Loading...
2004-02-03 CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD: Conservation Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: February 3, 2004 rd LOCATION: 3 Floor City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Paluzzi (Vice Chair), Dr. Mayo Johnson, Ian Hayes, Linda Goodenough, Eileen Duff, Bill Squibb (arrives 7:30 p.m.) BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Lang OTHERS PRESENT: Amy Maxner - Environmental Planner RECORDER: Amy Maxner Vice Chairman Paluzzi calls the meeting to order at 7:00 Certificate of Compliance New: 44 River Street - DEP File #5-780, National Grid Dan McIntyre, National Grid, briefly explains the project, which consisted of constructing a new substation including a new transmission tower, two power transformers and a pre- fabricated control house within Riverfront Area to the Bass River and Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank. He provides additional plans as requested by Maxner depicting as-built conditions with the resource limits, an extra copy of a proposed condition plan and documentation relating to the removal of contaminated soils from the site. Maxner states that she conducted a site inspection with Mr. McIntyre, took photos of the site and provides the photographs for the members to review. She states that additional trees were planted along the south-westerly boundary of the property for visual screening purposes for neighbors. She states that the only other change was the squaring off of the crushed stone pole storage area. Paluzzi asks a clarifying question about the removal of soils. McIntyre states that approximately 2200 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed and disposed at a site designed and licensed to receive such material. There being no further questions from the Commission or the public, Goodenough moves to issue a complete Certificate of Compliance. Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 5-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 2 of 11 New: 6 Lakeside Avenue - DEP File #5-215, Robert Levin Robert Levin provides a brief overview of the project which had been permitted in July of 1995 which consisted of replacing the existing foundation for his house. He states that later in 1999 he hired Hancock Environmental to submit a new NOI for the construction of tiered retaining walls with associated landscaping up-gradient to the top of Inland Bank, but the original NOI was never closed out before this filing was submitted. The retaining wall project received a Certificate of Compliance (COC) in February 2000 and he assumed that the original house foundation and addition project was taken care of through that COC but it was not. The Commission had approved the plan that depicted the completed retaining walls as well as the finished foundation and addition. Maxner states that she conducted a site inspection, took photos of the site, and provides the photographs for the members to review. She states that closing out the original Order would serve to keep the paper trail consistent and formally release the original Order from the deed. There being no further questions from the Commission or the public, Goodenough moves to issue a complete Certificate of Compliance. Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 5-0. New: 443 Essex Street – DEP File #5-215, John Colantoni Paul Lindholm, P.E. with Lessard Environmental, representative for the applicant, explains the history of this project. This project was permitted in August of 1986 for the Citgo service station, which involved the removal of two 500-gallon underground storage tanks that contained waste oil and fuel oil. During removal of the tanks a leak was detected which resulted in the DEP requiring that a Release Abatement Measure be prepared. A Release Abatement Outcome was issued in 1995, which is roughly equivalent to a Certificate of Compliance (COC), and now since Mr. Colantoni is selling the property he would like a COC to close the existing expired Order. Paluzzi asks why a COC was not requested back in the 1980’s? Linholm states that it was most likely forgotten with all of the DEP involvement. Paluzzi asks if the Fire Department has signed off on this project. Colantoni states that he does have all the necessary permits and sign-off’s for the project but not with him this evening. Goodenough states that any approval of this request should require submission of Fire Department documentation. Members agree. Duff moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance with the condition that Fire Department documentation be submitted as soon as possible. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion passes 5-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 3 of 11 Request for Determination of Applicability New: 443 Essex Street – John Colantoni Maxner reads the legal notice. Larry Lessard with Lessard Environmental presents for the applicant. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing drywell and excavate up to 30 tons of soil from the immediate area in Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland and Riverfront Area. The excavated area will be 7.5 feet by 7.5 feet by 10 feet deep, and groundwater is located approximately 5 feet below grade which the applicant anticipates vacuum extraction of about 1,500 gallons. The excavated area will be backfilled with clean fill, and a replacement monitoring well will be installed. This work is being done as part of a Release Abatement Measure with the DEP as beryllium was detected in and around the area of the drywell. Hayes asks what happens if the leak is worse than they expect. Lessard responds that they will remove as much soil that poses a risk, but they do not anticipate having to remove more than what is stated in the application as he believes the contamination is not extensive. Paluzzi asks how long the project will take. Lessard responds that physical site work would last 1-2 days and the subsequent monitoring would be done on a quarterly basis. Hayes asks what will fill the hole. Lessard responds that the replacement fill would consist of clean soil and crushed stone that is easily compactable. There being no further questions from the Commission, Hayes moves to issue a Negative # 3 Determination. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion passes 5-0. Squibb arrives. Recess for Public Hearings Goodenough moves to recess for public hearings. Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Notice of Intent Cont: 302, 320, 332, 400 Hale Street – Endicott College Joe Orzel, Gulf of Maine Research Center, Inc., presents for the applicant. This project involves the construction of a new dormitory and associated appurtenances within the Buffer Zone to an Isolated Vegetated Wetland, as well as wetland restoration activities in a Bordering Vegetated Wetland located to the north of the subject site. He hands out a hydrograph to illustrate the runoff calculations resulting from the changes made to the plan, which will be further discussed by Mr. Vitkosky and Mr. Paquin. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 4 of 11 Bill Vitkosky of Endicott College presents a revised plan that takes the parking lot out of the Buffer Zone to the IVW, and pulls the sidewalk further away from the wetland as well. He states that the College has also hired a geotechnical firm and blasting company to analyze the proposed blasting, and their report has been submitted to the Conservation Commission. Bernard Paquin, engineer for the applicant, explains that the discharge from the detention basin area will be piped to avoid flooding of the Buchanan’s cellar. He explains that the roof runoff directed to the IVW has been reduced from 3200 square feet to 1300 square feet. Paluzzi asks the diameter of the pipe and volume of flow. Paquin states that the discharge pipe is 18” thru out and the flow will be less due to the underground infiltration system. Hayes asks if blasting will cause rock to fall into the wetland. Vitkosky states that the areas to be blasted are pre-split with drilled rods, and the blasting company uses blasting mats made of old rubber tires to ensure that the blasted material is contained. Dr. Wiley, Endicott College President, states that he would like to address the Commission and explain the College’s efforts. He explains that the College is trying to consolidate its campus and transfer 450 students from auxiliary parts of the campus to the main campus. He states that the College requires every student to do an internship and that requires that they have transportation and therefore parking is a great need. He states that 25-28 % of the Colleges land mass is developed, leaving approximately 60 % remaining as open space. He explains that the College does not want any housing on Hale Street due to neighborhood and safety issues. He states in response to questions about a Master Plan for the College, he states that it is being worked on but that he does not anticipate much more construction on the campus, rather infilling the main campus is more likely than expansion. Paluzzi opens the hearing to questions from the public. A resident of 313 Hale Street expresses concern over impacts of blasting and explains that he has cracking in his cellar now. Vitkosky states that the pre-blast survey will inspect all residences within a 250-foot radius prior to any blasting to document existing conditions. Mr. Rao, 328 Hale Street, states that the MEPA issue should be further addressed. Wiley states that the College’s bond attorney’s have looked at the MEPA issue and during the last appeal the DEP had also looked at the issue and determined it did not apply. Mary Roderick, 14 Peabody Avenue, states that she has come to the meeting at the request of Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, as she could not be present. She reads a letter from Ms. Mary stating her concerns regarding land use history by the College, the traffic that could be generated from the south campus convention center, impacts on wetlands and vernal pools. Her letter also states that the current plan should incorporate a more diverse array of herbaceous plants within the wetland replication plan, and that the Commission should have another qualified wetland ecologist review and comment on the plan. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 5 of 11 Orzell states that the IVW was investigated for Vernal Pool function during the spring of 2001. He also explains that the replanting plan was intended to try to mimic existing vegetation, but they would be open to any of the Commission’s suggestions. Lang responds that the Commission will most likely require the wetland to be investigated again. Hayes states that he does not feel comfortable with closing the hearing tonight and trying to craft an Order of Conditions. Members discuss at length possible conditions that may be incorporated into the Order. There being no further questions from the Commission or the public, Goodenough moves to close the hearing. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion passes 6-0. Cont: 2 Boyles Street – DEP File #5-816, Manor Homes at Whitehall Ian Hayes recuses himself from this part of the meeting and leaves the room. Bill Manuel, Wetlands & Land Management, Inc., represents for the applicant. He explains this Notice of Intent involves the construction of roadways, site grading, drainage structures and construction of 5 single-family homes as part of a 28-lot subdivision. He presents a revised plan that incorporates the following changes, some of which are pursuant to Dr. Chiang’s comments: Ø Spinnaker Court Cul-De-Sac was eliminated; Ø A weir was added to the culvert at Mariner’s way; Ø Flag series 500/600 and corresponding Buffer Zone were added near the pool and along the intermittent stream leading down behind 13 Eisenhower Ave, which Dr. Windmiller and Bryan Butler both agreed could be a Vernal Pool accommodating overflow during times of high competition for breeding sites; Ø A level spreader was added to the outlet of detention basin #1; Ø An arched 8’ wide by 4’ high culvert to serve as a ‘critter tunnel’ was added. Robert Griffin, engineer for the applicant states that they have made provisions for snow removal and it follow’s DEP’s guidelines. He explains that the snow would be plowed/stored on the upland of Lot #5, and when it melts the solids can be captured along that upland and any residuals can be handled by detention pond # 2. He also explains that a homeowners association will be established ensuring proper maintenance for the drainage system components that are outside the public rights of way. He explains that each lot will have a covenant on it even if it is outside the 100 foot Buffer Zone that will ensure erosion control will be used during construction in order to protect the drainage system further. He explains the he intends to address Camp Dresser & McKee’s concerns but would like to do that through the Planning Board forum. He would like to point out that it was mentioned in an early Commission meeting that the detention basins were not properly sized, but that Dr. Chiang concurred that they were. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 6 of 11 Dr. Chiang, the Commission’s independent drainage consultant, presents his findings. He explains the basic tenets of the DEP Stormwater Policy and proceeds to explain the inconsistencies in the drainage calculations as outlined in his report dated December 4, 2003: Ø The Time of Concentration calculations are inconsistent, and usually the assumption is 10 minutes; Ø The ledge area at pre-development conditions is 16,000 s.f, but post- development conditions indicate 10,144 s.f; Ø Some of the CN numbers seem low and he believes that not all of the lot areas were used in the calculations; Ø Post development peak runoff rates at discharge points clearly indicate that runoff is higher than pre-development, particularly at Cove, Hutt, Hale and Eisenhower Avenue discharge points; Ø The crossing at Wetland A threatens to dry out that wetland and is of the opinion that the crossing is unnecessary; Ø The report lacks 25-year frequency storm analysis, which is the norm as most systems need to be designed for the more frequent chronic events; Ø The drainage analysis uses different units at the pre and post-development stages; Ø Water quality issues are a concern for the Vernal Pool in Wetland B as discharge from the detention basin will be directed to that system. Dr. Chiang states that he realizes some changes have been made to the plan subsequent to his report and would be happy to comment further on the changes once he has the opportunity to thoroughly review the plan and revised drainage calculation report. Paluzzi thanks Dr. Chiang for his presentation and opens to questions from the Commission. Goodenough asks how far away Spy Glass Hill is from the Vernal Pool. Griffin states that the road is approximately 60 feet from the edge of the Vernal Pool and 45 feet away from the BVW surrounding the pool. Goodenough states that she thinks that the Regulations do apply to this project, and thinks it would be advisable to get an opinion from the City Solicitor on whether the Commission’s Regulations apply to this project. Duff agrees that an interpretation from the Solicitor is appropriate at this time. Paluzzi asks if the flows within the intermittent steam in pre and post development are the same for the old plan and this revised plan. Girffin states that they meet the standards for not increasing the peak flow in post development within wetlands and Buffer Zones, and that the questions about flows within non jurisdictional areas which should be addressed through the Planning Board. Paluzzi opens to questions from the public. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 7 of 11 Tom Harrington, attorney for the Friends of Chapman’s Corner Group, states that according to Section III A. 5. a. of the Regulations there is to be no disturbance within 100 feet of a Vernal Pool and contends that the applicant has failed to comply with the Regulations. He states that the applicant has not met Standard # 4 of the DEP Stormwater Policy. He states the applicant has no rational for the wetlands crossing at Wetland System A, and reminds the Commission that any filling of BVW no matter how small is discretionary according to the Commission’s Regulations V. E 1. He states that the Friends would like to hold back on the bulk of their comments on the revised calculations until their hydrologist reviews it. Maxner reminds the Commission that this is the first time a Vernal Pool has been part of a project since the adoption of the Ordinance and thinks the Commission has latitude in interpreting the Ordinance with relation to protecting the Pool in this case whether or not the Regulations apply. Some discussion ensues regarding whether this revised plan is being reviewed by the Planning Board and its independent consultant, and Griffin clarifies that the changes made to the plan are in response to Dr. Chiang’s comments and that the plan is being forwarded to Camp Dresser & McKee and the Planning Board will be reviewing the changes at its upcoming meeting. There being no further questions from the Commission or the public, Duff moves to continue the hearing to the February 24, 2004 meeting pending an opinion submitted by the City Solicitor on the applicability of the Regulations. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion passes 6-0. New: 6 Lakeside Avenue – Robert Levin Maxner reads the legal notice. Mr. Levin explains he is proposing to construct a 28-foot by 28-foot 2-story addition with a garage underneath to an existing single-family home, and reconfigure the driveway in the Buffer Zone to an Inland Bank of Wenham Lake. The activity is approximately 60 feet from the edge of the Bank at its closest point, and does not intrude into the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone. Maxner states that Tom Knowlton from the Salem Beverly Water Supply Board raised a concern that a portion of the proposed driveway may not be on Mr. Levin’s property but on the City of Beverly’s property. Mr. Knowlton informed Maxner that he would look further into this issue. Levin states that he is almost positive that it is his property. Maxner hands out photos of the site for members to review. Goodenough states that based upon the photos, she would like to look at the site before any decisions are made, as she was not aware there was such a steep slope. Duff agrees that she would like to visit the site as well. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 8 of 11 Paluzzi opens the hearing to questions from the public. There are none. Johnson moves to continue the hearing to the February 24, 2004 meeting pending a site visit scheduled for Saturday, February 21, 2004 ay 8:30 a.m. Seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. New: 12 Lawnbank Road – Daniel & Susan Martignetti Maxner reads the legal notice. Mike Guliano, Meridian Associates, Inc., presents for the applicant. The applicant is proposing to perform several activities within the Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank, as well as the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone, which include an addition, deck, pool, walkways, retaining walls and landscaping. Maxner states that David Gardner, Chairman of the Open Space Committee, has written a letter regarding the “ancient highway” and reads the letter into the record. Goodenough states that the Commission should ask the City Solicitor for his opinion on this issue. Tom Scully states that there is a letter and map from the County Commissioners, that have since cease to exist, showing the ancient highway’s route in that area. He can provide that information if the Commission would like to look at it. Paluzzi states that he thinks a site inspection should be conducted, as there is a lot of activity proposed within the No-Disturbance Zone. Paluzzi opens the hearing up to any questions from the public. John Bishop, 5 Lawnbank Road, states that the he has concerns over the overspill of the pool into the resource area and the possible effects of chlorine. A resident of 4 Lawnbank Road states that she is concerned about the extent of excavation required for the pool and its proximity to the Coastal Bank slope, she worries about the stability of the bank. Paluzzi asks if there will be any blasting done. Guliano states that he does not anticipate it. A resident from 3 Lawnbank Road states that he is concerned about the neighbor’s ability to access the beach as the proposed iron rail fence seems to be blocking the access to the stairs that are currently used. Mr. Martignetti states that he does not intend to block access. th Goodenough moves to continue the hearing to the February 24 meeting pending a site inspection scheduled for Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 9:15 a.m. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 9 of 11 Old/New Business New: Request for Modification – DEP File #5-774, New England Power Co. Wes Sampson, of Weston and Sampson, presents for the applicant. This request is for a minor modification to the Order of Conditions for the Vitale Fly Ash Consolidation, Habitat Restoration and Wenham Lake dredging project proposed by New England Power. The project is being scaled back by eliminating open water hydraulic dredging and associated piping of the slurry. The Airport Brook will now be diverted in an open channel as opposed to a 48-inch pipe, and the removal of fly ash from the lake will only be done in dry conditions when the lake is at its lowest level. These revisions to the project result in less impact to the resources areas and Buffer Zones. Squibb asks how this could be considered a minor modification if most of the fly ash will be left in the lake. Sampson explains that New England Power, DEP and the Wenham Lake Task Force have discussed and researched this topic at length and have come to the conclusion that the risks of hydraulically dredging the Lake far outweigh the potential benefits. He explains that the fly ash is now stable and under a few inches of sediment and detritus and will continue to be buried with additional layers of sediment as time passes, and this is a preferable condition. He emphasizes that this new plan results in significantly less impacts and intrusion to the surrounding wetlands and the lake. Paluzzi asks if there are any further questions from the Commission. There are none. Paluzzi asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Duff moves to issue the Minor Modification. Goodenough seconds. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. New: Correspondence from Neal Ryland – 55 Beaver Pond Road Maxner states that Mr. Ryland is requesting to cut down several dead trees along the edge of the Pond. The Commission holds a Conservation Restriction for areas along Beaver Pond Road, and it spells out what can and cannot be done within these areas. She explains the Restriction calls out that no trees shall be cut unless it is to maintain scenic views of the existing houses, maintain the right of way, or maintain the wooded areas according to good woodland management practices as approved by the Commission. Goodenough moves to continue to the February 24, 2004 meeting for the purpose of conducting a site visit. Seconded by Duff. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. A site visit is scheduled for Saturday, February 21, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 10 of 11 Cont: 3 Temi Road , Ivo Minkov – Violation Discussion The Commission discussed possible corrective actions Mr. Minkov should take to rectify the wetland violation including the clean up and removal of all brush, stumps, branches and other cut vegetation presently stockpiled along and in the wetland at the rear of the property. The Commission determines that the debris shall be removed and disposed of properly; the Commission suggests it be taken to the Standley Street compost site or similar facility. Re- growth of the vegetation shall be allowed in the area that has been cut and no further cutting of vegetation or grasses shall take place beyond the present limit of the lawn. A member of the Commission and/or its Agent shall conduct a site visit during the summer to monitor the re-growth of the area. If in the future any other activity is conducted on the property, Mr. Minkov is to submit an application with the Conservation Commission that includes a plan showing the delineated edge of wetland resource areas as determined by a professional wetland scientist. Orders of Conditions Cont: 302, 320, 332, 400 Hale Street – Endicott College Members discuss issuing Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: · In spring, the Isolated Vegetated Wetland shall be investigated to determine if this resource functions as a Vernal Pool, and the findings shall be submitted to the Commission upon availability. · Additional herbaceous plant species shall be incorporated into the Bordering Vegetated Wetland restoration plan in order to further diversify the herbaceous plant community in this area. · A plan showing more topographic detail of the upper (northern) water quality swale shall be provided to the Commission. · The applicant shall provide a list of all residents who are contacted as part of the pre- blast survey. · The applicant shall provide both pre-blast and post-blast surveys to the Commission upon availability. · The detention basin to be filled is considered by the Commission to be non- jurisdictional. Hayes moves to issue the conditions as discussed. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 3, 2004 Page 11 of 11 New: 25-Foot No-Disturbance Zone – Discussion Maxner suggests that the Commission examine this part of the Regulations as they may prove to provide challenging situations in its application. She states the Commission may want to discuss this further in order to explore alternatives for existing single-family homes. Lang suggests that this topic be placed on the next agenda for further discussion. Members agree this issue should be more thoroughly considered. Approval Of Minutes Johnson moves to accept the September 9, 2003 meeting minutes with amendments. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Adjournment Goodenough moves to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Duff. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 11:30 p.m.