and that the MEPA office in the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs should be notified of the project or all of the projects that the College is conducting. Vitkosky states that he is not aware of any MEPA thresholds being triggered by these projects. Lang responds that the Commission is very familiar with this site and no site visit will be scheduled, but other Commission members are welcome to observe the site on their own if they wish. Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative 3 Determination. Lang moves to amend the motion and requests that the applicant submit Material Safety Data Sheets for the chemicals being used in the chillers to make sure they are non-toxic. Seconded by Goodenough. Squibb abstains. Motion carries (5-1). New: 287-289 Hale Street - Landscaping and parking - Endicott College Maxner reads the legal notice. Jeff Toma explains the plan for the fields in front of Bierkoe Hall to be converted to parking, pedestrian walkways and landscaping. He states that most of the work is out of the buffer zone, and that there is a relatively small increase in impervious area in the buffer zone by a bout 1600 square feet. He states that some of the utility work will fall within the buffer zone. He explains that the on-site infiltration drainage system is designed for a 100-year flood, which consists of catch basins and perforated concrete pipes set into trenches, which will allow for maximum percolation. Squibb asks if there is a maintenance plan for cleaning out the catch basins. Toma explains that sump pumps will be installed, as well as periodic street sweeping. Lang asks how grease and oils will be treated. Toma explains that there will be hoods placed over the catch basins to filter out these contaminants. Paluzzi asks if there is a maintenance plan for cleaning out the sump pumps. Toma responds that they will be periodically cleaned, but that a specific plan has not yet been developed. Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 3 Squibb asks if the roof drains will be piped into the drainage system. Toma responds yes, roof drains are connected. Duff asks for clarification regarding the designs of the concrete pipes. Toma explains that the trenches are 3 to 4 feet deep and about 2 feet wide, with washed crushed gravel covered with a mesh and topped off with soil. Squibb asks if percolation rates were tested for the existing soils. Toma states that percolation rates will be tested in the spring. Lang asks if the drainage calculations were based on sand and gravel substrate. Toma responds yes. Lang asks what they would do if they encountered glacial till. Toma responds that the system will be made larger. Lang reminds the applicant that if any changes are made to the system that further disturb the buffer zone, they would have to appear before the Commission again. Lang asks if there are any questions from the audience. Charles Harris, 9 Ober Street, asks what the acreage is of the project site. Toma states that there are approximately 4 and ¼ acres that are involved in this project. Toma explains the planting and landscaping plan, which included various perennial ground cover, tree and shrub species. Joan Murphy, 36 Longmeadow Road, asks what would happen if a large storm occurred while there was spring melt and saturated soil. Toma responded that planning for the 100-year storm is the best design they could achieve. Tony Musante, 12 Willow Street, asks where the source of water will come from for the fountain at the center of the landscaped area. Toma states that the source of the water has not yet been determined, but made assurances that whatever water is used, it will be recycled. Musante also questions who or what board is looking at the increase in water usage and outflow of sewage. Vitkosky responds that less water will be used and sewage produced by this function of the buildings than would be if the buildings were used as dormitories for a large number of students. Lang states that the Salem Beverly Water Supply Board would be the authority to examine this issue, although he agrees that the city’s water source is stressed and new development needs to take that into conseration. Lang asks if there are any more questions from the Commission. There are none. Lang asks if there are any more questions for the audience. There are none. Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 4 Duff motions to issue a Negative 3 Determination, Paluzzi moves to amend the motion with the condition that a 6-month maintenance plan for cleaning the sump pumps shall be submitted to the Commission as soon as they are available, Squibb moves to further amend the motion to include two additional conditions, the first requiring the applicant to appear before the Commission if any changes to the plan are made and the second requiring the applicant to submit the results of soil percolation tests. Goodenough seconds. All members in favor. Motion carries (5-0). Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearing. Goodenough seconds. All in favor. Motion carries (5-0). Continued: Notice of Intent 5 Elm Top Lane – Elm Top Realty Trust, Robert & Michael Hubbard Tom Alexander, counsel for the applicant, addresses the Commission and asks if the Notice of Intent and the Replanting Plan could be heard together. Lang responds that would be fine. Joe Orzel, wetland consultant for the applicant, reviews the resource areas present at the site. He also responds to comments made by Rebecca Haney, coastal geologist with Coastal Zone Management, and explains his rational in delineating the coastal bank. Orzel contends that the small flat shelf encountered approximately half way up the hill constitutes the top of coastal bank, and that the regulations only say that the top of coastal bank is “…is at the point where the slope becomes less than 4:1.” He goes on to reiterate the points he made in his rebuttal letter dated January 22, 2003 responding to Coastal Zone Management Coastal Geologist’s, Rebecca Haney, comments. Orzel states that based on the long term shoreline change maps that are not site specific for this property, which show minor erosion in recent years, this coastal bank is not a sediment source and therefore does not qualify as an eroding coastal bank. He also states that the presence of rocky shore and ledge, which is exposed to wave action, has little to provide in the way of sediment. Lang asks Orzel if he measured the slope in the field with instrumentation. Orzel responds yes and the break in slope that he encountered does not show up on the USGS topographic map. Lang asks Orzel if he took into account the entire slope, which becomes steeper than 4:1 above the top of bank as depicted on the plan into his delineation. Orzel responds yes, and that the regulations do not specify how wide the break in slope has to be in order to determine where the top of bank lies. Maxner asks why the contour intervals were not kept consistent on the plan. Orzel states that the area is very steep and the surveyor just decided to show that area in five-foot contours. Lang states that it is deceiving and somewhat confusing when intervals are not consistent. Orzel agrees. Lang states that there is clear disagreement regarding the accuracy of the coastal bank and thinks it prudent to schedule a site visit so that members can become more familiar with the site. Members scheduled a site inspection for Saturday March 8, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 5 Orzel continues to explain the re-planting plan, and states that he divided the buffer zone into an upper and lower sections based on the location of the retaining wall. He then explains the details of the Buffer Zone Planting Plan that he submitted dated February 20, 2003. Maxner passes out to the members the re-planting plan that she received yesterday. She also passes around to the members photographs taken by abutter Walter Reilly Lang asks if there are any questions from any other interested parties. Robert McKan, attorney for the abutters, states that there have been some preliminary discussions between the applicant and the abutters but no agreement has been reached. He states that the Commission should carefully consider the following issues: 1. The clear cutting in the buffer zone and resource was a violation, and asked how the Commission is going to address this destruction of vegetation. 2. He states that there is a preliminary minor subdivision plan that was before the Planning Board that the Commission should be aware of in order to see the development as a whole instead of piecemeal. He suggests that the applicant should submit a Notice of Intent for the entire project on the entire lot. 3. He states that there are serious drainage issues that the neighbors are extremely concerned about, and that the Commission should be allowed to consider and provide input regarding this issue. 4. He explains that drastic grading is proposed that would remove up to 6 feet in elevation. 5. He stated that the abutters would like to request more time to engage in discussions with the applicant before the Commission makes a decision. 6. He suggests that no more work be allowed on the site until the Commission makes a decision and votes on an Order of Conditions. Rich Albano with Hancock Associates, wetland consultant for the abutters, states that the preliminary minor subdivision plan before the Planning Board depicts a different delineation than what is before the Commission. He explains that the plan does not address drainage, or how point source discharge will be treated. He questions where the drainage will be directed, whether toward Elm Top Lane or toward the resource area and the ocean. He explains that the coastal bank delineation does not meet the DEP 4:1 test, and contends that the slope continues to be steeper than 4:1 above the proposed location of the top of coastal bank. He suggests that the Commission request a cross section of the bank with at least 4 transects so that members can clearly visualize the slope. He comments that the planting plan is sufficient if the area in question is indeed buffer zone, but if it is deemed resource area it is not acceptable. Charles Harris, 9 Ober Street, states that his neighbor John Avallon, 7 Ober Street, is not able to be here, and would like to be on the record expressing both of their dismay regarding the clear cutting of the resource area. He also states that the applicant cut down a tree located on his property even after his wife requested for that tree to remain untouched, and this is now going through litigation. He goes on to state that the work he did at his property required him to follow Conservation Commission procedure, but that the applicant had no regard or respect for the law or this board and ignored proper procedure. Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 6 Walter Reily asks to read from the last paragraph from his letter dated February 25, 2003, which explains the neighbors’ concerns. McKan suggests that the Commission invite Rebecca Haney to attend the site inspection, as she would be a valuable resource for the Commission. He also suggests if Ms. Haney is not available, Yan Smith who is on the Marblehead Conservation Commission may be available to attend, and states that Mr. Smith is also very knowledgeable and may provide useful information. Lang explains that the Commission shares the concerns of the neighbors, and is dismayed by the unauthorized activity on this property. He explains that the Commission wants to make sure that no further activity takes place until it is fully satisfied with the delineation of the coastal bank as well as the planting plan. Paluzzi motions to issue a cease and desist order, prohibiting any further activity in the resource area or its associated buffer zone. Seconded by Duff. All members in favor. Motion carries (5-0). Paluzzi motions to continue the hearing until the next scheduled meeting. Seconded by Goodenough. All members in favor. Motion carries (5-0). Vitale Site Discussion with New England Power Company Lang states that the next item on the agenda is discussion of the Vitale Site. He suggests that the representatives from New England Power present what is involved in order to remediate the site for playing fields. Elizabeth Greene and Michael Lotti Environmental Engineers from New England Power Company (NEPCO) introduce themselves. Lotti explains that no plan is yet approved for the final cap design. He explains that DEP has not yet determined which set of regulations it will apply to the capping and maintenance of the site. He states that feedback from the city would be helpful in this process. Lotti went to explain that proposing to place buildings on this site would be expensive and difficult due to the fact that the fly ash was not evenly spread throughout the site, rather it was just dumped in large pits which provide many geo-technical challenges. Lotti explains that ball fields and active recreation activities would be a much more suitable and less expensive use, but would have to pass DEP approval. Lang asks if NEPCO is required to file an Activity Use (L..Something?) with the completion of the capping. Lotti states that although it is not required, an AUL will ultimately be filed. Goodenough states that she was hoping that NEPCO was going to give the same presentation and discussion as was given to the City Council a couple of weeks ago, as well as addressing the rumors of placing the Cailin Road fly ash onto the Vitale Site. She also stated that the idea of the city accepting Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 7 additional fly ash from private property should be further discussed, and if that were to occur, the city should receive some compensation for it. Greene states that Joe Kwasnik made the presentation to the Council, and NEPCO is not going to extinguish its responsibility for the fly ash regardless of whether it is on private or public property. Duff asks if there is more fly ash to be brought back to the Vitale Site from other parts of the city. Greene states that the only fly ash that will be placed back onto the Vitale Site is that which has sloughed off into the Airport Brook, Wenham Lake and Cailin Road. Duff asks if fly ash is considered a contaminant. Greene states no, not under the DEP definition. Lang asks if there are any comments from the public. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, asks where this definition can be found. Lotti states that it can be found under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310 CMR 42. Lang asks about distribution of the fly ash over the site, and if there are areas where buildings could be constructed. Lotti states that, yes there is probably some areas could be built upon. Squibb asks who determined that the fly ash on the Cailin property actually came from the Vitale Site. Greene responds that the consultants from Haley & Aldrich made that determination. She also explains the topography and hydrology of the area that would lend to the migration of material toward the Cailin property. Squibb asks if the Cailin property was also a dumping site for Vitale and how much would be coming off of that property. Lotti states there was some dumping but most of the material eroded from the Vitale Site. He states that about 20,000 cubic yards would be coming from that area. Lotti explains that wetland restoration and stabilization is part of the remediation of the Vitale Site. Mr. Lang asks if there are other questions. Pat Grimes, 26 Old Town Road, asks if this meeting is about lifting the conservation restriction on the Vitale site without knowing what is going on that property. Lang responds that the Conservation Commission has been asked by the Open Space and Recreation Committee Chairman to determine whether it wants ball fields as an allowed use or other recreational use on the Vitale Site, basically the same question it had a year or two ago. Now that there is a plan in place to do something with the Vitale Site, it has been asked again if it wants to incorporate ball fields on that area as it would be needed to be incorporated in the plans; or if it wants to keep it as conservation land, then that is the direction it needs to give. Grimes asks if the Open Space Committee is asking to lift the restriction for the ball field. Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 8 Mr. Paluzzi responds that he believes the Commission can issue an easement to the Parks and Recreation to put in ball fields on the site. Grimes states her concerns regarding risks as far as exposure playing on the open fields. Lotti responds that no risk is involved if a sufficient soil cover system is in place and maintained. Grimes asks about the Wenham Lake Water supply. Greene responds that Wenham Lake it is a separate issue. The landfill cover system does play a part in that it does reduce the amount of water that percolates through to fly ash, but would not affect Wenham Lake if the property is used as ball fields or walking trails or buildings if the City wants to put something there. She adds that it would be helpful to know for both NEPCO and the City to have an idea what the City wants. Toni Musante, 12 Willow Street, states the Cailin Road property was part of the Vitale Site, which was separated back in the 80’s and it was bought with the knowledge that contamination was there. She asks why not, if the wetland areas are to be restored, move the fly ash to another portion of Cailin Road and compact it. Why does it have to all go on City property? Also, she states that it will change the elevation of the site to make it much higher, and this is an issue related to the lake. She adds that there is failure to talk about ground water movement down the lake, and there is no safe way to put fly ash there and there needs to be a liner underneath and not just take it and dump it raw and compact it. She states she does not want her kids playing there and would like to see efforts towards putting fields over at the landfill. She also asks why is the Conservation Commission giving up land. Dave Gardner, Chairman, Open Space and Recreation Committee, states the reason the Committee got started on this before the Conservation Commission was that the Mayor asked him to come before the Commission to see if they would approve of active recreation on the site. Gardner asks if it would be appropriate to have people decide all the questions they want answered from NEPCO and the Mayor and then have a meeting with Open Space Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, Conservation Commission and other boards, or at least the chair of those boards and come up with a course of action. Lang responds that’s the purpose of public meetings and that ultimately he thinks some money will have to be spent to do a risk assessment as there are still uncertainties that need to be addressed, as Toni said no one wants to put their children at risk. Lang asks what kind of liner would be used. Lotti responds that that has not yet been decided, as they have not finished the study yet. Goodenough states that the Commission should hear from the Solicitor Gilmore about this issue. Lang responds the Commission can notify the Solicitor, he probably is aware of this issue already. Frank Killilea, City Engineer, and representative of the Salem Beverly Water Supply Board (SBWSB), responds for the SBWSB. Their position is that it is too premature to talk about the finalized plans on the Vitale Site. At meetings on October 17 and 29, SBWSB gave their approval to NEPCO of the Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 9 concept to be submitted to DEP and EPA and listed several conditions of that approval. DEP is still going over this concept plan and it is still not finalized. Killilea states the questions being asked are asking now about the final plan – they still don’t have the final plan. It is the Water Board’s position right now that it is too early to comment until NEPCO comes out with more plans and the approval and position of the DEP and the EPA. In his position as City Engineer, Killilea referred to the meeting held before the City Council in which he informed them about the plot of land owned by the City of Beverly, known as Parcel B, west of the Vitale Site containing fly ash which was dumped there. He states that Haley and Aldrich has said they had no intention of moving it, and that if the City wants the ability to use that property, the fly ash would have to be removed and put on the Vitale site. He adds that once Airport Brook is relocated, the site could be filled and become a usable piece of property. Lang asks about the idea of ball fields and what the SBWSB’s position is. Killilea responds that at this point the Water Board is not making any decision about the ball fields until they know what the potential elevation of the site. He states that it could be two feet high or ten feet high. Art Sullivan, Acting Recreation Director, states though there are a lot of issues surrounding this site, that the fundamental question being asked is, are ball fields or playing fields options the Conservation Commission wants to pursue. At some point the Commission needs to decide if this is a use it foresees for this property subject to all regulations or something it is not going to allow on Conservation Commission property. Lang states some of the members of the board are more in favor than others. He states that the Commission just wants to get as much information as it can, and is not going to rush into this within the next year or two. Parker Harrison, 4 Rezza Road, asks if the site is deemed unsafe and unusable, would the Commission place a fence around it perimeter? Lang states that it could be a possibility. Lang states that if the fly ash comes under the category of Solid Waste it would have to be capped under very strict procedures and there is not much flexibility in that process. He adds that if it is kept to a 3% minimum flow, then it is going to make ball fields more difficult and expensive. Pat Grimes states that there seems to be a lot of decisions to be made and she is trying to understand what the rush is about deciding about ball fields. She feels it is premature to make a decision now. Dave Gardner, states his concern is that it be graded now for playing fields regardless of the ultimate use. He adds that if it is decided later to go back and grade for playing fields, it would be difficult. He states that if it is not to be used for playing fields, then that’s the way it goes. Lang asks Lotti if he has talked to DEP about grading plans and using the site for playing fields. Lotti responds they are trying to establish first which regulations they will use to design the cover. Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 10 Lang asks if NEPCO follows the solid waste regulations and they establish a three percent grade, and the ball fields need a flat slope, would they be willing to put topsoil on to make a flat slope, or would they leave it at a three percent grade with the two feet of topsoil on top of the liner. Lotti states that there would probably be about 18 inches of topsoil on top of the liner and the grade can be made to fit the final use, provided the DEP provides its parameters for remediation. Gardner states his belief that the ultimate question being raised is will the Commission agree that active recreation is an appropriate use for the site, which depends on the grade. Joan Murphy, 36 Longmeadow Road, asks if there is a liner made that is impervious to puncture. Lotti responds yes it can. Ron Ranta, 18 Wedgemere Road, states that fields are in very short supply in Beverly. He states that though it is premature, the benefit of making the decision of the ultimate goal is that it would increase the scrutiny of cleaning up that site. He adds that if the city is going to expose our children to the site, we better make sure it is safe. He states that it would provide a standard by which to measure how everything is done and make assessments easier knowing we have an ultimate goal in mind. Pam Kampersal, 241 Dodge Street, thanks NEPCO for taking responsibility for the fly ash. She responds to Mr. Ranta, saying there is no end result for this project yet as no decision can be made until all assessments are completed. She states that it was all one big Vitale dump at one point. She states the other things to be considered are the other contaminants at the site. She states that there is a layer of fly ash, a layer of car parts, and a layer 55-gallon drums, and the contents of some of those drums are unknown. She states that these things have to be looked at before it can be decided what can be done at that site. Kampersal offers a copy of the list of items on the site to those interested. Bruce Doig, Chairman Parks & Recreation Commission, states this process is an opportunity to provide a vision, which could help decide on the different types of uses depending on the type remediation. He states that if we set a vision, we can begin to address it. Nathan Zoll, resident of Ward 4, states he is a concerned citizen trying to deal with this for over two decades. He states there seems to be a consensus that lining the pit and capping it after bringing the fly ash back from where it migrated from is perhaps one solution and perhaps an acceptable solution, but to put that poison back in the pit it came from is just delaying something that is going to happen in future generations. He states that regardless of the quality of the lining and cap, he thinks the hydrology of the area just sets it up to eventually migrate back again, and future generations and Beverly will be having the same discussions we are doing today. He suggests it be considered to ask NEPCO to take the fly ash out and put it back where it came from. He adds that it may only require one maritime transport by cargo ship. Paul Gates, 40 Butman Streeet, asks what fly ash is, and what the other chemicals that have been dumped at Vitale. Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 11 Lang responds that it is a byproduct of burning coal. He goes on to say that as long as you have a liner at three percent, you can put topsoil over the top to make it flat. The other chemicals in the ground are primarily arsenic which is in the groundwater and this issue is being dealt with under one of the hazardous waste programs. He states the fly ash was exempted from the hazardous waste regulations because it is allegedly inert, and the issue is of dermal contact. He states that there is uncertainty as to risk and perceived risks, and does not think it is going to be resolved tonight. He states that there are issues about what materials are coming onto Conservation land, but does not think it should affect the Commission’s decision about the ball fields. Duff states that there should be more tests performed on the site to determine what is exactly there. Lang states there are volumes of test results, and thinks that issue has been resolved. He states that as far as what the Commission wants to do with the land, he thinks there should be foreclosure of what the DEP plan is going to be, which is going to take another year. The type of cap is unknown, and if we decide we want to go with ball fields then that would have to be factored into this cap. He states that at the next Conservation Commission meeting a vote will most likely be taken. There is a question from the public asking if the EPA or DEP requires that the site be monitored for a period of time after the remediation is complete. Lang responds yes, there will be monitoring. Lotti states that as long as the cap is properly maintained, there should be no risk or children playing on the fields. Lotti states that NEPCO is negotiating with DEP at this time, and intends to put this project out to bid for construction late spring or early summer or fall. Pam Kamperal, states there are two sides to the issue, and what is really good for Beverly’s future should be closely examined. Mary Rodrick, 14 Peabody Avenue, states she has one concern. She agrees that there is need for more playing fields but is concerned about the watershed and the water supply and the fact that playing fields will require fertilizer, hopefully not pesticides, but a lot of those issues are really important to the water supply. She states that there are two other toxic sites upgradient of this site that we are not even looking at right now, and what is going to happen with those materials, some of which may be migrating to the Vitale Site. She asks if there is going to be an impervious layer and will it protect groundwater. She asks if there is a parking lot planned and what affect will it have on groundwater. She states that the Commission is being asked to try to look into a crystal ball to figure out what is going to happen in the next three or four years when this is done. She states that this is a premature discussion. 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. Chairman Lang closes the discussion to return to the regularly scheduled meeting. Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 12 Old/New Business Emergency Certification – Beverly Public Services Department Maxner explains that the Public Services Department is requesting an emergency certification for work in the buffer zone to a perennial stream at the South Campus of Endicott College. The pump station’s electrical parts are failing on a fairly frequent basis, and when they do, the pump overflows effluent into the brook. The Department is proposing to pour a 3’ x 6’ concrete pad upon which a new electrical cabinet will sit. Paluzzi moves to issue an emergency certification for the described work. Seconded by Goodenough. All members in favor. Motion passes (5-0). Miles River Task Force Maxner explained that she was not available to attend the meetings of the Miles River Task Force, as her schedule is already very busy. Members agreed to think about whom among them would like to volunteer their time to this Task Force. 30 Longmeadow Road – Anthony Lavita Maxner refers to the letter from Mr. Lavita included in members’ packets. Mr. Lavita’s letter attempts to explain the construction of the shed and deck in the back of his yard. Members thought it more appropriate for Mr. Lavita to appear before the Commission in order to answer questions. Maxner agreed to contact Mr. Lavita requesting his attendance at the next meeting. Regulations Maxner asks that members furnish her with their comments and changes to the draft regulations so that she will have a revised copy for the City Solicitor to review as well as the public. Members agree to supply Maxner with their changes. Lang asks if a public hearing should be scheduled. Members schedule a tentative public hearing for April 3, 2003. Tall Tree Drive Appeal – Revised Plan Maxner refers to the revised plan that depicts the house on the west side of the stream and a stockade fence running along the edge of the brook. She states that a vote by the Commission to accept or reject the plan would be the next step in this appeal process. Members agree that the proposed fence should be installed at least 2 feet from the edge of the bank. Paluzzi suggests that there should be some sort of deed notation that specifies that the wetland areas are to remain intact and in their natural state, members agree. Beverly Conservation Commission February 26, 2003 Meeting 13 Paluzzi makes a motion to approve the plan, with the conditions that the fence is installed at least 2 feet from the edge of the brook, and a deed notation is made requiring the wetlands to remain untouched and in their natural state. Seconded by Goodenough. All members in favor. Motion carries (5-0). Maxner states that she will write a letter to the applicant informing him of the Commission’s vote. Algonquin – Beach Testing Maxner states that Algonquin has provided the results from testing conducted along Dane, Neptune and West Beaches, and asks Chairman Lang to explain the results. Lang explains that there were low levels of metals found, and a low concentration of an uncommon PCB was found at Neptune Beach. He suggested to John Bonsal, attorney for Algonquin, that Neptune be retested. Retesting will be performed sometime next week and a quick turn around of the results were promised. Adjournment Paluzzi makes a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Duff. All members in favor. Motion carries (5-0).