HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-12 Conservation Commission Minutes Approved 0311212025
Albert P.Manzi Jr., Chair .• Bradley S. Mustain
John T. Mabon, Vice Chair j /j'' ;,-. Marissa Valentino
Joseph W.Lynch Jr. "' Matthew Bohenek
Sean F. McDonough
Town of North Andover
North Andover Conservation Commission
February 12,2025
Members Present: Matthew Bohenek,Albert P. Manzi Jr., Chairman, John T. Mabon, Vice Chairman, Joseph
W. Lynch, Jr. and Bradley S. Mustain
Members Absent: Sean F. McDonough and Marissa Valentino
Staff Members Present: Amy Maxner, Conservation Administrator and Alexyss Langevin, Conservation Field
Inspector and Planner
Meeting came to Order at. 7:00 p.m. Quorum Present.
Pledge of Allegiance
Acceptance of Minutes
• The minutes for January 8,2025 have not been reviewed.
• A motion to accept the minutes of January 22, 2025, as drafted was made by Mr. Mabon, seconded by Mr.
Mustain.
• Vote 4-0,Unanimous.
Small Project
NACC#341,265 Granville Lane (Quality Home Design)
• The Administrator provided an overview of the project,which involves replacing the front deck and stairs of a
residence,totaling 173 square feet. The site is located within an"L"of the house and is approximately 52-ft
from a wetland associated with an intermittent stream emerging from a culvert.New footings are proposed,
but the work area is well-contained,with the driveway nearby for material management. Given the site's
conditions,the Administrator recommended classifying the project as a Small Project under Category`B",
requiring a pre-construction meeting but no erosion controls due to the slope.
• Mr. Mabon inquired about the accuracy of the wetland delineation and the closest point to the project.
• The Administrator confirmed that the wetland boundary is clear,primarily consisting of Bank to an
intermittent stream with minimal Bordering Vegetated Wetland(BVW)in that area.
• A motion to accept and approve this as a Small Project"B"with conditions as recommended was made by
Mr. Mabon, seconded by Mr. Mustain.
• Vote 4-0,Unanimous.
Documents
Aerial Deck Pic with Wetland Measurements 265 Granville,Aerial Pic Oblique, Small Project Application
with Supporting Materials 0129 25
Certificate of Compliance
242-1058,20 Nutmeg Lane,Lot 13 (Robbins)
• The Administrator reviewed the request,previously heard by the Commission, involving the demolition of an
existing house and construction of a new single-family home. Due to noncompliant site features,the request
was continued,requiring a restoration plan for the 25-foot No Disturb Zone(NDZ),removal of a fence
section, and installation of a riprap apron for the driveway drain. Coordination between the seller and new
homeowner delayed progress,prompting the Administrator to recommend denying the Certificate of
Compliance(COC) and issuing an Enforcement Order(EO). The EO will require removal of mulch,
preparation for planting native species, installation of a stone apron at the drainage discharge, and fence
removal. The Administrator proposed a March 2025 deadline for plan submission and June 2025 for
execution. Efforts are underway, with Norse Environmental engaged to prepare the plan.
• A motion to deny the Certificate of Compliance was made by Mr. Mustain, seconded by Mr. Mabon.
• Vote 4-0,Unanimous.
• A motion to issue an Enforcement Order was made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr. Mustain,based on the
findings from the Certificate of Compliance review,which confirmed that the project is not in compliance.
The Enforcement Order will require the property to be brought into compliance in accordance with the
specified corrective actions and the deadlines as discussed.
• Vote 4-0, Unanimous.
Documents
12-11-2024 Meeting Materials, As Built Blow UP
Certificate of Compliance
242-1045,Partial COC Request,430 Osgood Street-NAHS (North Andover Public Schools)
• The Administrator provided an overview of the project's history,noting that an Order of Conditions (OOC)
was issued in March 2001 for the high school reconstruction and expansion,which included parking, fields,
landscaping, and stormwater management. The OOC was amended in 2004 to allow field redesign and tennis
court paving. A Partial Certificate of Compliance (PCOC)was issued in 2017 for synthetic turf fields,but full
Certificates of Compliance (COCs)requested in 2018 and 2023 were denied due to the absence of as-built
plans. Given the high school's upcoming field and track improvements, the Administrator emphasized the
need for a PCOC request within the proposed project footprint. Existing conditions plans have been provided,
and the Department of Public Works (DPW) is reviewing them,though additional time is required for
completion.
• Kyle Rowan and Ryan Thackeray, Gale Associates are present on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Rowan
presented details of the high school project, explaining that existing conditions plans were prepared for four
project areas. These plans include updated wetland delineations and aim to satisfy as-built requirements for
the 2001 and 2004 OOCs. However, Gale cannot certify full compliance because they were not the original
engineers of record. Consequently,the Conservation Administrator is coordinating with the Town to
determine compliance status.
• Mr. Lynch expressed skepticism about the methodology used, citing inconsistencies in soil test findings. He
emphasized the need for a clear compliance determination before proceeding.
• Mr. Mabon highlighted unresolved violations, including a shed and a parking area,which should be clearly
identified for removal in the PCOC request. He stressed that issuing a PCOC with existing violations would
be inappropriate and requested continued technical review.
• Mr. Manzi questioned why a definitive compliance statement had not been provided, as is typically expected.
• Mr. Rowan clarified that certification is typically issued by the project's original engineer of record,which in
this case was Dinisco Design Partners. Gale was tasked with providing stamped existing conditions plans but
not certifying past compliance.
• Laurie Burzlaff,Assistant Town Manager noted that Gale was not originally contracted to secure a COC but
is assisting at the Town's request to resolve the issue. She underscored the urgency of finalizing this matter to
avoid project delays and increased costs.
• Mr. Lynch emphasized that the delays began in 2018 when the Applicant was denied a Certificate of
Compliance(COC), and again in 2021, despite being aware of ongoing non-compliance issues. He stated that
the responsibility for these delays lies with the project's mismanagement,not the Conservation Commission.
He expressed concern that hiring Gale Associates to produce only a partial compliance review was
insufficient. Mr. Lynch found it unacceptable for the Commission to be asked to sign off on incomplete
documentation,noting that the project's long-standing issues were ignored until the last minute. He stressed
that high school properties are dynamic, not static, and reiterated that the timing problem does not rest with
the Commission but with previous management teams who failed to address these matters.
2025-02-12 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10
• Ms. Burzlaff clarified that the Town is not directly responsible for the project's mismanagement, explaining
that it was under the purview of the School Department and handled by a former Administration. She stated
that the current team is working to resolve the situation with the available information.
• Mr. Manzi acknowledged the Administrator's earlier disclosure that the project is not ready to close, as she
continues to collaborate with the Assistant Director of Public Works (DPW). He recommended allowing the
Administrator to work with DPW to create a clear disclosure list outlining areas of non-compliance. He
explained that it is common for an initial project engineer to depart, leaving a successor engineer to certify
compliance or highlight discrepancies, and he anticipates the Administrator will produce a comprehensive list
after working with Mr. Borgesi.
• Mr. Mustain questioned the source of the line work for the plans, specifically why the (gravel)parking area
near the baseball field was not reflected.
• Mr. Rowan explained that the line work was derived from an on-the-ground topographic survey conducted in
October, focused solely on the upcoming project areas. He noted that while there was no specific hatch for the
parking area,the line work does exist.
• Mr. Mustain observed that the plans show areas of non-compliance but fail to clearly label them.
• Mr. Mabon added that the plans do not fully capture the extent of violations, as portions are cut off from the
presented views.
• The Administrator reported that Mr. Borgesi requested the CAD file for the new Notice of Intent(NOI) and is
working to compile all plan sets, adding that the gravel driveway is more clearly identified on the NOI plans.
• Mr. Mabon clarified that he was not suggesting the survey was incomplete but noted that previous plans had
not shown the shed,parking area, and their proximity to wetlands and buffer zones, details missing from the
current Partial Certificate of Compliance (PCOC) set.
• Mr. Mustain confirmed that the survey data required for an as-built within the project area is available,though
not certified by the original engineer. He emphasized the need to move forward with a plan incorporating
mitigation measures proposed by Mr. Mabon while supporting future improvements to the high school.
• Melinda Perone, 65 Meadowood Road expressed concerns about student parking in the gravel lot near the
baseball field, noting it is frequently used by students without permits and becomes overcrowded during
baseball games, causing unsafe conditions along the main traffic route to the high school. She also highlighted
beaver activity across the street and voiced concerns about Cochichewick Brook's wetlands, questioning
whether the baseball field—which she claimed contributes to baseballs littering the brook—could be
relocated.
• The Administrator responded that the suggestion to relocate the field would be more appropriately addressed
during the NOI hearing.
• A motion to continue to February 26, 2025,was made by Mr. Mahon, seconded by Mr. Mustain.
• Vote 3-1, (In Favor: Bohenek, Mustain,Mabon; Opposed: Lynch).
Documents
#242-1045- Orig. OOC,Amended OOC, #242-1045 File, Project Chronology-NAHS, 719560_NAHS
Permit Plan Set 0122 25_Stamped, Existing Conditions Plans PCofC req. #242-1045, NA CC NAHS Memo to
M. Rodrigues&L. Burzlaff 01-24-25, NAHS 2004 Amended Plan Set-Fields- 242-1045, NAHS Revised
Partial Certificate of Compliance Application 0128 2025
Notice of Intent(NOI)
242-xxxx,94 Morningside Lane (Staropoli)
• The Chair stated the Applicant has requested a continuance.
• A motion to continue to February 26, 2025,was made by Mr. Mustain, seconded by Mr. Mahon.
• Vote 4-0,Unanimous.
Documents
Email from Blaisdell a)wsengineers.com requesting a continuance until 02126125
Notice of intent(NOI)
242-1906,430 Osgood Street-NAHS (North Andover Public Schools)
2025-02-12 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10
• Kyle Rowan and Ryan Thackeray, Gale Associates are present on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Rowan
reviews the existing conditions plan stating there are four areas across the High School parcel that were
briefly touched on with the PCOC heard earlier tonight. He stated these are the same four areas that are
subject to proposed improvements. The first of these areas is the existing natural grass baseball field with
clay infield. Some items of note on this: a new topographic survey was performed in October,which picked
up wetland delineation flags placed by LEC Environmental earlier that month. He stated that the sheet
depicted BVW flags on two or three sides of the proposed project area(east, south, and southwest). He
points out the dashed line in right center field,which is an existing detention galley for the High School
project installed in 2001. There is a drainage line running from the parking lot to this galley,then west below
Walsh Field, and finally outlets into the river southwest off the plan sheet. He stated that this structure and
all other subsurface drainage infrastructure will remain in place and be protected throughout construction.
The second area is the tennis courts—there is an existing six-battery bituminous concrete tennis court, and
they propose to replace it in bind. The tennis courts are surrounded by BVW on all sides, and they propose
to stay within the footprint of the existing courts but fully reconstruct them. The Farese Track work is more
limited; they will be adding four athletic light towers at the track's four corners and a shot put area to the
south.Finally,Walsh Stadium, which has a dual turf field with stadium grandstand seating and limited
athletic lighting on the west, east, and north sides,the demolition of the baseball field is limited to the
stripping of topsoil and necessary groundwork for the proposed subgrade. There is limited irrigation
equipment in this area,which will be removed during construction. The chain-link fences, dugouts, and
walkways will be demolished,but the existing subsurface drainage infrastructure will remain.
• Mr. Lynch questioned why, in the prior discussion regarding compliance,the proposed condition plan shows
silt sock coming up to the shed and into the other corner without protecting it,despite earlier statements
suggesting the shed would be demolished and removed. He noted that the current plans indicate the shed
will remain, as there's no notation suggesting its removal.
• Greg Landry, Director of Personnel and Operations for the North Andover School Department, stated they
were aware the shed was considered a violation but believed it had previously been moved to its current
location with Conservation Commission approval a few years ago. He confirmed they are willing to move
the shed and address any parking lot concerns to ensure the project proceeds.
• Mr. Lynch reiterated the inconsistency,noting that the earlier presentation indicated the shed would be
removed,but the current plans do not reflect that. He thanked Mr. Landry for clarifying that the shed will
indeed be moved or removed.
• Mr. Rowan acknowledged the importance of clarifying the shed and gravel driveway situation. He reminded
the NACC that Gale Associates was not involved in the original project and PCOC request but confirmed
they have no issue including the shed removal or gravel driveway conversion to loom and seed in the bid
package.
• Mr. Manzi stated that the removal of the shed and parking area will likely be conditioned in the OOC.
• Mr. Rowan confirmed the tennis courts will be pulverized and reconstructed in the same footprint, slightly
reducing the area by chamfering the corners. He noted the construction entrance will be shown on the
revised plans—it will be on the left side,using the access drive between the limits of work, as this is the
only feasible option. The plans also depict wetland restoration along the north access drive,including the
removal of the existing walkway and failed culvert, followed by wetland restoration.
• Mr. Lynch asked if any geotechnical work is required under or near the tennis courts.
• Mr. Rowan confirmed borings will be conducted in the area. Currently, they only have test pit data from the
baseball field. The geotechnical report is expected by the week of the 17th and will be submitted for the
Commission review.
• Mr. Lynch emphasized the importance of the geotechnical data, questioning whether pulverization would
still be suitable if organic or PET material is found at depth.
• Mr. Rowan acknowledged this and stated they will decide once they have the report. Mr. Rowan outlined the
track improvements, confirming the installation of four new athletic light towers at the track's corners and
the demolition and reconfiguration of the shot put area,keeping it within the same footprint. At Walsh Field,
2025-02-12 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10
two additional athletic lights will be installed on the south side, and the existing lights on the west, east, and
north sides will be replaced with modern LED fixtures. The poles will remain.
• Mr. Mustain asked if the new lights would impact the walkway.
• Mr. Rowan stated the light poles would be positioned off the back edge of the walkway,which is seven to
eight feet wide, allowing sufficient space.
• Mr. Rowan reviewed the layout and materials sheets, confirming the baseball field will be replaced with a
synthetic turf combination field, accommodating baseball, softball, football, soccer, lacrosse, and field
hockey. The field will have a concrete turf curb, chain-link fencing, a 40-11 chain-link backstop behind home
plate, and 20-ft safety netting extending outward for pedestrian protection. The softball field will have a 30-
ft chain-link backstop and additional safety netting by the batting tunnels. The baseball field will be shifted
north, away from the wetlands,while preserving the layout for other fields. Batting tunnels,bullpens, and
limited spectator seating will be installed around the perimeter, along with 10 athletic light poles (70-90 ft
high)and a perimeter walkway. A javelin throw area with natural grass is planned for the bottom left corner
of the field.
• Mr. Mustain asked if the synthetic turf would have granulated rubber infill.
• Mr. Rowan confirmed crumb rubber infill is proposed.
• The Administrator asked if any alternative infill materials were being considered.
• Mr. Rowan stated they are not currently considering alternatives but acknowledged they exist.
• Mr. Lynch stressed the need to ensure zero net runoff,noting synthetic turf may accelerate runoff
concentration,making it nearly a point source discharge, even if infiltration is used.
• Mr. Rowan stated they are accounting for this in their stormwater design,which is being reviewed by a third
party through the Planning Board's site plan review process. He described the field's cross-section: 2 inches
of infill material,turf carpet backing, 8 inches of washed stone, herringbone flat panel drains, and
compacted subgrade. The flat panel drains connect to a collection system around the southwest and east
perimeters,leading to an outlet control structure at the south.
• Mr. Thackeray noted they had to shift the field's limits due to overlapping perimeter collector pipes and the
detention basin.
• Mr. Mustain stressed the importance of preventing vehicles from tracking granulated rubber into wetlands,
suggesting that"No Parking" signs alone would be insufficient.
• Mr. Rowan agreed, offering to remove the curb cut to discourage unauthorized parking. He confirmed the
gravel area would be converted to loom and seed.
• The Administrator expressed surprise that the 200-ft Riverfront Area did not extend through the baseball
diamond, as shown in 2001 plans. She questioned how LEC handled mean high water measurements.
• Mr. Rowan explained that LEC flagged the mean annual high water where accessible but could not go
further south due to beaver dams constructed since 2013. They relied on pre-dam aerial imagery to estimate
the mean high water line and incorporated this data into their CAD design. The 200-ft Riverfront Area and
mean annual high water line will be shown on revised plans.
• The Administrator reminded them that work in the Riverfront Area requires an alternatives analysis.
• Mr. Rowan agreed to provide a written alternatives analysis. He confirmed the tennis courts would have a
vehicle-width gate for maintenance access,though there will be no vehicle drive. The six-court battery will
be fully reconstructed in its current footprint,with corners chamfered to reduce impervious area. The
existing walkway will be realigned to connect with the access drive and the crosswalk shown on the plan,
tying into the existing sidewalk. No lighting is proposed—only an 8-ft chain-link fence,bituminous asphalt
courts, standard acrylic surfacing, and a walkway.
• Mr. Lynch inquired about the proposed runoff collection method.
• Mr. Rowan stated they plan to match existing tennis court grading(83 and 1 slope) and maintain the current
sheet flow direction.
• The Commission discussed adding a drip edge and supported the additional disturbance required.
• Mr. Rowan agreed to incorporate a drip edge into the tennis court design. He outlined plans to realign the
shot put area,keeping it within the current footprint. The shot put will feature a 6-inch concrete curb with
stone dust infill and a concrete throwing pad in the southeast corner. He proposed adding four athletic lights,
2025-02-12 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10
70-90 ft tall, at the track's four corners. He confirmed the project remains outside the 50-ft No Build Zone
(NBZ) and bordering vegetative wetlands are located to the southeast.
• Mr. Lynch asked if the site contained any priority habitat.
• The Administrator confirmed it does not,but mentioned the option of pursuing dark sky certification.
• Mr. Rowan assured that their lighting vendor routinely handles dark sky compliance and will include this in
the process.
• Mr. Lynch emphasized that similar lighting guidelines should apply to the lower fields as well.
• Mr. Rowan presented the plan to replace existing light fixtures at Walsh Stadium and add two new light
towers on the south side, outside the 50-ft NBZ. One tower falls within the 200-ft Riverfront Area, which will
be addressed in the alternatives analysis.
• The Administrator requested the walkway at the south perimeter of Walsh outline be added to the plans.
• Mr. Lynch stressed that lighting must remain over 50-ft from wetlands.
• Mr. Rowan described plans to restore 940 sq. ft of wetlands by removing a failed culvert and walkway,
reconnecting the BVW system, creating an open flow channel, and planting with species listed in the plan.
They will remove the top 12 inches of soil and replace it with clean fill under wetland scientist supervision.
• The Administrator noted she sent questions to the consultant and is awaiting responses,though some were
touched on during the meeting.
• Mr. Rowan confirmed they will formally respond in writing and resubmit updated plans a week before the
next hearing.
• The Administrator raised concerns about snow management on Walsh Field, specifically whether plowing
displaces rubber infill.
• Mr. Landry was unsure about Walsh Field's current snow management but offered to investigate.
• The Administrator referenced a webinar on permitting artificial turf fields and the environmental risks of
PFAS leaching from crumb rubber infill.
• Mr. Manzi questioned alternatives to crumb rubber and NACC's jurisdiction over the matter.
• Mr. Lynch confirmed the O&M Plan should address migration of materials.
• Mr. Rowan discussed Brockfill, an engineered wood product requiring a shock pad, as a common alternative
to crumb rubber. He noted the significant cost increase, estimating $80,000—$100,000 for a standard field,
with this project likely costing more.
• Mr. Lynch noted that an additional benefit of this alternative material is its ability to mitigate heat exhaustion
risks for athletes, as rubber infill creates a significantly hotter playing surface.
• Mr. Rowan explained that they install quick-connect valves around fields with this infill to allow for
occasional watering on hot days to help reduce heat. While the infill retains less heat than asphalt surfaces,it
can still warm up under direct sunlight but cools quickly once the sun is gone or clouds appear. Water
provides an additional way to manage the temperature.
• Mr. Manzi requested alternative infill options be presented for NACC consideration.
• Mr. Lynch highlighted concerns about water quality degradation from chemically charged rubber runoff
infiltrating through the system.
• Mr. Rowan explained that stormwater would infiltrate through the turf's clean stone base, geotextile fabric,
compacted soil, and glacial fill before reaching the outlet control structure.
• Mr. Lynch stressed the need to understand the water quality impacts of the proposed design.
• Mr. Rowan confirmed the NOI and the partial Certificate of Compliance are tied to a third-party stormwater
review through the Planning Board.
• Mr. Lynch acknowledged the NACC is being flexible by reviewing the NOI before the stormwater review is
complete.
• Laurie Burzlaff, Assistant Town Manager expressed budget concerns, stating an additional $100,000 for
alternative infill may jeopardize work on the upper and football fields. She noted they followed proper steps
after receiving Town Meeting funding in May.
• Mr. Lynch reiterated NACC's jurisdiction over water quality and stressed the need for early design
discussions to avoid budget surprises.
2025-02-12 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10
• Mr. Manzi asked for time to gather the necessary information,while Mr. Mustain emphasized the
Commission's valid environmental concerns about crumb rubber infill.
• A motion to continue to February 26, 2025, was made by Mr. Mabon, seconded by Mr. Mustain.
• Vote 4-0,Unanimous.
Documents
719560 NAHS Permit Plan Set 0122 25_Stamped, NAHS Baseplan FINAL - Stamped 20241210, NAHS
Notice of Intent Package 0122 2025, Town of North Andover Mail-NAHS NOI-Review
Comments_Questions
Notice of Intent(NOI)
242-1907,Route 114 ROW from Waverly Road to Willow Street/Mill Road (MassDOT)
• Samuel Campbell,John Tamburrini,and Kevin Thompson of Greenman-Pederson, Inc. were present on
behalf of the Applicant to provide an overview of the Route 114 Corridor Improvement Project.
• Mr. Campbell acknowledged the project's significant geographic and technical scope, anticipating substantial
feedback from the Commission. The presentation,previously shown at other public meetings, covered the
overall project scope and focused on areas relevant to the Wetlands Protection Act(WPA)and the Notice of
Intent(NOI). The project spans 3.2 miles,with 2.2 miles along Route 114, extending from west of the
Waverly Road and Route 114 intersection to the eastern end near Willow Street. Portions of the work fall
under the jurisdiction of the Lawrence and Andover Conservation Commissions,requiring Requests for
Determination of Applicability (RDA)in both towns. Mr. Campbell reviewed the project's environmental and
regulatory processes,noting that it went through MEPA review,requiring an expanded Environmental
Notification Form and Environmental Impact Report due to its location within environmental justice
populations. Other permits include the 401 Water Quality Certification and 404 authorization from MassDEP
and the US Army Corps of Engineers. The project,funded by 80%Federal Aid and 20% State Funding, stems
from various studies, including a 2010 corridor study and road safety audits. The main goals are to address
pedestrian deficiencies,the lack of bicycle accommodations, and traffic congestion at key intersections—
several of which are designated high-crash locations eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) funding. The plan proposes five- and four-lane roadway sections, a shared-use path near Merrimack
College, and a network of continuous pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. Right-of-way(ROW)
acquisition involves both temporary and permanent easements,with three takings near Hillside Road. Mr.
Campbell outlined the project's environmental impact,focusing on resource areas like Bordering Vegetative
Wetlands (BVW),Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways(LUWW), and Bordering Land Subject to
Flooding(BLSF),primarily linked to Mosquito Brook. The plan includes wetland replication areas,
compensatory flood storage, and stormwater control measures. Temporary and permanent impacts to BVW,
LUWW, and Bank were detailed, along with mitigation strategies like reducing path widths,using sheet pile
walls, and constructing wetland replication areas with oversight from a wetland specialist. Regarding
stormwater improvements, an infiltration basin near Market Basket will redirect runoff away from a culvert
on Waverly Road, addressing ongoing erosion issues.
• Mr. Mustain raised concerns about wetland proximity to the culvert and infiltration design.
• Mr. Campbell confirmed that the design aligns with MassDOT's stormwater guide and that the basin
overflow system is designed to stabilize flow and minimize stream bank impact.
• Mr. Lynch inquired about hydrology, questioning whether the system would only overflow during
emergencies and how it would affect culvert water flow.
• Mr. Campbell clarified that the natural stream would continue feeding the brook,while the infiltration basin
would reduce storm event flow into the existing culvert.
• Mr. Lynch further questioned whether the detention pond's seasonal high water table could cause overflow
and whether this would worsen existing conditions.
• Mr. Campbell responded that the overflow system would prevent concentrated outflow and that, even in
worst-case scenarios,the culvert's current flow would not increase.
• Mr. Lynch also asked about MassDOT's maintenance plan.
2025-02-12 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10
• Mr. Campbell explained that maintenance falls to the DOT post-construction,with schedules outlined in the
stormwater report. He recommended contacting the District if maintenance issues arise. Coordination with
Woodard& Curran and the Town regarding the nearby sewer pump station project was discussed, with Mr.
Tamburrini noting utility relocations under the new Mosquito Brook culvert.
• Melinda Perone, 65 Meadowood Road expressed concerns about beaver activity near the existing culvert.
• Mr. Campbell stated that no beaver activity was observed during the November 2024 site visit. If beaver
issues arise post-construction, coordination with the Town or MassDOT may be necessary.
• Mr. Manzi suggested including beaver control measures in the submission.
• The Administrator clarified that MassDOT typically does not conduct third-party reviews, which is why she
requested a summary of the internal review performed by MassDOT's stormwater division. A summary of
this internal review was shared with the Commission.
• Mr. Campbell confirmed that a copy of the NOI was sent to MassDEP's Northeast Regional Office. As the
project requires a water quality certification, a dedicated MassDEP team will review the submission,
including stormwater management.
• A motion to continue to February 26, 2025,was made by Mr. Mustain, seconded by Mr. Mabon.
• Vote 4-0,Unanimous.
Documents
60895_North_Andover_Route_114_Notice_of Intent_Applieation_20250128, 608095 North Andover Special
Provisions, 608095 NOI Plans_20250I29, Sample_Special_Conditions,
608095 North Andover Route 114 w Attachments 20250110,
Effective & Preliminary FEMA FIRM Comparison, Internal Stormwater Review Comment Summary
Enforcement OrderNiolation
Foster Street—Oil Spill Status/Boom Material Removal
• The Administrator stated that Clean Harbors provided a memo following their site visit on February 7, 2025,
to assess existing conditions. The site was frozen solid and covered by approximately eight inches of snow.
Clean Harbors included a narrative outlining the means and methods they would use to access the site with
equipment, ensuring the least impact, as requested by the NACC. They are targeting a March timeframe due
to the frozen conditions. The Administrator expressed that this timeframe seems reasonable and suggested the
Commission discuss amending the Enforcement Order(EO) to extend the completion date to the end of
March.
• Mr. Lynch noted the balance between winter and spring conditions, emphasizing that from a wetlands
perspective, frozen ground can often be the best time for removal work. He explained that if the ground is
frozen, equipment can simply remove the boom without additional disruption. Conversely, waiting for thawed
conditions may result in high-flow scenarios, increasing the risk of complications. He did not see any benefit
to postponing the work by several months, suggesting that waiting could be a disadvantage.
• The Administrator highlighted that the weather forecast predicts sunny or partly sunny conditions with
temperatures reaching the low 40s from February 24 to February 28,which may present an opportunity for
boom removal.
• Mr. Manzi commented that the brook is currently covered with ice and at least a foot of snow,which must be
cleared for Clean Harbors to access the boom. He noted that Clean Harbors appears reluctant to perform the
work under frozen conditions.
• The Administrator added that Clean Harbors expressed concerns that attempting to remove the boom during
frozen conditions could result in the boom being torn and trapped in the ice.
• Mr. Manzi pointed out that the booms,now two years old, are already deteriorating and breaking apart—
regardless of the ice. He stated that attempting to pull them out now could cause further damage, as they are
nearing the end of their shelf life. The photo provided by Clean Harbors shows visible deterioration of the
boom in place.
• Mr. Lynch cautioned that if the Commission dictates the means and methods of removal, any issues that arise
during the process could be attributed to the NACC.
2025-02-12 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10
• After discussing their options, the Commission agreed to accept Clean Harbors' proposal to remove the boom
no later than March 31, 2025. They also agreed that if the March 31 deadline is not met,the Commission
reserves the right to reinstate daily fines for non-compliance.
• A motion to amend the Enforcement Order to incorporate the proposal for boom removal was made by Mr.
Lynch and seconded by Mr. Mabon.
• Vote 4-0, Unanimous.
Documents
01-22-2025 Meeting Materials, 01-22-25 Amended EO-Foster Street Oil Remaining Boom Removal
Old/New Business
242-829,Holt Road Landfill—Wetland Replication Status
• Ed Van Dorn, CDM Smith, attended on behalf of MassDEP,the project owners. CDM Smith has conducted
operation and maintenance monitoring of the landfill for the past 10 years. In August 2023, a significant
washout occurred, with water overtopping the road. MassDEP requested a design to repair the riprap swale
using larger riprap to withstand more severe stone events due to climate change.
The Administrator noted an open Order of Conditions from around 2000 without a Certificate of Compliance.
To file a Notice of Intent(NOI) for the new project,the open Order must first be closed.
• Ed Van Dorn explained they lack an as-built plan. He recalled that the original project involved consolidating
waste on top of the landfill and requiring wetland replication/restoration in the area due to the clean-up. Upon
evaluating the replication area, it was found that the elevation is too high, and the area is not functioning as a
wetland as intended. He proposed planting native species east of the riprap swale and along it, as part of the
construction project,rather than disturbing the non-functioning wetland replication area.
• Mr. Lynch supported this approach, stating the original design seemed to create an isolated area. He asked
whether the proposed planting area would run parallel to an existing wetland.
• Mr. Van Dorn clarified there is a large stream to the east,between the landfill and the replication area.
Although the plantings would be adjacent to this stream,the elevation difference means they would not be
directly within the stream.
• The Administrator noted that the plans did not clearly indicate where any wetland fill had occurred.
• Mr. Manzi described the site's orientation,referencing monitoring wells. He mentioned a project near the
rusty brook/swale that followed the washout and asked whether soil samples were taken in the area east of the
swale,where replication is suggested.
• Mr. Van Dorn confirmed the swale leads to the basin.Part of the plan includes cleaning out the basin to
improve functionality. Soil samples showed no hydric soils in the replication area.
• The Administrator stated the area intended to function as a wetland is not doing so.
• Mr. Mabon noted the current proposal appears to be a buffer zone restoration rather than wetland replication.
He questioned whether the proposed area was adjacent to an existing wetland, stating wetland replication
typically adds square footage to an existing wetland,rather than creating an isolated one.
• 9:20 p.m., Mr. Manzi exited the meeting.
• The Administrator reiterated that the replication area does not seem to be tied to a wetland fill previously
approved by the NACC, as it was not clearly shown or called out on the plans.
• Mr. Lynch pointed out that the landfill has an approved closure plan with a post-closure monitoring program
overseen by DEP,which dictates what activities can occur within the landfill's perimeter. He noted that if the
perimeter swale collects runoff from the landfill cap and channels it to the basin,the NACC cannot authorize
modifications to the closure plan.
• Mr. Van Dorn confirmed they would ensure the design does not interfere with runoff collection. He explained
that the plan involves replacing the existing riprap with larger material to handle increased stormwater
velocity,while maintaining a natural buffer east of the swale, short of the stream.
• Mr. Lynch asked whether there is an area near C 2-9 suitable for restoration adjacent to the wetland to allow
for true wetland restoration, as opposed to including it within the landfill cap. He emphasized that the NACC
lacks authority to alter the landfill closure plan and cannot issue an Emergency Certification so long after the
2025-02-12 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10
event. He concluded that the proposed restoration should not be tied to the landfill project, even if completed
simultaneously.
• 9:23 p.m., Mr. Manzi rejoins the meeting.
• After due discussion,the Commission agreed not to require the Applicant to create a wetland replication area.
Instead,they proposed designating the area as a 25-foot No Disturb Zone(NDZ)with natural vegetation. The
Applicant must submit a detailed narrative and plans for the swale restoration and planting in the Buffer Zone
by June 30, 2025,for NACC approval.
• A motion to issue a Friendly Enforcement Order as discussed was made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr.
Mustain.
• Vote 4-0, Unanimous.
Documents
Holt Road Landfill Wetland Replication Report DEP File No. 242-829
Adjournment
• A motion to adjourn at 9:33 p.m. was made by Mr. Mustain, seconded by Mr. Lynch.
• Vote 4-0,Unanimous.
2025-02-12 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 10 of 10
