HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-13 Conservation Commission Minutes Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13,2005
Members Present: Scott Masse, Chairman, and John J Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, Joseph W
Lynch, Jr , and Sean F McDonough
Members Absent: Albert Manzi, Jr , Vice Chairman, Beth Wescott
Staff Members Present: Alison E McKay, Conservation Administrator, and Pamela A Merrill,
Conservation Associate, Donna M Wedge, Conservation Secretary
Meeting came to Order at: 7:15pm Quorum Present.
General Business
242-885,PCOC-Roadway & Drainage (Forestview Estates)(Pulte Homes of New England,
LLC)(Marchionda)(cont. from 3/9/05)
David Farrar of Marchionda&Associates, Inc was present Ms Merrill stated on 4/4/05, a site
walk was conducted Present on was David Farrar, Marchionda& Associates & David Stilton,
Construction Manager, Pulte Homes At that time of my inspection,the roads were being sweep
and trash was being picked up throughout the subdivision 4' No snow stockpiling/No Salt
Zone' signs were in placed in prominent location within the subdivision in accordance with
Condition 465 All (6) detention basins were observed to be stable with grass vegetation with no
evidence of erosion The remaining erosion controls along the detention basins, replication area,
and the lots with PCOC's will be removed and subsequently seeded within the next week There
was a small area along the shoulder of the cul-de-sac on Palomino Drive the had experienced
minor erosion from winter snowmelt This area has been re-seeded and stabilized with layer of
hay mulch As discussed during our last meeting, West Environmental, Inc submitted the final
wetland replication report along with photo log (showing during and post replication
construction), which accompanied the replication as-built plan, prepared by Marchionda&
Associates The wetland replication area was constructed to have pit& mound topography
(utilized the existing trees layer) that closely mimics the adjacent bordering vegetated wetland
The replication area was planted on May 7, 2003 West Environmental,Inc asserts there' s a 100
% vegetative coverage with no sign of invasive species in or near the replication area The
wetland plant community (as outlined in West Environmental, Inc report) is either FACW or
OBL, reflecting wetness that is seasonally to permanently inundate with water During my
inspection, I observed the mitigation area holding various amounts of standing water West
Environmental, Inc also stated in their report the area exhibits hydric soils The area appeared
stable with grasses and sedges I'm confident the replication area will develop with thick, healthy
vegetation, as depicted in West Environmental, Inc photo log As part of the Order of
Conditions,bird boxes were installed along the perimeter of the mitigation area Also I noted the
wetland and open space markers were posted along the limit of clear and the 25-foot No-
Disturbance Zone In addition, several marked trails were required to be constructed with 2
pedestrian bridges This condition has been satisfied, and is great connection to Harold State
Forest trails Outstanding PCOC' s are 7 single-family dwellings(2 Amberville, 4 Garnet Circle,
& I Anvil Circle)and a playground lot(Amberville Circle) Mr Lynch stated before the Town
................. . .
would accept the roadway the subdivision needs to be clear of all debris The other house lots
without PCOC those would be hydro-seeded and would be coming before the Commission soon
Mr Farrar stated yes we would be submitting those requests soon Mr McDonough stated a
Homeowners Association would run the subdivision within one month from now Mr Masse
stated we need to amend the Enforcement Order to include the Homeowners Association and
also need to include O & M plan must be carried out in perpetuity Present to vote Scott Masse,
Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to amend the
Enforcement Order to require the Homeowners Association would take over the reasonability of
the O & M plan must be carried out in perpetuity was made by Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr
Mabon Unanimous Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, Deborah Feltovic, John Mahon
and Sean McDonough A motion to issue PCOC for roadway and drainage with the requirement
of the Homeowner Association signs an affidavit taking over all the on going conditions with the
subdivision was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous
242-885,Partial Bond Release (Forestview Estates)(Marchionda)(cont. from 3/23/05)
David Farrar of Marchionda& Associates, Inc was present Ms Merrill stated on behalf of Pulte
Homes of New England, Marchionda& Associates, is requesting a partial bond release of$ 87,
000 for the 29 Lots that have received a PCOC (Lot 1, 8 9, 11-15, 21, 23-25, 32-37, 45-47, 49,
50, 52-55) The amount requested was calculated using the 29 Lots x $3K per lot=$87K To date,
the remaining performance bond balance of$ 52K Note Items without PCOC' s include
drainage& Roadway, and lots 22, 26 (Denied), 31 (Playground) &44A all on Amberville
Circle, Lots 38-42, Garnet Circle, Lot 43, Anvil Circle Per calculation sheet wetland replication
area$ 15K, roadway, roadway crossing, and stormwater management structures $1 OK, $3K per
lot (9 lots left) Grand total=$ 52K Mr Lynch stated need as-built plans showing measurements
to the wetland resource areas Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah
Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to continue to April 27, 2005 meeting was made by
Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous
242-1057, Extension Request (Brooks School)(Rist-Frost-Shumway Engineering, P. C.)
No one was present Ms Merrill stated the Brooks School is requesting their 2" and final
extension request for construction of a new athletic facility and stormwater structures Norse
Environmental has been monitoring this site on a weekly basis The wetland line was reviewed
and approved last year by Alison McKay as the Interim Conservation Administrator& Julie
Vondrak as the Town Planner Therefore, staff was of opinion the review of the wetland line
opinion that another review of the wetland boundary was unnecessary I met with Steve Erikson,
Norse Environmental,to confirm that the project was in compliance with the Order of
Conditions Most of the work within the buffer zone is complete The work associated with the
facility is ongoing The erosion controls were recently replaced with no evidence of
erosion/siltation towards the wetland Present to vote Scott Masse,Joseph Lynch, John Mabon,
Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to issue the 2"d extension was made by Mr
Mahon, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous
242-1121, Extension, O Forest Street (Hartigan)(Giles)
No one was present Ms McKay stated the Order of Conditions issued 4/30/02 for construction
of a single-family dwelling, driveway and associated appurtenances and landscaping activities in
the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland The order will expire on 4/30/05 The applicant
has requested an extension(requested received on 3/30/05), 30 days prior to the expiration as
required in the local regulations) No work has commenced on the site to date and it is my
understanding, from Donna,that the applicant did not to commence construction until New
England Power Company installed the Maritimes Gas Pipeline The pipeline has been installed,
therefore the applicant wishes to move forward with the project A letter was found in the file
dated 9/11/02 from the applicant indicating that the utilities for the proposed project were
installed over the weeks following, of which Julie approved In as such,underground electric
utilities have been installed as indicated?Yes-underground (electric) Only portions of the
wetland boundary were approved under the filing, which included flags A3-A9, flag G7-G9,
flags G20-G25, and flags G29-G31 The site is within Estimated Habitat and a Certified Vernal
Pool is located to the front of the lot Natural Heritage issued letter dated 3/6/02 stating that the
project as proposed would not adversely affect the actual habitat of a state—protected rare
wildlife species I have not reviewed the wetland boundary as some of the flag numbers were
washed away and could not be clearly identified In addition,the site is densely vegetated and is
therefore difficult to follow Therefore, I would recommend a site review with Bill Manuell, the
wetland scientist who delineated the wetland Pre-construction conditions are boilerplate and
include $ 3,000 bond(which was posted on 9/6/02), an erosion control monitor and the
installation of the wetland markers along the 25-foot No-Disturbance every 50-foot Condition#
49 of the Order also required a 2-foot high by 2-foot wide stonewall to be constructed along the
edge of the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone This condition also required the applicant to submit a
modification request upon completion of the gas line installation, to determine the appropriate
location of the physical barrier due to the nature of disturbance that would occur on the property
from the gas line activities The condition also allowed the applicant to submit a request to
modify the type of fiscal barrier to be installed along the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone No such
modification/information or plans have been submitted to date in this regard Present to vote
Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch,Deborah Feltovic, and John Mabon, Sean McDonough A motion to
continue to April 27, 2005 meeting was made by Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr Lynch
Unanimous
242-1155, COC, 206 Forest Street(Beach)(Serwatka)
The applicant Douglas Beach was present Ms Merrill stated an Order of Conditions was issued
for the construction of 2 additions to an existing single-family dwelling and the replacement of
the septic system within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland An inspection was
conducted on 4/5/05 All disturbed areas were stable with grass vegetation of wood mulch
Measurements right addition to wetland flag A-1 95', left addition wetland flag A-5 124 5' the
additions were construction further from the bordering vegetated wetland than originally
proposed The applicant submitted monitoring reports The erosion controls were still up,
wetland markers were posted along the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone The setbacks are being
met As noted in pre-construction' checklist, erosion controls was originally installed at 23' &
24' in 2 locations As such, it was noted that 2 High Blueberry Bushes should be planted for
mitigation purposes However, during my inspection, the applicant informed me that due to the
grade change from mowed lawn to the erosion controls, he has not and cannot maintain this area
Therefore, this area has re-vegetated itself naturally In my opinion this requirement should be
waived Mr Lynch stated the Engineer needs to correct the letter he sent with the COC request
Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean
McDonough A motion to continue to April 27, 2005 meeting revised letter was made by Mr
Lynch, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous
242-1167,COC, 150 Old Farm Road (Kanjolia)(Serwatka)
The applicant Ravi Kanjolia was present Ms Merrill stated the Order of Conditions was issued
for construction of a single stall garage and associated grading within the buffer zone to a
bordering vegetated wetland An in house modification was granted to allow the construction of
an interlocking retaining wall (to minimize grading) and the extension of the driveway pavement
for an additional parking space William Manuel submitted monitoring reports An inspection
was conducted on 4/5/05 All disturbed areas were stable with grass The erosion controls were
still up at the time of inspection The wetland markers were posted along the 25-foot No-
Disturbance Zone The wetland flag A-8 (the closest wetland flag) was missing in the field So I
approximated its location to the toe of the slope and took a measurement to the corner of the
garage 51', A-9 to the left corner 52 5, A-9 to right corner 55 5' set backs are being met Present
to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A
motion to continue to April 27, 2005 meeting for revised letter was made by Mr Lynch,
seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous
Enforcement Order Follow up
North Andover High School
No one was present Ms McKay stated Matthew Smith of Schofield Brothers has submitted a
report that the catch basins have been cleaned The construction is progressing The Bird Boxes
information from Matthew Smith would be submitted for the approval by the Conservation
Commission The Trail system would require and easement because the trail be on Homeowners
land Ms McKay stated any area for the trail would be in a wetland area
125 Chickermg Road
MAHighway needs to do some mamtance because of the erosion is happening MAHighway
thinks problem created by the sewer project they would be cleaning the area up drainage some
sub basin cleaning they need to do silt fence contacted Jack Sullivan and I for guidance
Enforcement Order Ratification
125 Court Street
The homeowner Robert Allegretto was present Mr Masse stated the bond must be posted for$
3,000 the fines would be waived as long as you post the Bond Mr Allegretto stated I would be
seeding the area tomorrow Mr Masse stated the Commission would hold the check when work
completed you would get the check back Mr Allegretto hand delivered a check for$ 3,000 to
Ms McKay Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch,Deborah Feltovic, John Mabon, and
Sean McDonough A motion to ratify the Enforcement Order was made by Mr Lynch, seconded
by Ms Feltovic Unanimous
Heritage Green Condominiums
No on was present Ms Merrill the Order of Conditions has expired March 28, 2005 This is
issued as a mechanism to ensure compliance and to perform work as approved under the
project's Order of Conditions The applicant is required to maintain all temporary erosion
controls and to permanently stabilize all disturbed areas against erosion All work approved must
be completed by May 27, 2005 Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, Deborah Feltovic,
John Mabon, and Sean McDonough A motion to ratify the Enforcement Order was made by Ms
Feltovic, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous
Appropriation withdrawal/rescind
Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, Deborah Feltovic, John Mabon, and Sean
McDonough A motion to rescind the appropriation off S 800 for the MACC Annual Conference
was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous
No Recess
Public Hearings 8:15pm
242-1283,Amendment, Turnpike Street (Merrimack Condominiums)(One Hundred
Fourteen Trust)
The applicant Peter Hingoram and Patrick Garner, Company, Inc was present Ms McKay
stated I recommend that condition to read in similar to the above, as follows a no more than five
(5) foot temporary construction easement shall be granted along the entirely of the 25-foot No-
Disturbance Zone to allow for construction, as may be necessary However,the
applicant/contractor shall avoid use structures or impervious surfaces will not be created and/or
constructed within said temporary easement Further, changes in grading shall not occur within
this easement area unless specifically approved by the Conservation Administrator Upon
completion of all required construction,the applicant/contractor shall contact Conservation
Administrator for a field inspection to determine the extent of any additional disturbance within
the easement area necessary mitigation measures Although the applicant is required by the
Town??to plant 18 trees between the edge of the pavement and the 25-foot No-Disturbance
Zone I am not clear as to why the fence needs to be installed at 20-foot if the 5-foot easement is
to be temporary Recommend the fence be installed at the limit of disturbance To be determined
by the North Andover Conservation Commission Per the request,the Amendment has been
properly advertised Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic,
and Sean McDonough A motion to issue the Amendment as discussed was made by Ms
Feltovic, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous
242-1279,Willow Street(Chatter_iee)(CA Engineering)(cont. from 3/23/05)
Carlos Quintal of CAQ Engineering was present Ms McKay stated Lisa Eggleston has
completed final review(dated 4/12/05) and is satisfied that all issues raised previously have been
addressed and has no further comments Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John
Mabon, and Deborah Feltovic, Sean McDonough A motion to close and issue a decision in 21
days was made by Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr Mabon
242-1296,Autumn Chase at Molly Towne Road (Chestnut Development, LLC)(West
Environmental,Inc.)(cont. from 3/1/05)
No one was present Ms McKay stated revised plans, the Commission prior to sending the
project out for review also requested a waiver request and a more in depth alternative analysis
Escrow has been set up,but requested plans and information have not been received to date The
revised plans were received on 4/8/05 and I have not had time to adequately review them as I
was away until 4/12/05 Present to vote Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean
McDonough A motion to continue to May 11, 2005 meeting was made by Ms Feltovic,
seconded by Mr Mabon
242-1298, Smolak Farms (Smolak)(cont. from 3/23/05)
The applicant Michael Smolak was present Ms McKay stated a site walk conducted on 4/6/05
with Commission and abutters A draft of minutes of the site walk the Commission requested
several items, which included information regarding the depth to bedrock in the pond location,
drainage calculations for the pond, and soils information for the blueberry fields Mr Smolak has
provided this information, with the exception of the drainage calculations, which will provide to
the Commission at the meeting Additional information provided included a letter from Tom
Zahoruiko regarding the agreement for a 20-foot buffer zone strip along the stonewall of the
proposed blueberry field to act as a screen for abutting property owners and Planting and
Construction Specifications as well as Operation& Maintenance Procedures of the Pond Present
to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon,Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A
motion to close and issue a decision in 21 days was made by Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr
Mabon Unanimous
242-1300,Winter Street-Roadway and Driveway (Elias)(Serwatka)(cont. from 3/9/05)
Joseph Serwatka of Serwatka Engineering was present Ms McKay stated the engineer has not
attempted to prove that the pond does or does not have Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
associated to it The Engineer should try to calculate if Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
exists The proposed paved driveway has been designed to utilize existing site conditions,
requiring little to no grading change The plans have been revised to show spot grades within the
driveway The Planning Board expressed their concerns for emergency vehicles potentially not
being able to gain access to the house due to the 10% grade and width of the driveway
Therefore,the Planning Board is requesting a comment letter from the Fire Chief relative to
these concerns Jack Sullivan the Town! Engineer also requested more stormwater pretreatment
such as a catchbasin with a 4' sump and gas hood at low point in driveway (upslope of wetland
flag A-6) prior to outlet to infiltrators The plans note sediment/oil separator in this location I
asked for Jack' s comments on this The revised plans note that approximately 1400 s f of the
25-foot No-Disturbance Zone will be impacted due to the driveway layout and appurtenances
The mitigation area traverses along the west portion of the property (within the 75' Conservation
Area) However, the mitigation is proposed at a 1 1 ratio (North Andover regulations require 2 1)
and a mitigation plan was not submitted with this filing The plans need to specify mitigation at a
2 1 ratio and a planting scheme should be prepared As requested, the water line has been
relocated to the north side of the proposed driveway, above the underground telephone and cable
wires and further away from the wetland The driveway is proposed bituminous concrete To
date the erosion controls detail has been revised Mr Lynch stated the drainage to the street 6-
feet to 3-feet need and infiltrator to pipe rim needs to be changed Mr Mabon stated plantings
within the 75-foot Conservation Area Mr Lynch stated replication area should be 2 to 1 also test
pits should be done for water table and an operation and management plan for stormwater, also
require a copy of the letter from the Fire Chief states the roadway and driveway are ok Present
to vote* Scott Masse,Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A
motion to continue to April 27, 2005 meeting for test pit information and letter from Fire Chief
and operation management for stormwater was made by Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr Mabon
Unanimous
242-0000, Winter Street-Map 103, Lot 120 (Elias)(Serwatka)(cont. from 3/9/05)
Joseph Serwatka of Serwatka Engineering was present Ms McKay stated no DEP #yet
However, the engineer should show measurements from the house, porch, and patio to the
wetland line Currently, the plans show measurements from the single-family dwelling to the 50-
foot No Build Zone Will there be a drainpipe from the recharge trench that will `day light'?If so
should be depicted on the plan Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon,
Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to continue to April 27, 2005 meeting was
made by Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous
242-1301, Lots 43C and 44C Thistle Road (North Andover Land Corporation)(New
England Engineering Services, Inc.)(cont. from 3/23/05)
Ben Osgood Jr, of New England Engineering Services, Inc was present
Lot 43C
Ms McKay stated the revised plans depict the utilities The posts are for guardrail What was
thought to be a catchbasm is a stone bound not an issue
Lot 44C
Ms McKay stated portions of the driveway of Lot 43C and grading are proposed within the
easement, is this allowable?The wetland boundary was reviewed on 4/6/05 with Ben Osgood,
Jr , one minor change An additional flag (9AA)was added approximately 3-feet up gradient
between flags 8 & 9 Upon my field inspection it was determined that this area is no question a
fairly large isolated wetland system This resource area showed characteristics of possibly being
an ephemeral pool Although vernal pool critters were not observed at the time of the inspection,
Ben Osgood, Jr , will revise the plan to show the vernal pool setbacks anyway I do believe that
the new setbacks would impact the proposed work on this lot The bordering Land Subject to
Flooding should be verified and,noted on the plan DEP# issued and no comments were noted A
second set of revised plans was submitted addressing the remaining concerns have satisfied
myself and the Commission(i e -the location of the gas line on lot 44C, the relocation of the
infiltration chambers outside the 50-foot No-Build Zone, the location of proposed decks and
wetland boundary/buffer zone changes where applicable At the last meeting Mr McDonough
asked about extending the proposed retaining wall around lot 43C up gradient to the 25-foot No-
Disturbance zone for a physical barrier Mr Osgood stated that he would look into the option,
although the slope proposed would be a 6-foot slope and a barrier may not be necessary with the
proposed grade The revised plans do not show an extension of the wall Present to vote Scott
Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to close
and issue a decision in 21 days was made by Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous
242-0000, 52 Bannan Drive (Blackshaw)(JM Associates)(Request to cont. 4/27/05)
The applicant Thomas Blackshaw was present Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms
McKay stated the filing is for the construction of an inground pool and associated patio, walls,
utilities and associated grading in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland The 25-foot
and 100-foot setbacks are not shown on the plan The pool and portions of the cement patio are
proposed right at the 50-foot No-Build zone A measurement should be called out from resource
area to the pool The proposed work will impact approximately 871 s f of area within the lawn
directly beyond the existing paved driveway The size of the pool is approximately 571 s f with
approximately 300 s f of cement patio surrounding the pool A 3-foot of pea stone (not cement)
area is proposed within the 50-foot No-Build zone and is proposed 46 9' from the resource area
There are no alternative locations on the property to accommodate a pool because of the location
of the septic system, leaching field, house and drainage easement A fence is also proposed and
is shown on the plan(white vinyl picket fence around one side and a black chain link fence
around other three sides) Although the plan depicts a fence, it does not specify whether it is
proposed or existing Plans should be revised indicating that the fence is proposed I did not
review or confirm the wetland flags shown on the proposed plan as part of the Salem Street filing
as they did not affect that project(reviewed only up to flag B-6 in July of last year) Flags B-1,
B-2, B-3, B-4, &B-5 were reviewed for this filing on 4/6/05 and I did not agree with the wetland
boundary Hydric soils, wetland vegetation, and hydrology were present at least 20-feet up
gradient to flag B-2 The wetland boundary was found to be upgradient, less than that of flag B-
2, in other locations as well A significant portion of the pool would now be located within the
50-foot No-Build zone Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah
Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to continue to April 27, 2005 meeting was made by
Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous
242-1302, 430 Pleasant Street (Carlson)(The Neve-Morin Group)
John Morin of Neve-Morin Group, Inc was present Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms
McKay stated the filing is for construction of an addition, a garage, a deck, three concrete pads
for AC units, a portion of a paved driveway, minor grading activities and the installation of a
foundation dram within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland and associated with
Stevens Pond An additional addition is proposed at the front of the property, but is outside of the
100-foot buffer zone The site had recently received compliance in April of 2004 (after
discussions regarding the existing dock on the property,that was approved by the Commission
and noted on the as-built plan as a modification) The previous filing was for construction of a
deck and grading activities Restoration 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone (1,700 s f)was required
Wetland markers were also required Upon inspection a site inspection, the plantings were still
thriving, but 2 of the 4 wetland markers were found The current applicant is proposing to
remove the recently constructed deck and construct a garage in its place The proposed work will
be no closer than 66-feet from the bordering vegetated wetland and erosion controls are proposed
upgradient to the 50-foot No-Build zone along the entire width of the property(property line to
property line) The foundation drain is proposed with riprap apron outfall and is proposed just
upgradient to the 50-foot setback The only grading activity proposed will just beyond the
proposed driveway limits The proposed work is located in lawn area The wetland flags were
missing from the field Flags need to be re-established/re-surveyed prior to construction Mr
Lynch stated where is the stockpiling area going to be or being hauled away of site Present to
vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch,John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A
motion to continue to April 27, 2005 meeting was made by Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr
Mabon Unanimous
242-1305, 89 Milk Street (Highview,LLC)(Seekamp Environmental Consulting)
Laurie Powers of Seekamp Environmental Consulting and Blake Adams were present Mr
McDonough read the legal notice Ms McKay stated the applicant, Highview, LLC is proposing
to construct two single-family dwellings with associated driveways, site clearing and grading
within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland and Bank associated to an intermittent
stream The bordering vegetated wetland line previously approved under and ORAD (242-1299)
on 2/24/05 All the work is proposed outside of the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone, as depicted by
the erosion controls line The single-family dwelling on Lot-40-1 is proposed at exactly 50-foot
from the bordering vegetated wetland As such, it should be conditioned that a R L S stake the
corners of the foundation prior to the pre-construction meeting, as there is no room for error
Will the applicant be proposing any decks? If so, Lot 40-1 configuration would have to shift to
accommodate a deck to meet the 50-foot No-Build zone The rooftop runoff will be captured by
gutters and discharged to an underground drywell for ground water recharge On Lot 40-1, a
fieldstone wall (at approximately 160' in length) is proposed at 28' from the bordering vegetated
wetland to demarcate the regulated 25-foot No-Disturbance zone and potential encroachment
It's at the Commission's discretion if additional physical barriers (shrubs, extending of the
proposed wall) should be installed along LOW on Lot 40-2 I believe that both of these lots are
densely to moderately vegetated It is unclear as to where the existing vs the proposed tree line
is or will be Specifically,whether the entire Lot 40-2 will be cleared or not It is recommended
that defined limit of work be identified behind the construction of the single-family dwelling on
this lot This would add protection to the adjacent wetland resource area One this limit is
defined, the Commission can better determination if and where the proposed wall should be
extended if they desire a barrier Added suggestions would the applicant/commission entertain a
possible Conservation Restriction on the properties The plans should be revised to a 20-scale,
presently it's at a 40-scale and is a bit difficult to read/review in detail Abutters Present Dan
Callan of 56 Milk Street, cutting trees would disturb the Deer and other wildlife Peter Tomasz of
69 Milk Street has concerns about runoff of water in his back yard David C of 44 Chestnut
Street has concerns of the sheet flowing of water off the property the catch basin can not catch
the heavy flow of water Mr Lynch stated the drainage here should be focused on here also plan
20-scale, certified plot plan, more detail on the side-slope on the edge of the street, should
require Medallions on Lot 40-2 warn new owners know there is protected area on the property
Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean
McDonough A motion to continue to April 27, 2005 meeting for revised plans was made by Mr
Lynch, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous
242-1303, 195 Bridle Path (Ercolini)(Merrimack Engineering Services)
John Murphy of Merrimack Engineering Services, Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms
McKay stated the filing is for construction of a 2 story addition(two stall garage with family
room above), open deck, patio, the relocation of steps and a wall and associated grading
activities (minor activities associated with the garage/family room addition) in the buffer zone to
a bordering vegetated wetland Additional work, including porch and additional patio, 2-story
barn, roof dram drywell, crushed stone driveway extension, and additional grading, is proposed
on site but is outside the buffer zone Earthwork activities associated with the construction of the
additions will be limited to the excavation of frost walls, footings and incidental grading
associated with the barn construction No new underground utilities are planned or proposed
The work as proposed complies with the 25-foot No-Disturbance setbacks and the 50-foot No-
Build setbacks Approximately 1,687 s f of buffer zone will be disturbed The erosion controls
are proposed around the limit of work appropriately, but don't appear to be positioned on the site
ideally when reviewing plan No soil stockpiling area is shown on the plan recommend a
stockpiling area No existing tree lines shown on plan recommend plans show existing tree line
The wetland flags previously existed in the field and were surveyed by Merrimack Engineering
Services on February 3, 2004 (see note 4 on plan) The wetlands are located Just off property on
the property on the property of abutters David Fournier and Conine Yee An GRAD was issued
in January of 2004 for David Fournier at 15 Timber Lane(242-1225) The ORAD approved
wetlands flags A2, A3,A4, A5, A11, Al2, A13, and A14 only as the other flags were located off
property and the applicant did not get authorization from neighbor to verify the wetland
boundary off of his property When the two plans were overlayed, the boundary was found to
match each other I reviewed the wetland boundary in the field (delineated by N H soil
consultants, Inc in June of 2003) and flag A13 was missing and the stub of what I think is A14 is
visible only These two wetland flags should be replaced to accurately determine if boundary is
still accurately determine if the boundary is still accurate in this location Recommend that the
Commission approve flags A13 and A14 only and reference ORAD for other flags The site is
not within Estimated Habitat, although the Notice of Intent indicates that it is Mr Mabon stated
the boundary meeting setbacks flag A-15 Mr Lynch stated the Commission needs to see a
stockpiling area on the plan Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah
Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to continue to April 27, 2005 meeting for revised
plans and re-flagging, was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous
242-0000, 1025 Osgood Street(Hearthstone Realty Corporation)(MHF Design Consultants)
The applicant Eric McCarthy of Hearthstone Realty Corporation and Christopher Tymula of
MHF Design Consultants were present Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms McKay
stated the ORAD issued for wetland boundary in September of 2003 The filing is for
construction of a 3-story retail/office building, a 25' driveway aisle surrounding the building
with associated parking, utilities, and stormwater management structures in the buffer zone to a
bordering vegetated wetland The drainage calculations and stormwater analysis submitted with
the Notice of Intent The site is within estimated Habitat I have not completed my review of the
project Set up Escrow account for third party review on the project stormwater management
Mr Lynch stated the compliant overview roof-runoff and stormwater management plan Mr
Tymula stated the storage treatment drainage manhole size is for 100-year storm Present to Scott
Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to set-up
escrow account in the amount of$ 5,000 was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Ms Feltovic
Unanimous A motion to continue to May 11, 2005 meeting was made by Mr Mabon, seconded
by Ms Feltovic Unanimous
242-1306, 1160 Salem Street, 1160 Salem Street(Hennessy)(New England Engineering)
Ben Osgood, Jr, of New England Engineering Services, Inc was present Mr McDonough read
the legal notice Ms McKay stated the filing is for the installation of a subsurface sewage
disposal system and associated grading within the buffer zone to a bordering wetland The
bordering vegetated wetland is located to the rear of the lot and the septic system is proposed
towards the front of the property The proposed replacement leach field will be constructed no
closer than 64-feet from the wetlands and the septic tank will be installed no closer than 66-feet
from the wetlands with a pump chamber 60-feet from the wetlands Associated grading will be
no closer than 39-feet from the wetlands Erosion controls (Haybales& silt fence) are proposed
just beyond the limit of work and are in suitable locations A soil stockpiling area is also
proposed and depicted on the plan Water and gas services will be relocated due to the
installation of the system Retaining walls and a new walkway is also proposed The 25-foot No-
Disturbance zone is not being upheld and has been maintained as lawn The deck is within the
50-foot No-Build zone, however plot plans in the building file dated 1991 depict an existing
wood deck at the time An above ground pool is within the 25-foot No-disturbance zone and is in
very close to the resource area The pool is held up by wood ties, which are imbedded in the
ground There was no evidence that the pool was permitted in the building/conservation files
When was the pool erected?How is the pool being filtered?Most likely draining into the
resource area How would the Commission like to address this?I reviewed the wetland boundary
and did not agree with some of the flags It appears that the wetland extends into the lawn in
several locations I will set up time to meet Ben at the site to review the boundary This property
would greatly benefit from buffer zone plantings along the edge of the lawn/existing tree line
Recommend some hearty barrier shrubs to be planted along the existing limit of disturbance to
deter from further encroachment Ms McKay stated there were hydric soils the wetland had been
filled, should be soil samples done, plantings and wetland markers in place Present to vote Scott
Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to
continue to April 27, 2005 meeting for review of the wetland line with Ben Osgood, Jr was
made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous
242-1307, Lot 34 Thistle Road (North Andover Land Corporation)(New England
Engineering)
Ben Osgood, Jr, of New England Engineering Services, Inc was present Ms McKay stated the
filing is for the construction of a single-family dwelling with driveway, installation of a 2-foot
high dry staked fieldstone landscape wall, installation of infiltration areas and associated site
grading within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland Re-filing for house lot,which
was previously approved under Abbott Village subdivision filing (242-784) The Order of
Conditions was issued on 6/6/96 and has exhausted both allowable extensions (final extension
expired on 6/16/04) The applicant is filing a new Notice-of Intent for the lot All setbacks are
being met as proposed The front walkway is proposed within 50-foot No-Build zone The
erosion controls are proposed along the entire length of and just upgradient to the 25-foot No-
Disturbance zone The fieldstone wall is also just upgradient to the erosion controls around the
entire lot A wall detail was provided on the plan The plan proposes a brick patio to the rear of
the proposed home A soil stockpiling area is also depicted on the plan Replication area appears
to be successful I reviewed the wetland line with Mr Osgood and one change was made to
wetland flag X4 and plans were revised this change The abutters present Eric Lucluca of
Thistle, Linda Schruender of Thistle Road and Jeannine Sullivan of Thistle Mr Lucluca stated
the house would be right in my back yard Ms Schmender stated this is a very wet area a lot
more water run-off Ms Sullivan stated I have been living here since the development started
Mr Lynch stated there is a problem with the driveway gives us an alternative analysis for the
positioning of the driveway This driveway you would have to snow blow only Present to vote
Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mahon,Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to
continue to April 27, 2005 meeting was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Ms Feltovic
Unanimous
242-1304, 249 Marbleridge Road (Belford Construction, Inc.)(New England Engineering)
Ben Osgood,Jr of New England Engineering Services, Inc was present Mr McDonough read
the legal notice Ms McKay stated the filing is for the construction of a driveway, catch basin,
stormwater infiltration area, utility installation and site grading associated with the construction
of two single-family homes (Lots 1 &2) within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland
An existing house single-family home sits on the 71, 301 s f lot and is proposed to be razed to
accommodate 2 house lots Most of the existing lot maintained as lawn The construction of both
homes is proposed outside of the buffer zone The Notice of Intent indicates that the site is within
Estimated Habitat(WH 458) However, in review of the office NHESP map, it doesn't appear
that it is The site is also within the Watershed Protection District and includes the watershed
setbacks on the plan The main wetland system is located to the rear of the lot and is associated
with an intermittent stream that flows just beyond the bordering vegetated wetland
A second bordering vegetated wetland is located across Marbleridge Road adjacent from the
proposed driveway on lot 2 The language in the submitted drainage report states that potions of
the property, which is currently lawn,will be converted to unused area to provide a buffer zone
to the wetlands What does unused area mean9 Check tree line in field?Is 25-foot No-
Disturbance zone heavily vegetated or is still lawn? Will existing lawn area be converted to
vegetated no-disturb?Up to where will lawn be converted to unused area? The 75-foot Planning
Board and Conservation zone,the 25-foot No-Disturbance zone, or neither? The erosion controls
(Haybales & silt fence) are proposed just upgradient to the 75-foot Planning Board and
Conservation Zone along both of the lots All the setbacks are met as proposed Pre-
Development plans were submitted, as well as Detail Plans and a Drainage calculations were
provided for both pre and post construction conditions for the 2-year, 10 year, and 100 year
storm events The proposed infiltration of roof runoff will reduce the amount of runoff from the
site in all storm events so that peak flow rates and volumes will be less than or equal to existing
peak flow rates and volumes The stormwater management policy not required for the two house
lots under WPA and Bylaw, but is required for the Planning Board for a Watershed Special
Permit I have not yet verified the wetland boundaries
Lot 1
Almost all the work, with the exception of the proposed 4'-6' Spruce/Hemlock plantings, minor
grading activities associated with rear yard and the infiltration area, and the outlet to the
foundation drain is proposed outside of the 100-foot buffer zone The outlet to the foundation
drain and the overflow infiltration pipe are proposed at about the same location Recommend a
riprap apron at the outlet to dissipate flows Portions of the 25-foot No-Disturbance zone
maintained as lawn The site could greatly benefit from buffer zone plantings-Verify in the field
The soil stockpiling area?
Lot 2
The buffer work includes driveway construction, grading activities, portions of the front
walkway, utility and catch basin installation, and a grass treatment swale with check dam
dissipater A deep sump catch basin is proposed at the driveway entrance and outlet to the water
quality swale The erosion controls are extended from the rear of the 2 lots (from the 75-foot
Conservation Zone) along the northerly property boundary to the front of the lot In a meeting
with the engineer prior to the submission, erosion controls opposite the proposed driveway may
not be necessary due to existing water flows, which drain to a low spot at the north east comer of
the lot Accordingly, the flows do not cross over the road to the adjacent wetland in that location-
To be verified in the field Portions of the 25-foot No-Disturbance zone maintained as lawn The
site could greatly benefit from the buffer zone plantings -Verify in the field The soil stockpiling
areas Present to vote Scott Masse, Joseph Lynch, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean
McDonough A motion to continue to May 11, 2005 meeting was made by Mr Lynch, seconded
by Ms Feltovic Unanimous
No Decisions
A motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:00am was made by Mr.Mahon, seconded by Mr.
Lynch.