Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-10 Conservation Commission Minutes 1 North Andover Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2018 Members Present: Louis A Napoli, Chairman, Albert P. Manzi, Jr., Vice Chairman, Joseph W. Lynch, Jr., Deborah A. Feltovic and Douglas W. Saal Members Absent: John T. Mabon and Sean F. McDonough Staff Member Present: Jennifer A. Hughes, Conservation Administrator Meeting came to Order at: 7:02 Quorum Present. Pledge of Allegiance Acceptance of Minutes  A motion to accept the minutes of September 26, 2018 as reviewed and amended is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Request for Determination of Applicability 730 Massachusetts Avenue (B.P. Logue)  A motion to continue to the October 24, 2018 meeting at the request of the applicatn is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from Bryan Logue dated October 10, 2018 730 Massachusetts Avenue (Columbia Gas)  The Administrator reviews the proposed project with the Commission.  Dana Altobello, Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors representing Columbia Gas, states RDA is for a proposed gas connection for the dwelling.  Mr. Altobello states the project will consist of 107 linear feet of gas service pipe to be installed. All the work is to be done within the existing roadway or shoulder lawn area of the yard. Portions of the proposed gas route are located within the 100-foot buffer zone from Bordering Vegetated Wetlands. He states the wetlands were flagged by Brad Holmes, Environmental Consulting and Restoration, LLC, in July of 2018.  Mr. Altobello states the gas main installation is to be done via the open trench method with no stockpiles and all trenches to be closed at night. Erosion controls will be placed prior to construction and no work will be done during rain events. The catch basins are up gradient, if necessary filter fabric or silt sack will be installed below the catch basin grates.  Mr. Altobello states the sewer and water utilities run through the center of the yard, the location for the gas was chosen to maintain some separation between them.  The Commission discusses the proposed generator and gas line projects.  Mr. Lynch questions which line on the plan represent the proposed gas line.  Mr. Altobello states the red line is the proposed gas line.  The Administrator states the location of the electric connection is on the backside of the garage. She questions what is on the front side of the house preventing a connection farther from the wetlands.  Mr. Altobello states location was chosen to avoid the driveway, sewer and water utilities. If proposed gas line location can be moved further away from the wetlands it will. 2  Mr. Lynch states the gas line being constructed in this proposed location in accordance with regulations and requirements doesn’t justify the current generator location.  Mr. Napoli states the Administrator has emailed the applicant several times to explain that the generator in its current location will require a waiver. A waiver can’t be given without an alternative analysis which has not been supplied and that he does not believe the generator will stay in the proposed location.  Mr. Lynch states if permission is granted to allow the proposed gas line it will have nothing to do with the generator.  Mr. Manzi asks if it’s possible to move the gas line further away from the resource area.  The Administrator presents pictures of the property to the Commission.  The Commission discusses the locations of other underground utilities.  Mr. Manzi asks the Administrator if it is her opinion that there is no other alternative.  The Administrator requests applicant provide a plan showing the location of the other utilities.  Mr. Lynch states if the Commission considers accepting the proposal the location of the other utilities should be marked on the plan vs. a general statement.  Mr. Manzi questions the pedestal at the end of the driveway, he would like to know if the pedestal is the electric service for the dwelling or is it just a splice point.  Mr. Saal states he feels the project should be approved, he doesn’t think the project needs to be moved since it’s not impacting the resource area.  Mr. Napoli feels the proposed generator is what is driving the gas line installation.  A motion to continue until October 24, 2018 for a plan showing the location of the other utilities is made by Ms. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  WPA Form 1 (Request for Determination of Applicability)  Project Narrative  Photos, dated July 26, 2018  North Andover Wetlands Regulations Riverfront Area Map  USGS Site LOCUS Map  FEMA Map - Proposed Gas Service Connection  Priority Habitats of Rare Species, Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife & Certified Vernal Pools Map  Wetland Delineation Overlay Plan  RDA Application Check List 102 Sugarcane Lane (DiFonte)  The Administrator reviews the applicant’s proposal to install a shed and states the home had a previous filing and states the plan shows the old wetland line.  Mark DiFonte, applicant and property owner states the application is for removal of 8’x 8’ shed and installation of a 12’x 16’ new shed outside the 50’ no-build zone. The existing shed rests on four concrete blocks, the new shed is to be placed on bed of crushed stone with no ground disturbance.  The Administrator states applicant is aware he must be 30’ feet off the lot line for zoning, the aerial photos provided do not appear to accurately show the lot line.  Mr. DiFonte states his property was surveyed on Friday and he’s hoping to have the survey information by the end of the week.  The Administrator states that the present shed is over 50’ from the wetlands.  The Commission discusses the plans from the prior filling which indicated two resource areas on the property.  The Administrator states measurements were taken off the wetlands on the abutting property and that the shed location is well outside from the no-build zone. 3  Mr. Napoli questions if the shed comes pre-assembled as he’s concerned with the location of the applicants septic.  Mr. DiFonte states he has over 30’ of clearance for the shed to be brought in.  Mr. Lynch confirms that the 50’ no-build zone will be maintained from measurements off the erosion controls.  A motion is made to issue a Negative Determination #3 with conditions for pre and post construction inspections with the shed staked for the pre-construction is made by Mr. Manzi, and seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Notification Letter to Abutters w/Abutters List  Project Narrative  Project Plans  RDA Application Check List  WPA Form 1 (Request for Determination of Applicability) 1275 Salem Street (Clark)  Jeffrey Clark, applicant and property owner, states the application is to regrade the existing backyard by adding loam to level out divots.  The Administrator discusses a prior filing by a previous homeowner for a deck. The previous filing had encroached into the 50’ no-build zone and required mitigation plantings by the Commission. The Administrator took measurements off the driveway and confirmed that the plantings still exist today. The edge or lawn shown on the plans are wetlands and so this project will require erosion controls.  Mr. Clark states that Peter Breen will be doing the work and is aware of the requirements. The applicant states there may be a need for a small 10’ long shallow knee wall to prevent garden from washing away.  The Administrator suggests wetland markers be placed every 30-40’ along the wetland line.  The Commission discusses the time frame of when the project is to be conducted.  Mr. Lynch states he would require that the project not begin before next spring. He does not want to see the slope with no vegetation all winter.  A motion is made to issue a Negative Determination #3 with conditions for spring start date, pre and post construction inspections, erosion controls and wetland markers is made by Ms. Feltovic, and seconded by Mr. Saal.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Notification Letter to Abutters w/Abutters List  RDA Application Check List  Project Plans  Request Letter  WPA Form 1 (Request for Determination of Applicability)  Supporting Documents Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD) 242-xxxx, ANRAD Request, 0 Turnpike Street (Map 9, Parcel 20) (William & Sparages)  Greg Hochmuth, Williams & Sparages, presents on behalf of the applicant Bay Development. He states the subject property is what is known as 0 Turnpike Street. This property is located in both North Andover and Middleton and is known as the existing Middleton Farm Supply property. 4  Mr. Hochmuth states that MassGIS OLIVER wetland data layer tool was used to locate wetlands shown on the plan as well as an intermittent stream on the property. He states the intermittent stream didn’t show in the 2012 aerials, the last time it was visible was in 2001 aerials.  Mr. Hochmuth states the current owner told him the stream was a drainage ditch that was dry most of the time and never saw water once the condominium development to the west went in next door. The property owners admit to filling in the stream and stated the channel only saw water after major storm events.  Mr. Hochmuth question the source of the hydrology, typically if USGS shows a stream channel it’s usually substantial. The channel USGA mapped matched up almost exactly with the 2001 aerials.  Mr. Hochmuth states what needs to be determined is if this was a jurisdictional stream. He believes if there was a source the wetland flagged on the plan it would be larger. There is an isolated wetland with hydraulic soils, the water ponds there and it does have a predominance of wetland plants.  Mr. Hochmuth believes if there was a stream or hydrology source it would be still flowing on to the site. He believes the channel did convey storm water from the property next door and that the work done on that site it may have cut off the hydrology to the channel.  Mr. Hochmuth states based on the research they cannot confirm it was a jurisdictional resource area. They can only conclude that with the information provided by the property owners that this appears to be a non-jurisdictional intermittent stream.  Mr. Hochmuth confirms the delineation of the following wetlands, a small Isolated Vegetative Wetland on the northwest corner of the lot and a very large Boarding Vegetative Wetland on the southwest of the lot. The Bordering Vegetated Wetland is located on the Harold Parker State Forest side of the lot which the property abuts. There is a culvert carrying very brown water that reaches the Boarding Vegetative Wetland on the state land.  Mr. Hochmuth questions where the water from the culvert is flowing from as it appears to flow year round and is not shown as a perennial stream according to the USGS maps.  Mr. Hochmuth states the property owners claim during the construction on the property next door some blasting was done. After the blasting they experienced water coming from the bedrock so a ditch was dug and a pipe was place and that is the source of the water coming from the culvert.  Mr. Hochmuth states the property is pretty flat but that it is up gradient from the lower wetlands.  Mr. Hochmuth states the water is brown but there is no odor to the water. He concludes the brown color is a result of iron oxidizing bacteria from iron rich bedrock, iron rich groundwater from the blasting that was done.  Mr. Lynch states more research needs to be done such as finding the Essex County highway layout for Rt. 114 and Mass DOT culvert plans which will provide historical information.  Mr. Hochmuth states eight hundred thousand tires were dumped on the Middleton side of the property, of which he believes most of have been removed.  The Administrator recommends Mr. Hochmuth take a look at the historic aerials website.  Mr. Hochmuth states a good portion of the property is on the Middleton side and that an ANRAD has been filed with them as well. He states their client wants the property clean before he purchases it and that a 21E study will be done.  The Commission discusses the culvert pipe and the direction of the water flow from the culvert.  Mr. Hochmuth states he was told by his client’s attorney that they would be willing to share the 21E report with the Commission.  The Administrator questions if this could be connected to the wetlands at the front of the site on the Middleton side after reviewing older aerials.  Mr. Hochmuth confirms the flow of the wetlands with the Administrator.  Mr. Manzi states the need for the 21E and baseline water test because of the dumping from the Chelsea fire in 1982. 5  Mr. Hochmuth states that they will be using a camera/transmitter inside the pipe to determine the flow of the water. He also states the property owner has told him none of the brick from the Chelsea fire was dumped on this site, it was dumped next door.  Mr. Manzi has concerns that over time the debris would have had time to settle into the soil and groundwater.  The Commission discusses the statute of limitation on wetland filling.  Mr. Hochmuth states if this was a jurisdictional resource area the Commission would have the right to issue an enforcement order requesting restoration.  Mr. Saal questions where the pipe is located on the plan.  Mr. Hochmuth points out the pipe location on the plan between C8 and C7 and states the location will be added to the plan.  Mr. Saal also requests that they show any wetlands on the Middleton side of the property on the plan.  Mr. Hochmuth states they can superimpose the stream from the aerial on the plan.  Ms. Feltovic questions what happened to all the tires that were dumped on the site.  Mr. Hochmuth states the DEP was involved and an administrative consent was issued for the removal of the tires. He also believes there is an active AUL on the site and signage stating contaminated material.  Mr. Hochmuth believes that everything below ground was removed and everything above ground is still there. He believes there is a plan to remove the tires but the person responsible has run out of money.  Ms. Feltovic asks when the water analysis is to take place and what they will be testing for.  Mr. Hochmuth states a time has not be determined and they will be testing for the minimum required for a 21E study. He states he will find out and let the Commission know.  A motion to continue until October 24, 2018 is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  WPA Form 4 (Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation)  Project Narrative  USGS LOCUS Map  MassDEP Bordering Vegetated Wetland Delineation Field Data Form  Notification Letter to Abutters w/Abutters List  Plan to Accompany an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area  Aerial Photos Notice of Intent (NOI) 242-1739, Rea Street Subdivision (Messina Development) (Christiansen & Sergi)  Mr. Manzi has recused himself from this discussion due to a conflict of interest.  A motion to continue until October 24, 2018 is made by Ms. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 4-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from ghochmuth@wsengineers.com requesting a continuance until 10/24/2018 Enforcement Order/Violation 43 Scott Circle  The Administrator gives an update on the violation and provides the Commission with photos.  Jack Sullivan, Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC states he did the as-built survey and the wetlands were flagged by Norse Environmental. 6  Mr. Sullivan states the original subdivision showed the resource area as boarding vegetated wetlands. He states at the time of the survey two stumps were visible and the owner told him they were from dead trees that he had cut, as-built shows existing conditions.  Mr. Sullivan states when pulling out of the garage you only have 26’ from the edge of the pavement, leaving a steep drop off. The homeowner brought in large gravel/crushed stone to try and level out the area.  Mr. Sullivan states from the top of the slope to the bottom slope is greater than a 2:1 slope.  Mr. Sullivan states in the vicinity of flags 4a-5a there was a large brush pile that has been cleaned up by the homeowner. The Administrator had also pointed out a pile of grass clippings and leaf dumping in the vicinity of flags 7a-6a which has also been cleaned up.  Mr. Lynch questions if there has been any migration of the materials since they were brought in.  Mr. Sullivan states during the surveying process he visited the site after a big rain event and there was no wash-out at the bottom.  The Commission discusses the grading of the yard.  The Administrator states vernal pool setbacks are 50-75’ vs. 25-50’ for BVW.  The Administrator states no turn around area was permitted when the home was built. The present homeowner did not purchase the home when it was originally built, the extra turnout was there when he purchased the home.  Mr. Lynch questions if resource area has changed from when the home was built.  The Administrator states after viewing historical aerial photos the resource area hasn’t changed much.  Mr. Lynch questions if the Administrator has concerns with what has been improved on the lot affecting the ephemeral/potential vernal pool.  The Administrator states she would rather the slope on the vernal pool side be graded back. The administrator doesn’t have as much of a concern once outside of the 50’ no-disturb zone.  Mr. Lynch states some concerns with the stone holding heat since this is the south-east side of the home. This will cause a change in temperature to the runoff affecting the habitat and how it’s used by temperature.  The Administrator suggests a site visit by some of the Commission members before proposing a restoration plan.  Mr. Napoli states the driveway has been functioning since the 90’s and questions the need of the turnout in the current location.  Mr. Sullivan states driveway does feel tight, the homeowner drives a large pickup truck which makes the garage hard to maneuver without the enlarged area. Mr. Sullivan states the slope is currently a 1 ½ 1 slope. The top soil would have to be pulled back about 8 feet to get a 3 1 slope the Commission usually looks for. He also states there is a slight encroachment into the 25’ no build zone by about 142 square feet.  A motion to continue until November 14, 2018 is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Existing Conditions Plan of Land, dated October 3, 2018  Photos dated 10/5/18 46 Hollow Tree Lane  The Administrator states survey plans were received on October 9th. The Administrator has spoken with Hancock Associates regarding some missing information that was requested on the plan. The missing information includes the Riverfront Area of Fish Brook, Bordering Land Subject to Flooding using the FEMA Floodplain Line, and permanent monumentation of the restoration area. 7  Mr. Lynch questions if missing the information is for the record or if it could heighten the protection of the resource areas.  The Commission discusses altering grades in the 100 year floodplain and where the line falls on the plan.  The Administrator states the project also needs to be approved under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) to avoid a possible conflict and that the homeowner should be in process with them.  Jim Lally, applicant and homeowner states he needed the plan in order to file with MESA.  Mr. Lynch states the Commission is still looking for the follow up restoration plans.  Mr. Lally asks if there are other forms of permanent monumentation instead of a field stone wall.  Mr. Lynch states the Commission will most likely require a barrier and it will most likely be in the form of a fieldstone wall.  A motion to continue until October 24, 2018 is made by Ms. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Delineation Report, dated October 8, 2018 prepared by Hancock Associates  Topographic Plan of Land, dated October 4, 2018 prepared by Hancock Associates 79 Boxford Street  The Administrator gives the Commission a progress update on the violation.  Mr. Ungvarsky states they are trying to remove the fill from the wetland before the ground freezes.  A motion to continue until November 28, 2018 is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. General Business 242-1604, COC Request, 288 Sutton Street (Mathews Way) (EES)  A motion to continue until October 24, 2018 is made by Ms. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from ess-greg@comcast.net requesting a continuance until 10/24/2018 242-1664, OOC Extension Request, 240 Charles Street, Riverside Pump Station  The Administrator states all that is left on the project is the paving of the driveway.  A motion to grant a one year extension is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Extension Request Letter, dated September 19, 2018 242-1631, COC Request, 294 Chestnut Street (Williams & Sparages)  The Administrator gives update on the project and states additional plantings have been installed.  A motion to grant a full and final Certificate of Compliance is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Compliance Request Letter, dated August 21, 2018 prepared by Williams & Sparages  WPA Form 8A Request for Certificate of Compliance  Site Photos dated October 9, 2018 8 Approval of 2019 Conservation Commission Calendar  The Commission discusses the proposed 2019 Conservation Commission Calendar.  A motion to accept the calendar as amended is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Drafted 2019 Meeting Dates 242-1624, COC 56 Monteiro Way resigning of previously issued documents.  The Administrator states that the COC was previously issued but a copy of the signed COC could not be located so this request is to resign a previously approved COC. Adjournment  A motion to adjourn at 8:45 is made by Mr. Manzi, and seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous.