Loading...
2004-02-24 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Conservation Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: February 24, 2004 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Lang (Chairman), Tony Paluzzi (Vice Chairman), Linda Goodenough, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Eileen Duff, William Squibb BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ian Hayes OTHERS PRESENT: Amy Maxner, Conservation Agent RECORDER: Jeannine Dion (by tape) Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Certificate of Compliance 56 River Street, DEP File #5-763 – Thomas Carnevale Maxner explains that the applicant, Thomas Carnevale, has submitted a Request for Certificate of Compliance for a proposed 2,802 square foot commercial storage building within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and the outer limits of the Riverfront Area to Bass River. She states that she visited the site with Mr. Carnevale and the building has been built to the specifications of the approved plan. Mr. Carnevale states that the floor catch basins drain to a 5-foot oil and grease separator that has been cleaned out, but he states that the nature of the businesses housed within the building do not produce much oil or grease, so he does not anticipate the need to clean the separator very frequently. Lang asks if there are any questions from the Commission members. Paluzzi asks what is the square footage of Riverfront Area taken up by the building. Carnevale responds that the building is not within the Riverfront Area, but that only about 195 square feet of the lot itself is within Riverfront. There being no other questions from the Commission members, Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 2 Recess for Public Hearings Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Notice of Intent Cont: 6 Lakeside Avenue – construct addition to single family home – Robert Levin Maxner recalls that a site inspection was conducted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. At that site visit the area was observed and members discussed the slope that would result from the grading for the proposed driveway. Robert Levin, applicant, presents a revised plan that shows the addition of retaining walls along the sides of the proposed gravel driveway. Squibb asks if there will be a pitch to the driveway. Levin responds there will be no pitch and he is keeping the surface as gravel on purpose to allow for infiltration of precipitation. Goodenough is concerned about the wood chips left along the edge of the lake by the DPW. Members agree that Mr. Levin should not be held responsible to clean the chips up since it is not on his property and not left by him. Goodenough suggests that Frank Killilea be contacted regarding this issue. Johnson asks what trees will be taken down for the project. Levin states that the large pine tree will be saved by the maple trees will have to be taken down to make room for the driveway. Johnson states that he would like to see the trees replaced with replacement plantings of native more valuable trees. There being no further questions from the Commission or the public, Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing. Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Cont: 12 Lawnbank Road – construction of addition and other site improvements – Susan & Daniel Martignette Michael Juliano, Meridian Engineering, presents for the applicant and recalls the site visit conducted on Saturday, February 21, 2004. He states that according to DEP Policy 92-1, the Coastal Bank is significant to flood control and storm damage prevention, and believes that it was delineated correctly as per the policy. Lang asks what Juliano considered the first break on slope. Juliano states that the top of the seawall is the first break in slope and therefore qualifies as top of bank. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 3 Lang states that it is clear from the Commission’s experience with Coastal Bank delineations that minor perturbations and manmade structures are to be taken into the bigger picture and that the landform needs to be taken as a whole. He thinks that there may be at least a higher delineation or a second Coastal Bank up gradient to the seawall. Johnson agrees and states that the natural features of the landform need to be looked at carefully and does not recall anywhere in the regulations that seawalls should automatically be considered tops of Coastal Banks. Juliano responds that seawalls are often considered tops of Coastal Banks. Paluzzi asks if Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (i.e. 100-Year Flood Zone) and the Velocity Zone were considered during the delineation. Juliano states that it can be looked at again, and maybe a second opinion could be sought for the delineation, but assuming there is a second Coastal Bank he wonders what other issues the Commission has with this project. Goodenoughstates that the pool is clearly something that should be looked at and believes that its location can be manipulated to come out of the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone. Duff agrees and is concerned about the amount of grading involved with the pool, and would like to see it pulled away from the top of the slope. She states that the proposed plantings on the slope between the lawn and the seawall is very needed as it is eroding. Maxner asks if the “Ancient Highway” is something that the applicant is willing to consider. Mr. Martignetti states that he has no problem with people using the top of the seawall to walk back and forth and access the beach and people use it now. He states that he wants to put in the concrete steps to make beach access less difficult. Juliano asks if the Commission would be opposed to the placement of pre-cast concrete steps leading from the seawall down to the beach. Members see no major concerns with that proposal. Lang reminds the applicant that a Chapter 91 license may be needed for the steps. Lang states that the Commission’s concerns should be further discussed between the applicant and his consultant and a continuance is appropriate. Squibb asks if Rebecca Haney should be asked to look at this plan. Lang states that this is straightforward and Ms. Haney is extremely busy and may not even be able to look at this in a timely manner. Members agree that Ms. Haney may not need to be consulted on this project. There being no more questions from the Commission or the public, Johnson moves to continue the hearing to the March 23, 2004 meeting. Seconded by Paluzzi. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 4 Cont: 2 Boyles Street – DEP File #5-816 – construct roads, site grading, drainage, and utilities for subdivision and construct five single-family homes – Manor Homes at Whitehall Maxner reads a letter from Bob Griffin dated February 23, 2004 requesting that the public hearing be continued to the first meeting in March as a time extension is needed for the City Solicitor to respond to an inquiry from the Commission regarding applicability of its Regulations to the project so that the applicant may develop responses to recent City comments regarding drainage and vernal pool habitat. Maxner states she has forwarded Brian Winmiller’s comments regarding the revised plan to Mr. Griffin. She states she has received comments from Frank Killilea from CDM on the first plan (not the revised plan) and provides copies to members for review. Killilea will be forwarding the revised plans and calculations to CDM immediately. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing regarding 2 Boyles Street, DEP File #5-816 to March 23, 2004. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. New: 8 Hawk Hill Road – construct pool, gazebo and deck – Lawrence Townsend Maxner reads the legal notice. Rich Williams from Hayes Engineering appears on behalf of the applicant and explains that the applicant is proposing to construct an in-ground pool, deck, gazebo and grading within the Buffer Zone to an Isolated Vegetated Wetland (IVW) and Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW). The proposed activity is approximately 30 feet from the IVW at its closest point, and not within the regulatory 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone. He states a Superseding Order of Conditions for the subdivision was issued by the DEP in October of 2001. Maxner states she conducted a site visit and provides pictures of the site. She states the IVW was not under the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction when the subdivision was proposed but now it is. She states that there is room for Buffer Zone enhancement, and maybe the Commission would like to consider requiring the 25-Foot No-Disturbance Zone to be replanted with native species. Dr. Johnson states the site has changed since the Commission has been there last and recommends a site visit. Maxner informs Williams that the Commission will be discussing fees later in the evening and she will contact him if the discussion affects this application. Paluzzi moves to continue this hearing until March 23, 2003 meeting, pending a site visit scheduled for Saturday, March 13, 2004 at 9:15 a.m. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 5 New: Lot 4 – 21 New Balch Street – construction of portion of dwelling and driveway, deck, foundation drain, drywell and grading – Dana Tower, Tower Homes, Inc. Maxner reads the legal notice. Greg Hochmuth, NEVE Associates, appears on behalf of the applicant, Dana Tower, Tower Homes, Inc. He provides an overview of the project and explains the proposal is to construct a single-family home with associated appurtenances in the Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland. No activity is proposed within the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone and a 500-gallon drywell is proposed to collect roof runoff. A portion of the driveway, proposed house, deck and grading are in the Buffer Zone. The lot is going to be vegetated with lawn. Lang recommends a site visit. Lang asks if members of the public have any questions. A resident of 18 Columbia Road expresses concern about drainage. Hochmuth responds that a lot of the roof runoff will be captured in the drywell. Myron Hood, 7 Auburn Road, states he has three pumps working in his cellar during heavy rain and all of the houses in the area have pumps. He expresses concern about inadequate drainage in the area and the misleading legal notice as it describes that portions of the house is within the Buffer Zone. Hood is not in favor of the project. Maxner states the legal ad said “construction of a portion of a dwelling,” which means that only part of the dwelling is going to be in the Buffer Zone. Hochmuth states because this a single-family house lot, the applicant is exempt from storm water management regulations, however, the applicant is planning to install a drywell in an attempt to capture as much roof runoff as possible. A site visit is scheduled to take place on Saturday, March 13, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. The public is welcome to attend the site visit. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing until the March 23, 2004 meeting, pending the site visit scheduled to take place on Saturday, March 13, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. Seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. New: 8 Wentworth Drive – construct in-ground pool and associated deck and shed – Holly and Steven Kalivas Maxner reads the legal notice. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 6 Erin MacGregor from LEC Environmental Consultants and John Dick from Hancock Associates represent the applicants. MacGregor explains the applicant is proposing to construct an in- ground pool, spa, associated patio, shed, grading and plantings within the Buffer Zone and 25- Foot No-Disturb Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. MacGregor provides an overview of the project. · The applicant is looking for the Commission to consider the layout of the lot and the situation of the house within the lot in addition to some proposed mitigation measures. · The applicant is requesting that the Commission grant a variance or a waiver from the performance standards in this situation. · The mitigation measures include: 1) Pervious decking material to be installed, which will encourage rain water to infiltrate directly into the ground instead running into the resource area and 2) Buffer Zone Enhancement Plan: plantings, which will serve as visual and physical barriers between the back yard and the resource area, and improve wildlife habitat. · There is a proposed 6-foot chain link fence, which will enclose the backyard (required by zoning for safety purposes). · The applicant requests a waiver from the performance standard because they believe the Buffer Zone enhancement area will actually improve the part of the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone by converting it from lawn into native shrubs that will provide a demarcation. Lang asks what the distance is from the pool to the BVW. MacGregor responds that it is approximately 12 feet. Lang asks how the demarcation of the wetland was determined. MacGregor responds that it is based on vegetation, the ground was frozen which prohibited soil borings. Lang wonders if the existing lawn may have filled a portion of the BVW and asks if the wetland line would coincide with the original subdivision determination. Dick responds that the line directly overlays with the approved subdivision plan, and believe it is accurately depicted on this proposed plan. Lang states he would like to visit the site. John Dick states there is a 25-Foot No Disturb Zone that consists solely or urban lawn. The applicant is proposing approximately 1,000 square feet of habitat enhancement with native shrubs. That is a 10-foot strip of the 25-foot No Disturb Zone. Phil Johnson, 1 Canterbury Circle, expresses concern that the proposed project will affect the wetland. MacGregor states the pool would not be increasing runoff to the adjacent lots, and the wetland is Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 7 not being directly impacted by the work. Maxner states that she checked with the Zoning Officer, Robert Nelson, and the edge of water of a pool must be 10 feet from the abutting lot lines, but the associated decking or landscaping can be located right along the lot line. She thinks that the pool location could be manipulated to move it farther out of the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone. Maxner reads a letter submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Frederic Garth, 4 Canterbury Circle, expressing concerns about the proposed pool and drainage and safety. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing for this project to the March 23, 2004 meeting, pending a site inspection scheduled for Saturday, March 13, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. Seconded by Duff. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. New: 569 Hale Street – two driveway crossings – Jim Monahan, LandVest Bill Manuell, Wetlands & Land Management, presents for the applicant and explains the project proposes to seek approval for two driveways resulting in wetland filling for the purpose of a Planning Board Approval Not Required subdivision. He briefly explains the site, which contains Bordering Vegetated Wetland and Inland Bank of an Intermittent Stream. He explains that the applicant does not intend to do the work but needs Commission approval to prove to the Planning Board that he has real access off of Hale Street in order to divide the lots. Manuell explains that there is approximately 341 square feet of BVW to be filled and 900 square feet of replication proposed. Paluzzi asks if the crossings could be arched culvert structures rather and fill. Manuell states that that is a real possibility Duff states that the Commission should treat this application as if it were to go forward and suggests a site inspection. Lang agrees, and asks if there are any questions from the public. Raymond McNulty, 583 Hale Street, states that he is not in opposition to this project but asks if that the construction of the houses would have to come before the Commission. Lang states that the houses would definitely come before the Commission if any portion of the work associated with them falls within the Buffer Zone. McNulty states that the intermittent stream can overflow at times during heavy rains. There being no further questions from the Commission or the public, Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to the March 23, 2004 meeting, pending a site inspection scheduled for Saturday, March 13, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 8 Orders of Conditions 6 Lakeside Avenue Johnson moves to issue Standard Conditions. Goodenough moves to include a Special Condition requiring the applicant to replace any trees cut with native trees of the same number. Seconded by Paluzzi. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Old/New Business Discussion regarding fees The members discuss how to interpret the appropriate fees for projects. Maxner states that she thinks that each activity should be assessed a fee under the state schedule, but has heard from consultants that that is no the way DEP assesses fees. Lang states that it may become exorbitant if the applicants, especially homeowners, are charged for each activity. Duff states maybe the model for how the building department assesses fees should be looked at. Maxner agrees to draft a policy for how the Commission intends to interpret its fee schedule under the Ordinance. Endicott College Blasting Plan Maxner states the Commission has received the Endicott College Blasting Plan. She provides a copy to each member. The Order of Conditions was issued last Thursday. The Commission received a letter from Renee Mary, Jason Buchanan and Mr. and Mrs. Roa regarding MEPA. At the last meeting the neighbors had a recollection that the Commission asked her to write a letter to MEPA to see if this project applies to MEPA. Maxner thought the Commission asked her to write a letter to MEPA regarding the process of MEPA. Maxner states she found out that in order for MEPA to review a project, there needs to be either state funding or a state permit required for the project. Then there needs to be thresholds for land disturbance to be met or exceeded. This project would not have met the criteria. Lang states he has no problem with sending a letter to MEPA with two questions: 1. Are the cumulative efforts of all of the projects Endicott has done meet the threshold? Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 9 2. Has the college used State monies for these projects? Renee Mary states she would just like to see a build-out plan. Maxner states she will send a letter to MEPA. Maxner asks if the Commission feels compelled to hire an expert to review the blasting plan. The Commission members do not think it is necessary to hire an expert. Document List Maxner states she is going to create a document list for Commission members to be sure they have all of the appropriate laws, regulations and policies to keep at home for their reference. Cont: 55 Beaver Pond Road – G. Neal Ryland Maxner recalls the site visit conducted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 55 Beaver Pond Road. She reminds members that Mr. Ryland has made a request to cut down approximately 23 dead trees along the edge of Beaver Pond. Duff states that the trees are indeed dead, and may eventually pose a hazard on the road as well as to Mr. Ryland’s boat house. Squibb agrees and thinks that since the roots will remain, it will have little impact. Johnson moves to allow Mr. Ryland to cut down the marked trees. Seconded by Duff. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Cont: 25-Foot No Disturb Zone – Discussion Maxner states the Commission can anticipate future applications dealing with existing single- family homes involving projects encroaching into the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone. She states that the Commission should take a firm position on the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone on new lots. But on existing single-family houses, the applicant should need to show all alternatives before the Commission can make a decision and mitigation should be required. She suggests further defining the procedure that applicants must go through to request and receive a waiver. Goodenough states that she recognizes this will be an issue, and thinks the process should be streamlined to establish consistency and protect the Commission from appeals. A short discussion ensues regarding this issue, and members agree that developing a policy may be appropriate. Members agrees to draft a policy for the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone waiver process and try to have it ready for discussion at the next meeting. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 10 New: Procedures for closing hearings and issuing orders Squibb states that the Commission should consider its procedure on how it closes hearings. He thinks that hearings should be left open while an Order of Conditions is drafted and discussed. Lang states that for simple projects like additions or pools, hearings shouldn’t be continued, but in the case of a large subdivision that it is probably a good idea to allow for an Order to be drafted. He states that is what the Commission did for the Algonquin project. Paluzzi agrees, as sometimes special conditions or important points from public discussion are forgotten or not thoroughly considered. Maxner suggests that members come prepared with a list of conditions that they think would be appropriate for a particular project and refer to that list when the Order is being voted on. She thinks this approach would save time and result in more comprehensive and complete Orders. New: Earth Day – Update Maxner states that the Open Space and Recreation Committee is organizing another Earth Day on th Saturday, April 24from 12:00 to 3:00 p.m. to be held on the Common. The activities are as follows: · Story telling with Tony Toledo. · Partnering with Beverly Main Streets - street sweep. · There will be a poster contest for children in the Beverly Public Schools regarding “Your favorite natural place in Beverly.” Posters will be displayed in the public library and judged by members of the Open Space and Recreation Committee at the event. · Maxner states she is working with Mass Audubon regarding their participation. · Salem Sound will be participating as well. · Cape Ann Vernal Pool team will bring information and displays including live animals and the like. · Tree saplings will be distributed by the Forestry and Grounds Department. Correspondence from Deb Hurlburt Maxner reads a letter from Deb Hurlburt, former Assistant Planning Director, thanking the Commission members for the gifts and farewell card. Adjournment Paluzzi moves to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Dr. Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. The meeting is adjourned at 10:00 p.m.