Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-28 Conservation Commission Minutes 1 North Andover Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes November 28, 2018 Members Present: Louis A Napoli, Chairman, Albert P. Manzi, Jr., Vice Chairman, Jr., Joseph W. Lynch, Deborah A. Feltovic, Douglas W. Saal and Sean F. McDonough Members Absent: John T. Mabon Staff Member Present: Jennifer A. Hughes, Conservation Administrator Meeting came to Order at: 7:07 Quorum Present. Pledge of Allegiance Acceptance of Minutes  A motion to accept the minutes of November 14, 2018 as reviewed and amended is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Request for Determination of Applicability Stiles Street (Lots #33, 34 & 37) (Gene Willis)  The Administrator states the Commission was waiting on information from the last meeting. The requested information included details on the existing culvert as well as the proposed installation details to meet the best management practices as required under the Forestry Regulations. The Administrator supplies the Commission photos from a recent site visit.  Gene Willis, property owner, states he and the Administrator disagree on the characterization of the RDA. He applied for the RDA under Agricultural Regulations and supplies the Commission with documents for review.  The Administrator states she has done research on Forestry Regulations and the regulations cover all forestry products which include maple syrup and nuts.  Mr. McDonough enters the meeting room at 7:09.  The Administrator states Mr. Willis is collecting nuts from the trees as part of his forestry exemption.  Mr. Lynch questions any potential for overlap within the two regulations and if the RDA was exempt under Forestry or Agriculture, if so does one have more leniency in the regulations.  The Administrator states not in the regulations as they exist. This information comes from the Farming and Wetlands Guidance document that is produced by the State of Massachusetts. The requirements under the Agricultural Regulations state that harvesting has to be for commercial profit. She has provided portions of the regulations for the Commissions’ review and the practices involved are very different.  Mr. Lynch questions what Regulations the Commission should be basing their opinion on, Forestry or Agriculture.  The Administrator states she has presented the Commission documents on Farming and Wetlands from the Wetlands Protection Act.  Mr. Manzi states that Mr. Willis has given the Commission documents; 310C & 10.04  The Administrator states the documents were not submitted prior to the meeting and upon review they appear to be from the Agricultural Regulations.  The Commission discusses the differences between Forestry vs. Agricultural.  The Administrator states the exemption under both Forest and Agricultural for road access is to repair and replace without enlargement of. The property currently has a broken culvert that is 2 approximately 5’ which may have been 8’-10’ feet. The applicant is asking for a 20’ replacement culvert which is not an in kind replacement.  Mr. Napoli questions the plan and the two other areas in addition to the culvert, he would like to know if these areas are wet.  Mr. Willis states the areas high in stone are wet in wet times. He mentions that in prior years they were using a tractor, they are now using a truck and the area is impassable with a truck. He states that in 1991 the Commission gave him an Agricultural exemption and he would like the Commission to reaffirm this.  Mr. Willis states the pipe can only be bought in 20’ sections, the road is 10’ feet wide and makes a 90 degree turn to the left and that he doesn’t want to come back to the Commission in a few years because the road isn’t wide enough. There are three areas of stone that he is proposing 6-12 inches of 1 ½ stone.  Mr. McDonough feels maintenance and whether this is Forestry or Agriculture are two separate issues that should be dealt with separately.  The Commission discusses the type and length of pipe to be used in the culvert.  The Commission discusses the size of the replacement roadway.  Mr. Willis confirms that he can use a 10’ plastic pipe with flared ends and stone on either end.  The Administrator states to meet the requirements of Agriculture you must have gross sales, and proof of gross sales to prove commercial agriculture  Mr. Lynch wants to make the applicant aware that after reviewing the documents, it does not appear to meet the requirements for Agricultural.  Mr. Manzi states the DOA provided to the Commission by Mr. Willis is dated December 31, 1991 and that his signature appears on the back of the document. This document states the DOA falls under an Agricultural Exemption.  The Administrator states that Agricultural Exemption was expanded into an Forestry and Agricultural section in 1996 and that the DOA is only valid for 3 years  The Commission discusses the details of the work in the culvert replacement. Work is to include replacement of an existing culvert with a 24” pipe embedded 6” and filled with natural substrate. The new pipe will be no more than 10’ in length with 3’ flared end to keep stones out of the stream bed. In addition 3” minus washed trap rock will be placed in three low areas of the access road as show in the referenced plan. The work may be done under either frozen or dry conditions.  A motion is made to issue a Negative Determination #3 as proposed is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Revised Project Description & Details, dated November 21, 2018  Site Plan w/Work Details, dated November 21, 2018 234 Brentwood Circle (Hannum & Schwartz)  The Administrator states the application is to remove and fill the existing swimming pool. The pool area would then be loamed and seeded, no proposal for grading or plantings at this time. The plans show the access point on the right side of the house and erosion controls are proposed.  Carol Robertson, of Garden Imprint, presents on behalf of the applicants and states the pool was grandfathered in and is in ill repair. She states that Wildwood Excavation will doing the excavation work.  Mr. Lynch questions the process of the pool removal and the length of the project.  The pool walls will be knocked down, debris removed, hole filled with clean fill and tamped down. The area is then to be loamed and hydro-seeded. The project is expected to take a few days.  The Commission discusses erosion controls, due to a slope on the property leading to an ephemeral pool. 3  A motion is made to issue a Negative Determination #3 with pre and post construction inspections is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  WPA Form 1 Request for Determination of Applicability w/Supporting Materials, dated November 14, 2018 46 Hollow Tree Lane (Lally)  The Administrator states this application comes from an Enforcement Order that was issued by the Commission in December 2017. She feels the application and EO should be addressed together to ensure the restoration is complied with.  Jim Lally, homeowner states Hancock Associates have revised the plans to show the stone wall, BVW and Riverfront. There are six tree stumps in the No-Disturbance Area and the restoration plan is to replant the area with New England Wetland Mix and presents his Certificates of Mailing and gives them to the Administrator.  The Administrator states her only change to the proposal would be plantings instead of the proposed mix as it is more herbaceous and asks the applicant if he intends on going with the recommendation of the Commission and installing a field stone wall as the proposed plans indicate.  Mr. Lally states he made several calls to get more information, and has not received any callbacks yet.  Mr. Lynch clarifies the goal is to replicate what was there, a woody buffer zone. He states the proposed mix is herbaceous which means it would be low growing. He states a proposed planting plan may typically include mix, some shrub and some saplings with guidance from the Commission and asks if the applicant has a proposed a planting plan.  The Administrator states the applicant did receive his negative no-take letter from Natural Heritage and is willing to condition the requirement for a planting plan.  Mr. Lynch states that after one growing season some stuff must have started to take hold and an evaluation should be made including this information and questions a time table on the restoration plan.  The Administrator they will take into consideration what has sprouted along with some plantings. She suggests giving the applicant until June 1, 2019 to get the work done. The after-the-fact determination will allow the applicant to clear, grub and stabilize the new backyard. The restoration plan will remain part of the Enforcement Order.  Mr. Manzi questions if the Commission needs to extend the EO to run parallel with the DOA.  The Administrator states the RDA is good for three years and will allow the applicant to finish stumping the backyard, stabilize it as a lawn with no additional grading due to BLSF. The EO will either be amended or reissued allowing the applicant to do the restoration work and wall requirement by the required date. Monitoring of the plantings will also be required to ensure the plants survive for two growing seasons.  Mr. Napoli reinforces that the wall will be stone and the restoration work completed by June 1, 2019. He states that if the project is not in compliance, the Commission will fine the applicant.  Mr. Lynch proposes the planting commence no later than April 15, 2019 and if they are unable to meet this date to let the Commission know. The planting should be fully complete by June 1, 2019.  Bill Salemme, of 511 Winter Street is present and questions how it is he is considered an abutter.  Mr. Lynch gives Mr. Salemme some background on the EO and explains that notification to abutters are part of the process when filing for the RDA for the restoration plan.  The Commission questions the stump removal process.  Mr. Lally states the plan is to grind the larger stumps and dig up the smaller ones. 4  A motion is made to issue a Negative Determination #2 & #3 with erosion controls and pre and post construction inspections is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  WPA Form 1 Request for Determination of Applicability w/Supporting Materials, dated November 14, 2018  Topographic Plan, dated November 14, 2018 prepared by Hancock Associates Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation 242-1741, ANRAD Request, 0 Turnpike Street (Map 9, Parcel 20) (Bay Development, LLC)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until December 12, 2018 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from ghochmuth@wsengineers.com com requesting a continuance until 12/12/2018 242-1743, ANRAD Request, 0 Great Pond Road (Brooks School)  The Administrator states this request was reviewed at the last meeting and that the Commission was waiting on a DEP file number to be issued.  Mr. Greg Hochmuth, Williams & Sparages presents on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Hochmuth states they reached out to DEP and a file number was issued with no comments. He feels at this time they have all the information needed to close out the hearing.  Mr. Napoli questions the access to the property from one town to another town.  Mr. Hochmuth states this is an issue they have strongly advised the applicant to hash out now, but that he does not have the answer. He states a similar ANRAD was filed in Boxford which has not received a DEP file number. They will reach out to both North Andover and Boxford before anything is filed.  Mr. Napoli states this information will be needed if an NOI is filed in the future.  The Commission discusses their determination will be based on only the series that is identified on the referenced plan, and what is shown on the plans is not the entire property.  Mr. Hochmuth states there are other wetlands on the property that are not shown on this plan.  A motion to confirm the delineation as show on the herein reference plan, noting this is not the entire property, and close is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Revised ANRAD Plan, dated November 1, 2018 prepared by Andover Consultants Inc.  Revised ANRAD Plan Letter, dated November 12, 2018 prepared by Williams & Sparages Notice of Intent (NOI) 242-1739, Rea Street Subdivision (Messina Dev.) (Christiansen & Sergi)  Mr. Manzi has recused himself from this discussion due to a conflict of interest.  The Administrator displays sheet 5 of 12 showing the stone wall marking the No-Disturbance Zone. The plan includes a Table of Lot Disturbance for purposes of Riverfront and Stormwater Management that was requested by the Commission. She states the homeowner portion of the O&M Plan was pulled to minimize confusion once the street officially becomes a town street.  Phil Christiansen, Christiansen & Sergi and Greg Hochmuth, Williams & Sparages are present to answer questions. 5  Mr. Napoli expresses his concerns with the Stormwater Management Plan, Homeowners Association and the use of the detention pond.  The Administrator states language has been added to the draft order of conditions and they will need to figure out how to maintain the detention pond prior to construction. The maintenance of the detention pond is separate from the homeowners association and she feels any issues can be addressed with the Order of Conditions.  The Commission discusses the Stormwater Management Plan, Homeowners Association and the use of the detention pond.  The Administrator states bond money could be seized if necessary. The detention pond is functioning and maintenance could be a simple solution.  The Commission discusses the Table of Lot Disturbance and how it will be used.  The Administrator reads the proposed verbiage of the Order of Conditions.  Mr. Saal questions if the subdivision will be done by one developer and if the plans show the proposed size of the houses to be built.  Mr. Christiansen states the subdivision will be done by one developer. The homes shown on the plan are the proposed size of the houses to be built. He states the Stormwater analysis was done with the entire property being developed along with the proposed houses as shown and a certain amount of impervious driveway.  Mr. Lynch confirms that a NOI will need to be filed for each lot and each lot has to meet the impervious area shown on the table.  Mr. Christiansen states if the lot is unable to meet the impervious area a new application would have to be filed or taken from another lot.  Mr. Hochmuth states the soils are really good and feels if each lot slightly increased the impervious area they would be able to mitigate for it on each of the lot.  The Administrator states each lot is subject to stormwater whether the NOI’s are individual or come in small groups. She states when it comes to the Riverfront it becomes more complicated and that not all the lots have Riverfront. Lots 1, 2 and 7 have Riverfront implications and will be harder to calculate the impervious area due to this. She states lot 7 will be limited to lot disturbance shown and the Riverfront area can be looked at as each lot is permitted.  Mr. Saal expresses his concerns with lot 7 and the proposed house as it’s shown on the plan.  The Commission discusses the proposed Order of Conditions.  A motion to close and issue is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous, Recused; Mr. Manzi. Documents  Subdivision Plan, dated November 21, 2018 prepared by Christiansen & Sergi 242-1742, 50 Saw Mill Road (LaRosa)  The Administrator states this filing was heard at the last meeting and the requested changes have been made.  Jack Sullivan, Sullivan Engineering presents on behalf of the applicant and states the filing is for septic upgrade. He states the present system has failed requiring the applicant to put in a new system, the septic plans have been approved by the North Andover Board of Health. Changes to the plans have been made to include a modification to the wetland line, an erosion control detail, construction access and a note stating soils will not be stockpiled.  The Commission discusses the proposed Order of Conditions.  A motion to close and issue is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Septic Sheet 1, dated November 17, 2018 prepared by Sullivan Engineering  Septic Sheet 2, dated November 17, 2018 prepared by Sullivan Engineering  Summary of Plan Changes, dated November 17, 2018 prepared by Sullivan Engineering 6 General Business 242-1604, COC Request, 288 Sutton Street (Mathews Way) (EES)  The Administrator reviews the request with the Commission. She states they were waiting on affidavits of the current homeowners and a picture of the installed “No Snow Stockpiling’ sign at the detention basin. She states the requested information has been received.  Mr. Brian Vaughan, Smolak & Vaughan LLP is present and available for questions.  A motion is made to grant a full and final Certificate of Compliance is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  COC Request Letter, dated August 14, 2018  As-Built Plan, dated August 14, 2018 prepared by Engineering and Surveying Services  As-Built Plan, dated November 14, 2018 prepared by Engineering and Surveying Services  Stormwater Maintenance Report, dated November 26, 2018 prepared by Amoskeag Engineering Consultants 242-1382, COC Request, 1820 Turnpike Street, GFM General Contracting  The Administrator states the filing has several outstanding items before the OOC can be closed out including stormwater maintenance, No-Snow Stockpiling signs, final monitoring of the restoration area and wetland markers. The applicant has been asked to remove a large propane tank that was installed in the NBZ. The Administrator states they have discussed several different ways to remediate the issue including the extension of the stone wall or installation of a black chain link fence. The wetland markers and No-Snow Stockpiling sign could then be placed on the fence.  Mr. Brian Vaughan, Smolak & Vaughan LLP is present and available for questions.  The Administrator states the wall along the NDZ was mitigation discussed at a previous meeting to remediate the propane tank that was placed in the NBZ. She states the propane tank is still there and is being used.  Mr. Napoli states after seeing the site he has no problem with the chain link fence and questions how long the propane tank has been in place.  The Administrator states she believes the tank has been in place since 2014, and is a violation in the location. She states the possibly of the applicant applying for an after-the-fact RDA for the tank, as the tank is the only structural modification needed for compliance.  Mr. Lynch states the applicant cannot file an RDA with an open OOC, the Commission will need to issue an EO.  The Commission discusses the best way to move forward with compliance regarding the propane tank.  Per the Commission a waiver will be required, which will also require an alternatives analysis.  Mr. Vaughan states the tank was installed by a propane company who told his client they would handle the permitting and approvals. He states his client was unaware the process wasn’t done and found out after-the-fact.  A motion to continue to January 9, 2019 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  As-Built Plan, dated September 13, 2018 prepared by Eastern Land Survey Assoc., Inc.  Pictures, dated November 21, 2018 242-1632, COC Request, Interstate 495 (MassDOT) 7  The Administrator states the plan is not a full As-built, just plans with the engineers stamp and certification that all work was done in compliance with the plan. The project was the resurfacing of 495 with some drainage improvements. She provides the Commission with site photos taken during a recent visit and reviews her findings.  Mr. Lynch questions the application plans that were submitted and states the Commission needs copies of the record drawings for the file.  Amy Lynch, MassDOT states there were no changes to the design plans, but there might be some project field notes.  Mr. Lynch states even if it not the typical surveyed as-build the Commission needs something more than what’s been provided. The project would have happened over a period of time and therefore would at the very least have field notes stating the improvements made.  Ms. Lynch state there is no guarantee what information was written down and needs to look through the files.  The Administrator raises her concerns that if MassDOT didn’t plan to comply and provide an As- built why they didn’t suggest another form of documentation.  Ms. Lynch states the contracts don’t have a specifications for As-built and this is something they are working on going forward. She states MassDOT doesn’t typically request COC’s.  The Administrator states the COC request is a requirement of the Massachusetts Avenue, and the Commission will probably see more requests coming in for older project files.  Mr. Lynch states the Commission needs to hold up their standards and the promises that were made to the neighbors of the project during the hearing process.  Mr. Napoli states it comes down to consistency and that sometimes a plan that was drafted doesn't always work in the field. When this happens the applicant might speak with the Administrator or apply for a modification to make the COC process run smoothly.  The Commission discusses the approved plan and how it was used during construction process.  Mr. McDonough asks if Ms. Lynch is stating the project was built in accordance with the plans provided and no changes were made.  Ms. Lynch states after speaking with the construction staff it is her understanding the project was built in accordance with the plans provided and no changes were made. She states she was on-site during the project for inspections.  Mr. Lynch states that every applicant that comes before the Commission is required to supply an As-built plan that has been surveyed and certified as part of the compliance. He states he is willing to consider relaxing this decision if the field notes can be provided for the record.  Mr. McDonough states this is something that should be decided at the hearing prior to the OOC being drafted.  The Commission states they need to know if there is any deviation from the record, if so it should be duly noted.  The Administrator states the surficial items are in compliance. She understands that the Commission would like the applicant to provide the information that can’t be check such as inverts and outlets. She states the improvements were all Riverfront and the outlets to the Shawsheen were not upgraded.  The applicant is to provide the Commission with field notes from the project that are on a plan or measurements and distances for field verification.  A motion to continue to January 9, 2019 is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  COC Request Letter, dated November 9, 2018 prepared by MassDOT  WPA Form 8A - Request for Certificate of Compliance  Project Completion Letter, dated November 9, 2019 prepared by MassDOT  Shawsheen River BMP Design, dated September 19, 2014 prepared by AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 8  Pictures, dated November 26, 2018 242-0639, COC Request, Osgood Street at Holt Road (MassDOT)  The Administrator states the project required an as-built but one was not provided. She field verified the work was completed and that the culvert was functioning and the area stabilized. She states the project is 25 years old.  Amy Lynch, MassDOT is present to answer questions.  The Commission is looking for field verification on the project and discusses the location of the project.  Ms. Lynch expresses her concerns with the legibility of the plans she has.  The Administrator states she has copy of the original plans and will scan and send to Ms. Lynch. She then reads the required information for the COC.  A motion to continue to January 9, 2019 is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  COC Request Letter, dated November 9, 2018 prepared by MassDOT  WPA Form 8A - Request for Certificate of Compliance  Project Completion Letter, dated November 9, 2019 prepared by MassDOT  Site Photos, dated July 9, 2018 & November 15, 2018  Project Plans, date N/A  Pictures, dated November 26, 2018 242-1692, Modification Request, 1210 Osgood Street (Princeton Development, LLC)  Mr. Napoli has recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Manzi steps in as chair.  The Administrator states this is a continuation from the November 14, 2018 hearing. At the prior hearing they discussed questionable materials being used on site that the Commission did not feel met condition #73 of the OOC. She reached out to Lisa Eggleston and MassDep for more information on both materials as discussed in the previous meeting, to determine if the material was considered clean fill. The Administrator states the only information she got from DEP was that the memo written in 1994 was accurate. She spoke with Lisa Eggleston who was the stormwater reviewer on the site to talk about the functionality of the system with the use of the materials. The Administrator refers the Commission and applicants to the document from Lisa Eggleston for review.  Mr. Lynch states he conducted his own research and he spoke with a 25 year DEP regional employee who has never encountered this material. The glass used in the PGA must be broken/crushed into particles that can 100% pass through a ⅜” sieve, from a food product or beverage bottles and less than 5% per volume residual byproduct. When it comes to wetlands and what is used in a stormwater infiltration system it’s less clear on glass but it strictly prohibits the use of crushed concrete. After conducting this research he feels it might be ok to leave the glass but he is confident that the crushed concrete used within stormwater management areas must be removed. He brings up his concerns with the soils on site and the stormwater design, the design was based on type “B” soils which glacial till is not and questions if the system works. He states at the last meeting Mr. Peznola told the Commission they didn’t account for any infiltration, this is not accurate according to the hydrocad calculations.  Mr. Joe Peznola of Hancock Associates and Brendan Gilmore of NRP Group are present. Mr. Peznola states he spoke with Rachel Freed of MassDEP Wetlands and John Fisher of The Solid Waste Bureau and that his conversation were very similar to those of Mr. Lynch regarding the PGA. They have done third party testing on the PGA proving that it meets the sieve and less than 5% requirements. 9  Mr. McDonough questions if it was confirmed that the material meets the requirements that the materials came from food or beverage products.  Mr. Peznola states this was not part of the testing but the supplier reported that the PGA was compliant with the MassDEP Policy. Regarding the concrete they provided Ms. Eggleston with calculations while the model was run without infiltration, and it ran above the recharge requirements. Based on Ms. Eggleston's advice to the Commission and DEP standards they are willing to remove the material under 1.4 and 2.5. Going forward they will not use the material in or around the systems, within 10’ perimeter beyond the confines of system, underneath and around the systems. On-site they have loamy sand or sandy loam on site, and chose larger systems using a static approach which is more conservative and that RAWLS Rate was used in the in situ soil classification. The site was classified with “B” soils and some indications from the on-site testing that maybe it should be considered “C” soils, this is why they took a more conservative design. The end design was a DEP stormwater compliant design as approved.  The Administrator asks Mr. Peznola to address Lisa Eggleston’s comments related to the system design.  Mr. Peznola states when looking at the concrete material they took into consideration if the material was suitable for putting in and around systems and that it is more permeable then the on- site material. The analysis was done in full compliance with the regulations.  Mr. Lynch states they never know on any project what differs from what is proposed in a soil condition. They are questioning this is because they received evidence that something is very different.  Mr. Peznola states they should be afforded presumption if they complied with all the requirements through the public process and should be able to move forward.  Mr. Lynch questions if less than “B” soil has been found beneath all the systems or just a few.  Mr. Peznola states that they assumed all the soil beneath the systems were “C” to be soils and the stormwater system was designed with these soils in mind.  The Commission discusses the soil types, permeability, perk rates and the testing of soils.  Mr. Mazi asks the Administrator for the original OOC date and the date of the Amendment to the OOC.  The Administrator states the OOC is dated 1/12/2017 and the AOOC is dated 1/26/2018.  Mr. Manzi states condition #73 should have been a red flag because it states what items are not permitted. He states he was present for every hearing for the project and that the applicant was cautioned about the site because it was maxed out. He questions when construction started and when the decision was made to use PGA and recycled concrete instead of conventional fill materials.  Mr. Gilmore states that construction started the end of June 2018 and the decision to use PGA and recycled concrete was made in July 2018.  Mr. Manzi questions why after coming before the Commission for the NOI and Amended OOC why no one realized the use of these products was a deviation from what is permitted and is strictly prohibited. If any of the material is allowed to remain in the ground it will require a waiver requiring an alternative analysis.  Mr. William Seuch of Goulston & Storrs, representing NRP, states there was no ill intent or intent to avoid the Commission. His client viewed the material as an inert material with no environmental impact and that his client was provided with the beneficial use determination. This information states the material is intended for use replacing clean crushed gravel which is how the material was used. The beneficial use determination also speaks to the material being used in subsoil drainage systems. Mr. Seuch states that condition #73 does not reference the PGA material and that his client was looking at the beneficial use determination which says it's not a solid waste.  Mr. Manzi reads condition #73, which prohibits concrete and states if the applicant had come before the Commission the application probably would have been denied. He states the discovery 10 of the material was made by the applicant’s monitor and questions why they didn’t run the idea past the environmental monitor.  Mr. Seuch states the concrete is virgin material and that an offer was made at the beginning of the meeting to remove the concrete from the two structures.  The Commission discusses the meaning of clean fill and how it pertains to the PGA.  Mr. Peznola states the mixed material has been used everywhere on the site including under the walls and would like the Commission to understand the magnitude of the removal of the material. The retaining wall was used as a barrier to protect the wetlands, the removal of the wall and the materials could be potentially impacting to the environment. He states DEP allows the supplier to oversee the quality of the PGA and if it meets the standard.  Mr. Lynch states there are materials present in the glass pile which make Commission question if the material complies with the BUD determination.  Mr. Peznola states they relied on UTS to do the quality control of the materials brought in and how they are placed.  Mr. Manzi states a certificate of origin/analysis was not provided for the material.  Mr. Peznola states if it is the inclination of the Commission to have the applicant remove the material they would request a continuance for a more formal modification.  Mr. Manzi states it is up to the applicant if they would like to request a continuance.  Mr. Seuch states he would like to re address the prior offer to remove all the concrete and any glass that may be mixed with it from 1.4 and 2.5 stormwater areas and not accept any more of this material at the site. He states given the placement of the material and the environmental impact on the site they request it remain in place.  Mr. Lynch confirms that 1.4 and 2.5 are the only two stormwater systems the material has been used in. He confirms the PGA and recycled concrete will not be used within a 100’ of Commissions jurisdictional area or in anything related to the stormwater management areas.  Mr. Gilmore questions that the material may not be used 10’ around the stormwater management system.  Mr. Lynch confirms it that material is not to be used beneath the stormwater system and 10’ around the perimeter of the system.  The Commission discusses the proposal, third party testing and locations of where the material has been used on site and the best route to proceed with the request.  Mr. Manzi asks if Mr. Seuch would like to expand his offer to the Commission.  Mr. Seuch asks for a brief recess.  Mr. Manzi grants this request and tables the meeting at 10:33.  The meeting resumes with Mr. Manzi acting as chair.  Mr. Seuch states they feel they can safely remove another 500 cubic yards of the material in addition to the previous proposal. This would mean they would be able to remove 700 cubic yards of material from the commission jurisdiction. He presents a plan showing the areas they feel they can remove the materials without impacting the stability of the wall.  The Commission reviews the plans with the applicant and discusses the proposal.  Mr. Seuch states the applicant can provide the Commission with an As-built showing the exact areas that the material has been removed from.  Mr. Manzi insists that an environmental monitor be present while the materials are being removed from the site.  Mr. McDonough questions the length of time it will take to remove the material.  Mr. Gilmore states it will take about a month of good weather to remove and replace the material.  Mr. Manzi confirms the new fill material will have certifications and will be part of the environmental monitor’s observations.  Mr. Seuch requests to poll the Commission; results 5-0 Unanimous.  The Commission discusses the proposal and the form documentation to use to issue the removal of the material. 11  The Administrator requests the proposal be in writing for the Commission to vote on.  The Commission tables the meeting for the applicant to draft a written proposal.  A motion to accept the modification to institute the remediation of the fill material as proposed in the document presented is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr. Saal.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous, Recused; Mr. Napoli. Documents  Email from Lisa Eggleston Regarding Stormwater, dated November 27, 2018 Enforcement Order/Violation 79 Boxford Street  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until December 12, 2018 is made by Mr. Saal, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from zack.ungvarsky@gmail.com requesting a continuance until 12/12/2018 46 Hollow Tree Lane (Lally)  The Enforcement Order was discussed with the Request of Determination of Applicability.  Mr. Lynch states the Commission needs to be notified by April 15, 2019 if the applicant is unable to start the project along with a reason. If the project cannot start on April 15th the applicant is to provide a compelling reason or fines will ensue.  The Administrator states a new EO will be issued requiring a planting plan, installation plants with one year of monitoring, installation of a stone wall and markers to be completed prior to June 1, 2019.  A motion to issue a new Enforcement Order to complete the restoration work is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  WPA Form 1 Request for Determination of Applicability with Supporting Materials, dated November 14, 2018  Topographic Plan, dated November 14, 2018 prepared by Hancock Associates 740 Turnpike Street (Mr. Sudzy Car Wash)  The Administrator states the Violation was brought to the Commission by DEP. A video was recorded of water being the discharged from the recycling unit into the wetlands. When the Administrator got to the site they were discharging to a catch basin. An Enforcement order was issued along with a fine which has been paid. A Copy of the O&M plan has been supplied by the Administrator to the owner, the plan is not being complied with.  Mr. Ken Bernini, Owner and Mr. Sudzy site manager are present. Mr. Bernini states they have been in business for 14 years, he is second owner of Mr. Sudzy. The site manager has been with him since opening. They have surveillance cameras on site, after reviewing the footage he saw the site manager pumping into the reclaim tank. The hose was then stretched out to roll it back up, at this time the hose did extend into the wetlands but was unconnected. Since the incident maintenance has been done to clean the pit, open the drain to the tank and pump the tank.  Mr. Lynch states this is a very different OOC because of the location and states it is the owner’s responsibility to make sure they comply.  The Administrator states the OOC has many requirements, the owner will need to bring the property into compliance. 12  Mr. Napoli questions why the O&M Plan has not been followed as well as why the annual report has not been filed by the owner. He states these items need to be addressed and on file.  Mr. Bernini states he is unfamiliar with the OOC but is willing to work with the Administrator to make sure they are satisfied.  The applicant will come back in January 2019 and supply the Commission with reports.  A motion to continue to January 9, 2019 is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  As-Built Plan, dated August 7, 2003 prepared by Merrimack Engineering Services  O&M Plan, dated May 5, 1999  Violation Letter, dated November 7, 2018 43 Scott Circle (Assefa)  The Administrator states since the last meeting Mr. Lynch and Mr. Napoli made a site visit and reviews the discussion from a prior meeting with the Commission. The Administrator recommends the fill to be removed from the 25’ area with only the prior turnaround area needed to back out of the garage to remain between the 25’ and 50’.  Mr. Jack Sullivan, Sullivan Engineering is present and questions area of material that needs to be removed.  The Administrator states between the 25’ and 50’ is to be graded back to the original driveway expansion, monumentation of the 25’ is also required to prevent dumping of materials. A new EO will be written up and an after-the-fact RDA will need to be filed by the applicant for the remaining portion.  Per the Commission Mr. Sullivan is to file an after-the-fact RDA for the January 9, 2019 meeting.  A motion is made to amend the Enforcement Order as described is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous.  A motion to continue to January 9, 2019 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Existing Conditions Plan of Land, dated October 3, 2018 prepared by Sullivan Engineering Adjournment  A motion to adjourn at 11:33 is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous.