Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-12 Conservation Commission Minutes 06 12 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8 North Andover Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Members Present: Louis A Napoli, Chairman, Albert P. Manzi, Jr., Vice Chairman, Deborah A. Feltovic, Douglas W. Saal and Sean F. McDonough Members Absent: Joseph W. Lynch and John T. Mabon Staff Members Present: Jennifer A. Hughes, Interim Conservation Administrator and Amy Maxner, Conservation Administrator Meeting came to Order at: 7:01 p.m. Quorum Present. Pledge of Allegiance Acceptance of Minutes  A motion to accept the minutes of the May 22, 2019 as reviewed and amended is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 4-0 Unanimous. Request for Determination of Applicability 195 Olympic Lane (Crepeau)  The Interim Administrator states this for an in kind deck replacement within buffer zone and 200-foot riverfront area. The prior homeowner constructed the existing deck with no permits. She gives some background information on the project.  The Commission discusses the record drawing for the permitted deck.  The Interim Administrator states the deck is 33’ from the wetland at the closest point.  7:04 p.m., Mr. Lynch enters the meeting room.  The Commission discusses if a waiver request for the No-Build Zone is necessary.  The Interim Administrator states the homeowner is no longer liable for the violation, which makes the deck legal, not requiring a waiver. The RDA is for the reconstruction and the after-the-fact approval of the deck location.  A motion to issue a Negative Determination #2 & #3 as amended (stockpiling & material storage in the driveway and post construction inspection) is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Documents  Request for Determination of Applicability Application w/Supporting Materials, dated May 2019  RDA As-Built Site Plan, dated May 14, 2019, prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc.  Abutter Notice Postal Receipts Notice of Intent (NOI) 242-1745, 350 Winthrop Avenue (RDM, Inc.)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  The Interim Administrator states if the project goes beyond the next meeting the applicant should re notice.  The Commission discusses the project.  A motion to continue until June 26, 2019 is made by Mr. Saal, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from PEllison@theengineeringcorp.com requesting a continuance until 6/26/19 06 12 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8 242-1753, 247 Chickering Road (Enterprise Bank)  The Interim Administrator states the Planning Board has closed and issued a decision.  A motion to close and issue in 21 days is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  No new information was submitted 242-1755, Rea Street, Lots 4-7 (RDM Rea Street, LLC)  The Interim Administrator states the project is for permitting of the houses within the subdivision, and the roadways, utilities and stormwater structures were previously approved by the Commission. The permitting is only for houses within jurisdiction. The houses are larger than previously contemplated (some up to 500 s.f.). As compensation, they have proposed increased roof infiltration. Driveways account for an impervious area reduction. There are no appurtenant utilities or landscaping shown on the plans. Anything planted within Riverfront should be native. No update has made to the Riverfront alteration number.  Ben Osgood Jr., Ranger Engineering presents on behalf of the applicant. He states the homes are in the same locations however, some of the driveway locations have been changed. The disturbed area remains the same; they worked within the approved footprint. The impervious area in Riverfront has been increased a small amount. The roof areas on the proposed plan are larger than conceptual houses on the approved subdivision roadway plan. To compensate for the additional area the individual roof infiltration areas have been increased. Calculations show the additional roof area does not affect the stormwater management system. The plan will be updated to show proposed a/c units and bulkheads. He is unsure if any trees will be provided.  The Interim Administrator would like to know what they propose for landscaping. The Commission can condition any landscaping planted to be native.  Mr. Lynch confirms the roadway and homes will be built by the same individual. He questions if any soil testing was done in conjunction with the roof infiltrators.  Mr. Osgood states they used the soil testing done in the original drainage report.  The Commission discusses the maintenance of the detention pond.  Mr. Osgood states going forward the developer and the homeowners association will care for the detention pond.  Carlos Restrepo, 29 North Cross Road would like to know if the development would only consist of four homes.  Mr. Osgood states the development will consist of seven homes in total. Three of the seven lots do not require additional permitting from the NACC. These homes have already been approved by the Planning Board. The four lots requiring additional permitting are presently before the NACC.  Mr. Restrepo confirms the project was for clear-cutting the land with no replanting.  Mr. Manzi states there is a NDZ beyond the stone wall.  Mr. Restrepo would like to know if the owners are obligated to clean up the area of woods near the newly constructed roadway.  Mr. Lynch states Rea Street already existed as a public way and will not need to go for street acceptance. Anything on private property is the responsibility of the owner. The Town will not require the owner to do anything unless they want to.  Mr. Restrepo would like to know if he decides to clear the trees and plant a privacy screening if he is required to come before the NACC.  Mr. Manzi states it is best to contact the Conservation Department to have them look to see if the property requires permitting for tree removal.  The Commission discusses the Public Right-of-Way.  Elizabeth Williamson, 356 Rea Street confirms the edge of her property is the stone wall. 06 12 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8  The Interim Administrator states when the development was permitted the rock wall could not be changed. In order to get the width for the Right-of-Way most of the Right-of-Way is on the new properties.  Mrs. Williamson would like to know if the first three houses in the development have been approved.  The Interim Administrator states no structures of any kind were approved. The NACC approved an amount of disturbance to calculate what they could clear for Riverfront purposes, stormwater management system, the roadway and sewer pump station. They were required to file for any houses within jurisdiction (100-feet of BVW and 200-feet of mean annual highwater of the brook).  Mrs. Williamson would like to know if Lot 1 is within jurisdiction.  The Interim Administrator states Lot 1 is within jurisdiction but the house is not. She states the inner riparian zone is not depicted on the plan. There will be a pre construction process prior to building starting.  Mrs. Williamson expresses concerns that the roadway will be torn up and access to her house cut off during the installation of utilities. She is curious if she will receive a notice prior to this happening.  Mr. Osgood states they should notify her but this is still some time down the road. He believes they will tie into the sewer near Abbott Street.  The Interim Administrator suggests they consult with planning to see if they will require a Minor Modification or if it can be done administratively.  The Administrator would like a note added to the plan stating any landscaping within jurisdiction is to be native. She would like to know if there is an erosion control spec for force main and water exiting at the end of the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Osgood states the submittal does not cover the area in question. He states he would be happy to bring this to the applicant’s attention. If needed they will do an erosion control plan for the area.  A motion to continue until June 26, 2019 is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Revised Notice of Intent Application, dated May 13, 2019, prepared by Ranger Engineering & Design, LLC  Site Plan, Lots 4-7 Rea Street, Sheet 1-3, dated May 17, 2019, prepared by Ranger Engineering & Design, LLC  Site Plan, Lots 4-7 Rea Street, Sheet 2-3, dated May 17, 2019, prepared by Ranger Engineering & Design, LLC  Site Plan, Lots 4-7 Rea Street, Sheet 3-3, dated May 17, 2019, prepared by Ranger Engineering & Design, LLC  Abbreviated Drainage Report, dated May 17, 2019, prepared by Ranger Engineering & Design, LLC General Business 242-1722, COC Request, 173 Campbell Road (Prescott)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  The Interim Administrator states the lawn was recently planted and needs time to grow.  A motion to continue until July 10, 2019 is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from kprescott11@yahoo.com requesting a continuance until 7/10/19 242-1736, 195 Olympic Lane (Crepeau) 06 12 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8  The Administrator states the applicant is seeking a COC for an addition. A site inspection was done today. The addition was built in compliance and the stockpile area is starting to grow in. The homeowner has been asked to remove some debris from the NDZ.  A motion to issue a full and final Certificate of Compliance and hold until confirmation the debris has been removed is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Land Surveyor Letter, dated May 14, 2019, prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc.  WPA Form 8A – Request of Certificate of Compliance  As-Built Site Plan, dated May 14, 2019, prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc. 242-0628, Partial COC Request, 66 Meadowood Road (Hurban)  The Interim Administrator states no additional information was received.  The Commission discusses the request for PCOC and the fees associated with the request.  A motion to deny the request for a Certificate of Compliance is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  No new information was submitted Warrant Article Discussion & Recommendation  The Interim Administrator states the plan was revised slightly and the estate portion is slightly larger. She recommends the Commission vote to support Article 5.  The Commission discusses the article.  A motion to vote to support Article 5 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Schematic Site Plan, dated May 30, 2019, prepared by The Engineering Corp. Foster Farm - MACC Delineation Workshop Approval  The Interim Administrator states that she is unable to attend the June 13th MACC delineation workshop. Greg Hochmuth and Mike Howard will be running the workshop. She recommends the Commission authorize the activity with any disturbance for soil testing to be restored.  A motion to authorize the activity is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  No information was submitted Enforcement Order/Violation 242-1692, 1210 Osgood Street (NRP Group, LLC.)  Mr. Napoli recuses from the discussion due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Manzi steps in as Chair.  Mr. Manzi requests Michael Sabulis, GEI Consultants (peer reviewer) to join the Commission at the table. He references the documents to be reviewed at tonight's meeting and summarizes the events that have occurred since last week.  Mr. Sabulis states the findings are been based on site visits and documents provided through June 7, 2019. The groundwater treatment system in place was evaluated and found adequate. They agree with the stormwater infiltration opinions thus far resulting in percolation and or partial inundation of the RCA. They agree the placement of an asphalt base course will assist in reducing the leachate issue.  William Seuch, Goulston & Storrs introduces the team that will be presenting on behalf of the applicant. Dan Brenner, Deputy General Counsel, NRP Group, Ted Kramer, Executive VP of Construction, NRP Group, Noam Magence, General Counsel NRP Group, Brenda Gilmore, VP of Construction, NRP Group, 06 12 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 Jeff Brown, General Counsel Princeton Properties, Kevin O’Flaherty, Goulston & Storrs, John Rockwood, Chief Environmental Scientist EchoTec, Kim Gravel, Senior Project Manager, LRT. Joe Peznola, Hancock Associates is expected later in the meeting (J. Peznola did not attend the meeting).  Mr. Lynch states the NACC is not presently represented by legal counsel. The meeting may be postponed in order to refer the matter to legal counsel. The present circumstances have arisen due to violation of Condition #73 in the OOC.  Mr. Manzi feels an open discussion is in order. They are still in the fact finding stage.  Mr. Seuch states he will not comment on the June 12th document submitted by GEI. He has not had time to review this material.  Mr. Manzi states the Commission reserves the same right in regards to the EcoTec document, which was received earlier today.  Mr. Rockwood states the wetlands and buffer zone areas affected by the project were evaluated last Friday. He states no new areas affected have been observed. A listing of plant materials have been provided in the report. In area “A”, they propose supplemental plantings (45 shrubs) with native shrubs and native seed mix as restoration for this area. In area “B” they found some shrub and groundcover impacts. They propose supplemental plantings (36 shrubs) and wetland seed mix to restore the understory. He states the trees have none/minor stress in this area. They feel these trees will recover. In area “C”, they recommend continued monitoring. The vegetation in this area appears fine. In area “D”, they propose shrubs and seed mix. In area “E”, they propose to remove the calcite/granular crust via hand tools and monitor the plantings. In area “F”, they propose supplemental plantings (12 shrubs).  The Interim Administrator states they have noticed some disturbance in Area F, which was not present prior.  Mr. Rockwood states in area “G” they propose supplemental plantings (32 shrubs) along with some seeding. All of the plantings are proposed to be planted in the fall of 2019 and monitored for a two year period with annual reports to the NACC. In area, “H” there is very limited calcite within the stream channel. At this time, they propose continued monitoring for this area.  Mr. Lynch would like to know if the abutting property owners are aware of the proposals.  Mr. Brenner states they felt it was premature to seek approval for the proposed work without an approved plan. He states the owner of 25 Commerce Way is difficult to reach. The airport has been cooperative. They have been negotiating an access agreement with the airport.  Mr. Rockwood states they evaluated the down gradient stream areas. Macro invertebrates, insects, crustaceans and, leeches were collected from the streams. The macroinvertebrate study suggests there has been no impact to the macroinvertebrate community related to the project.  Mr. Manzi would like to know if there has been any impact to the area outside of the streams. During site visits, they have observed sheet flow of calcite evidence outside of the stream areas.  Mr. Rockwood states the calcite is concentrated within the stream channel, not outside of the stream flow. There is an area adjacent to area “E” where some calcite was observed. The calcite is mainly within areas the water is flowing.  Mr. Manzi would like to know if the water sample tests requested several meetings ago were completed.  Mr. Seuch states the Sanborn test results from the North pond are attached to the report from EcoTech. The results indicate a high pH level.  The Interim Administrator states in regards to the macroinvertebrate sampling the system has had a lot of time to washout. There are impacts that have occurred and long-term impacts. There was no sampling or determination on the macroinvertebrate community when the site was completely coated with calcite. She understands there may be no long-term or lasting impacts but there was an impact.  Mr. Rockwood states he is summarizing the report; the report is more carefully worded.  Mr. Seuch acknowledges there were some impacts. They have proposed a planting plan and are not experiencing any new or different impacts with the watering system in place.  Mr. Manzi states there are no questions at this time however, the NACC will need time to read the report. He would like to know if they have reviewed the peer review report, dated June 11th, 2019.  Mr. Seuch states they have had time to review the report. 06 12 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8  Ms. Gravel gives a brief summary of the dewatering and monitoring system. The dewatering system has been completely effective in eliminating the seeps. The water treatment states has been able to maintain the flow rates encountered following rain events and treat the water accordingly. The discharge is clear and the turbidity is low. The average turbidity is approximately 7 NTU at this time. They will continue to operate the system on a daily basis collecting readings.  The Interim Administrator would like to know if there has been any pH levels of the water taken when it leaves the system.  Ms. Gravel states they have data showing ranges between 7 and 7 ½ at the F1 on average.  Mr. Manzi confirms the dewatering system in place is not intended to be permanent.  Ms. Gravel states the system will remain permanent until other actions on the site have been completed.  Mr. Manzi would like to know what other actions they anticipate to occur.  Ms. Gravel states the operation of the system in place will be determined on the effectiveness of the paving.  Mr. Manzi states the report by GEI recommends the NACC allow the paving of the site. He would like to know if they have any questions for the consultant.  Mr. Seuch states they received the report yesterday and have had just 24 hours to review it. They have reached out to their experts, several of which were unable to attend tonight's meeting. The consensus between their experts and the NACC’s is that paving the site would have an environmental benefit. They are seeking permission tonight to proceed with paving of a base coat. They agree monitoring of effectiveness of the paving and rain sewer system is important. They agree additional investigation to demonstrate the effectiveness of the paving and whether or not the treatment system can be turned off. They would like their experts to meet with GEI over the next two weeks regarding issues raised.  Mr. Manzi states he would like the report from GEI to become part of the OOC. He states it is very likely the NACC could consider the entire site jurisdictional unless evidence is provided to show the migration of RCA has stopped and will not recur. He feels the recommendations in the GEI report are fair and has no objections with the experts working together.  Mr. Seuch states while they generally agree with the report there are some items they do not agree with. He believes that coming up with a plan for the removal of the RCA from the site is premature. He states they can see no environmental purpose to seeking NACC approval before a top coat of pavement is completed. A hydrogeological investigation is not defined in the document. They do not believe the preliminary document should be associated with the OOC. They do not feel the placement of the RCA was a violation of the OOC to begin with. The concrete placed was clean, containing no coating or paint.  Mr. Lynch states Condition #73 does hold true. He believes paving is a reasonable approach and if successful, they will be much closer to a permanent solution. If not successful, the binder coat and RCA may need to be removed.  Mr. Seuch agrees it is their responsibility to address the migration of the water and leachate from the site. He does not believe the placement of a topcoat has anything to do with this issue. They are willing to remove the topcoat if needed. It is their opinion there are a range of future response actions that could be taken.  Mr. Manzi states the document will not prevent them from completing the project. The document gives the NACC assurance the Wetlands Protection Act and the Town’s Bylaw are complied with. He feels the NACC needs a document to correct the direction of the project. He does not understand why they are so determined not to remove any of the remaining RCA material onsite that has yet to be placed. He feels the placement of the RCA across the site has made the entire site jurisdictional.  Mr. Lynch states by regulation if an impact outside of jurisdiction causes an impact inside jurisdiction you extended your jurisdiction up to the impacted area.  Mr. Seuch would like to know from Mr. Sabulis if there is an environmental reason to delay the topcoat. If they are willing to take the financial risk, he does not understand why it would be prevented.  Mr. Sabulis states the base coat is typically a testing phase and the topcoat the final phase. He feels a conversation should happen between the two as an intermediate step. If the issues are controlled, he believes his recommendation would be to move ahead. 06 12 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8  Mr. Seuch would like to know if the peer reviewer agrees with their expert that there are a number of different ways this issue could be addressed going forward. He described the different ways the issue could be addressed.  Mr. Sabulis agrees the suggestions are all possible. He states they need to get through the investigation phase to better understand what the remedies might be.  Mr. Seuch would like to know if Mr. Sabulis agrees a permanent dewatering system could be installed and if additional time might help solve the issue.  Mr. Sabulis agrees that a permanent dewatering could be installed. He states he cannot speak to whether or not time might solve the issue without additional data.  Mr. Seuch states he does not understand why it is necessary to come up with a plan to remove the RCA at this time.  Mr. Sabulis states would be only if the lycheate migration of the wetland could not be controlled. There are a lot of questions to be answered.  Mr. Seuch would like to know if Mr. Sabulis believes the system in place today is working properly.  Mr. Sabulis agrees the system is working properly and has noted this in his report.  Mr. Lynch states the NACC not only has the environmental interest at hand, they also have the public interest underlying. He expresses his concerns that upon hearing “finished pavement” he feels this indicates having occupants/citizens living in this development. He states it is the NACC’s responsibility to protect the citizens.  Mr. Seuch states he does not understand how any of the issues discussed would affect a site resident.  Mr. Lynch believes if finished pavement means “occupancy”, it is on the table for discussion.  Mr. Seuch states whether a tenant is finished patio is impacted or not is not an issue for the NACC.  Mr. Sabulis states to speak to Mr. Seuch’s question regarding risk he is unable to answer without a formal risk assessment being prepared.  Mr. Seuch would like to know if Mr. Sabulis agrees the calcium calcite is an ingredient found in over the counter TUMS.  Mr. Sabulis states that without having a risk assessment he is unable to evaluate what the calcite is doing or how it has affected the environment.  Mr. Seuch requests a five minute recess.  Mr. Manzi checks to ensure there are no objections to the request.  8:45 p.m., The NACC takes a 5 minute recess  9:00 p.m., The NACC meeting resumes.  Mr. Seuch states they would like to request the NACC not vote the GEI report into the record as part of the OOC. He feels this will create some legal uncertainty about amending an OOC. They are willing to commit to working with the NACC, NACC agent and their experts over the next two weeks to come up with a consent order that all parties can agree to.  Mr. Manzi states the documents mentioned tonight will become exhibits to the record. They will not be incorporated into the OOC.  Mr. Lynch states that within two weeks they need to come back with some consensus on what they are looking to do to achieve these goals. This will allow them to move forward with the completion of the project.  Mr. Manzi poles the Commission to allow a binder coat of pavement.  Mr. Lynch states he has no problem with the binder coat and will not stand in the way from the finish paving. If the agent were being asked to sign off on the occupancy permit, it would be the NACC’s desire to not allow that to happen.  Mrs. Feltovic agrees with Mr. Lynch.  Mr. Saal has no issues with the binder coat. He states if they want to be allowed to place the topcoat they must agree to remove all pavement if they system does not work. He requests this be done in writing.  Mr. Seuch states if it is necessary to fix an issue and further intrusive activity is necessary requiring pavement removal they agree to remove the pavement. This will be included in the consent agreement. 06 12 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8  Mr. Manzi states they will require more money for the escrow account to continue to retain the peer reviewer.  Mr. Seuch agrees the peer reviewer needs to stay involved.  The Interim Administrator confirms the Commission is not limiting the type of paving on site.  Mr. Manzi states council has agreed to the request made by the NACC.  A motion to continue to June 26, 2019 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 4-0 Unanimous, Recused: Mr. Napoli. Documents  Peer Review Summary & Findings, dated June 11, 2019, prepared by GEI Consultants  Correspondence Letter, dated May 31, 2019, prepared by EcoTec, Inc.  Correspondence Letter, dated May 31, 2019, prepared by Hancock Associates  Dewatering & Water Treatment Summary, dated May 31, 2019, prepared by LRT, LLC  Correspondence Letter, dated June 12, 2019, prepared by EcoTec, Inc.  Correspondence Letter, dated June 6, 2019, prepared by Sanborn Head & Associates, Inc.  Exhibit 1 - November 28, 2018 Agreement  Exhibit 2 - RCA Removal Map  Exhibit 3 - Asphalt Plan Decision 242-1753, 247 Chickering Road (Enterprise Bank)  This item was taken out of order.  The Administrator reviews the project and the drafted Order of Conditions with the Commission. The Planning Board closed on the project on June 4th. The bond amount has been set at $10,000.00. A New England style field stone wall is to be installed with wetland markers and no snow stockpiling signs to monument the 50-foot NDZ. Stormwater reports are required to be submitted to the NACC. Per Condition #62, a maintenance contractor is required. A copy of the O&M Plan will be attached to the OOC.  A motion to approve as amended is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Adjournment  9:08 p.m., Mr. Napoli resumes his position as Chairman.  A motion to adjourn at 9:08 p.m. is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous.