Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-28 Conservation Commission Minutes k??l0vonservation Commission Meeting Minutes September 28,2005 Members Present: Scott L Masse, Chairman, and Albert P Manzi, Jr Vice Chairman, Joseph W Lynch, Jr, John J Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, Sean F McDonough, and Louis A Napoli Staff Members Present: Alison E McKay, Conservation Administrator, and Donna M Wedge, Conservation Secretary Staff Member Absent: Pamela A Merrill, Conservation Associate Meeting came to Order at: 7:05pm Quorum Present. Pledge of Allegiance General Business 242-1145, COC Request, Foster Street-Woodchuck Hill Substation (New England Power Company)(cont. from 9/14/05)(Reguest to cont. to 10/26/05) No one was present Ms McKay stated that the plans and paperwork needed to be finalized. A second field inspection needed to be conducted to determine if the required No Pesticide/Herbicide markers have been posted The applicant is requesting a continuance to the meeting of 10/26/05 A motion to continue to the October 26, 2005 meeting was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Manzi Unanimous 242-1079, COC Reguest, 1939 Great Pond Road (Ragonese)(Riverside Engineering Services The applicant Frank Ragonese was present Ms McKay stated that an Order of Conditions was issued on 9/5/01 for the demolition of an existing single-family dwelling in order to construct a new house with an associated deck, infiltration system, gravel driveway and utilities within the Buffer Zone to a BVW The site is also located within the Lake Cochichecwick Watershed District Seekamp Environmental Consulting, Inc ,was retained as the Environmental Monitor Reports were submitted during construction periods A compliance inspection was conducted on Monday 9/26/05 Measurements were confirmed in the field All disturbed areas were well stabilized against erosion As-built plans were consistent with the most recent approved plan A motion to issue the COC and release the bond was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Mr Mabon abstained from voting Update on Lucent Master Plan-Land Use Board Meeting Mr Lynch explained the town overlay district and the new 40R state statute The momentum of drafting a Bylaw is in overdrive because the Town would need to present the Bylaw at special town meeting on December 51h of this year A member of the Conservation Commission should be represented at these meetings to ensure that the local wetland setbacks would be incorporated into the Bylaw Representatives from the Zoning Board, the Finance Committee, and other concerned boards were present at the meeting Mr Lynch also indicated that Stormwater management should be taken seriously on the Lucent site, especially since the existing system/s 1 are outdated Mr Masse asked if any of the Commission members could attend day meetings Mr Napoli said he would be able to attend day meetings A motion to appoint Louis Napoli to represent the Conservation Commission at the day meetings for the Lucent 40R and Draft Bylaw was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous Chapter 61. Right of First Refusal, 605 Osgood Street,Albert& Maeve Cullen Mr Manzi stated that staff should walk the site to see if the land was worth purchasing by the Town The Commission should look into whether The Community Preservation Committee would be willing to take on some interest, since the land is in or immediately adjacent to the Watershed Protection District The first bid for the land 2 4M Staff and Committee members will work on drafting a proposal to the CPC for Town Meeting warrant Decisions 242-1332, Chestnut St.,Forest St., Wood Ave., & Academy Rd.(Town of North Andover- DPW)(Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc.) Ms McKay reviewed the draft decision stating that the bond amount was set at$2,500 Other conditions included environmental monitoring near vernal pool areas, prohibition of work on Forest Street during the breeding season (s), erosion controls, dewatering, environmental monitor to be chosen by the Conservation Commission A motion to accept the Order of Conditions as drafted was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr. Lynch Unanimous 242-1320,35 Holly Ridge Road, (Sachs)(Giles) Mr Masse asked why this was on the agenda, since the decision was already issued There has been no change Recess - 5 mins. Public Hearings 8:04pm Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation 242-1336, 1600 Osgood Street(1600 Osgood Street, LLC)(Epsilon Associates, Inc.)(cont. from 8/24/05)(Reguest to cont. to 10/12/05) No one was present Ms McKay stated that the field verifications and plan revisions were still being conducted The applicant is requesting a continuance to the meeting of 10/12 A motion to continue to the October 12, 2005 meeting was made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Ms. Feltovic. Unanimous , Notice of Intent(s) 242-1319, Winter Street, (Gaglione) (Merrimack Engineering Services, Inc.)(cont. from 9/14/05)(Reguest to cont. to 10/12/05) No one was present. Ms McKay stated that at the last meeting, Mr McDonough had requested an alternative analysis for the driveway location, which was located within the 50-foot No-Build zone Abutters also voiced concern regarding drainage and if there would be potential for an 2 increase in flows to their property The Commission suggested that the applicant try and address the drainage concerns raised by the abutters No new information had been submitted as requested The applicant is requesting a continuance to the meeting of 10/12 A motion to continue to the October 12, 2005 meeting was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous 242-1325, 16 Jetwood Street (Nicolosi)(New England Engineering Services, Inc.)(cont. from 9/14/05) The applicant Dan Nicolost and family, Ben Osgood,Jr of New England Engineering Services, Inc , and Leah Basbanes of Basbanes Associates were present Ms McKay stated that at the last meeting, the Commission requested the presence of Leah Basbanes of Basbanes Associates to present her findings/report to the Commission The office also received a letter from Attorney Henry Doherty on behalf of an abutter Salvatore Branco The letter stated that Mr Branco's only concern was about water runoff from Ntcolost property onto Branco' s property at 24-26 Jetwood Mr Branco had previous concerns about being properly notified However, Mr Masse & Ms McKay confirmed that Mr Branco was properly and legally notified and then verbally notified by Ms McKay as a courtesy Mr Mabon and Ms Feltovtc indicated that they were not at the last meeting and asked the applicant if they could still participate in a vote Mr Osgood said yes that the entire Commission would be eligible to vote Mr Osgood presented an overview of project for the Commission He indicated that the proposed infiltrator system would capture any additional flows, which would not result to any additional flows on the site Leah Basbanes was also present to present the impact analysis to the Commission Following Ms Basbanes presentation, Mr Manzi questioned how the impacts analysts was or could be quantified considering the size of the addition and other related factors on the site Mr Napoli suggested that the applicant provide soil test data and percolation rates for the site to better evaluate whether the proposed infiltration system would function as intended and would provide adequate resource area protection from the additional flows and provide sufficient recharge Mr Lynch agreed, indicating that the soil test data would show estimated high ground water table and was needed Mr Lynch indicated that the reality could be that additional runoffs could not be infiltrated causing impact to the resource area Mr Manzi added that although the applicant had made an effort to providing mitigation and alternative analyses, he did not feel that all options had been explored to the greatest extent feasible (t e reducing the size of the addition, following the alignment of the existing home, a more aggressive mitigation/planting plan, etc) Mr Masse stated that Albert Manzi would not be at the meeting on October 12, 2005 Mr Osgood and the applicant left the room to discuss what they want to do Mr Osgood and the applicant returned to the room and requested a continuance to the meeting of October 26, 2005 A motion to continue to the October 26, 2005 meeting was made by Ms Feltovtc, seconded by Mr Manzi Mr McDonough opposed The motion passed and the hearing was continued 242-1337, Turnpike Street-Old Salem Village(Key-Lime, Inc.)(Hayes Engineering, Inc.) Ben Osgood, Jr of New England Engineering Services, Inc , and Ben Osgood Sr of Key-Lime, Inc were present Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms McKay stated that the site was approximately 17 9 acres of undeveloped land of existing fields and woods. There are two large BVW systems on the site and an additional local jurisdictional isolated wetland of approximately 1, 375 s f in size (calculated by staff) An additional isolated wetland was delineated on the site, but was found to be less than 1,000 s f to size and therefore non jurisdictional Ms McKay 3 recommended that both of the isolated areas be accurately labeled on all plans in addition to the s f calculations prior to final approval of the plans Epsilon Associates delineated the large wetland systems on site on 1/6/04 as referenced in their letter dated 1/9/04 This letter makes no reference to the isolated areas as they were located later that spring by Epsilon Ms McKay indicated that she conducted a field review of the wetland boundaries recently with Epsilon Associates and Ben Osgood, Jr All resource areas were reviewed and approved with some changes with the exception of the resource areas across Turnpike Street for the installation of the sewer Ms McKay indicated that these resource areas would be reviewed the following week Plans would be revised to reflect the changes made in the field Ms McKay indicated that BLSF was located outside of site within the BVW boundary at the western corner(designated Zone-A- 100 year floodplam), but will not impact the project The site is not within Estimated habitat or River front area The project meets the 25-foot No-Disturbance zone and the 50-foot No-Build zone setbacks, with the exception of a few areas where roadways/driveways encroach into the 50-foot No-Build zone In review of the plans, Ms McKay noted that she did not see any building encroachment, however the Notice of Intent stated that that the location of the buildings would be at least 47 feet from wetland resource area??An O & M plan and drainage calculations were also submitted Ms McKay stated that she had not yet reviewed the O &M plan She indicated that both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals had already approved the project Extensive Drainage on the site and Ms McKay recommended setting up escrow for the drainage review Ms McKay also stated that she had conducted a preliminary technical review, but has not completed her technical review She indicated several preliminary recommendations, which included extension of the erosion controls around the entire site or all areas within the 100' buffer zone (erosion controls were lacking in several locations where they should be located) Several buildings and decks off the units are extremely close to the 50-foot No-Build zone or right at it. Condition separate pre-construction meeting for each building within the buffer zone for staking and verifying the foundation corners and to ensure the decks would comply with the setbacks Measurements from structures, including decks, to resource areas in all location where structures are close to the 50-foot buffer zone should be depicted on the plans Condition separate 20' scale plans for each building within the buffer zone prior to sign off on the building permit Dewatering conditions Recommend physical barriers to deter encroachment Many areas on the site may be subject to violations if no precautions are taken and/or conditioned Mr Lynch stated that the USG maps for the stream statistics were old and needed to be re-submitted Mr McDonough asked if on sheet 31 & 32 there were going to be walls and fences Mr Osgood,Jr , stated that there would be both retaining walls and fences in concerned areas on the site Mr. Albert Manzi left the meeting during this filing at 9:OOpm. A motion to set up an escrow account for the drainage review in the amount of$ 5, 000 was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Ms Feltovtc Unanimous A motion to continue to the October 12, 2005 meeting was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous 242-1338, 107 Stage Coach Road (Dimartino)(New England Engineering Services,Inc.) The applicant, Joseph Dimartino and Ben Osgood, Jr , of New England Engineering Services, Inc was present. Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms. McKay stated that the filing was for the construction of a segmental block retaining wall, brick patio and walkway, extension of a driveway, and planting areas within the Buffer Zone to a BVW The plans indicated that there would be no associated grading proposed for the project. Portions of the work were proposed within the 25-foot No-Disturbance zone and the 50-foot No-Build zone A waiver request was 4 submitted for the work within the 25-foot No-Disturbance zone, however no waiver request was submitted for work within the 50-foot No-Build zone(i e -patio) The waiver stated the following as a reason to allow the proposed work within the 25-foot No-Disturbance zone, "All work done to construct the original house was done under permits issued by the Conservation Commission All proposed work is within the limits of the yard, which is within the area of disturbance originally proposed" An alternative analysis was also submitted In that, the applicant's representative stated, "The proposed retaining wall would permanently solve the erosion control problem on the lot and create a physical barrier to prevent human intrusion" It is also stated"the site will be improved by the proposed enhancement plantings which will provide and enhanced buffer which will offer a greater protection to the wetland as well as additional wildlife habitat The long term erosion problems will be solved permanently with a solution that benefits the wetland and the users of the yard area" If nothing is done as proposed in the alternative, the applicant's representative stated that there would be continued erosion, encroachment, and impacts to the resource area Ms McKay stated that although the original construction of the house (242-544-issued 3/5/91-COC issued 7/6/94) was built in accordance with the approved plan, which allowed a 15ft no-cut zone and a 25ft no-construction zone, the deck was added sometime after the COC was issued No permit was found for the deck Ms McKay explained that the proposed patio would be no closer than 25-foot from the Bordering Vegetated Wetland The pervious paver driveway extension would be no closer than I 1-feet from the BVW The segmental block retaining wall was proposed to the rear of the-lot and would be within the 25-foot No-Disturbance at approximately 10' to the Bordering Vegetated Wetland at its closest point Erosion controls were proposed around the limit of work and were located at 7-feet from the BVW at its closet point Enhancement plantings along the base of the wall were also proposed Ms. McKay explained that although the types of plantings were specified, the total amount of buffer zone impact was not noted in the filing application She indicated that she has no issues with the proposed front walkway and the planting areas She was of the opinion that the retaining wall would be a good idea for the site She stated however, that she did not agree that the brick patio should be allowed considering that was proposed as an accessory to the deck that was never permitted and was proposed within the 50-foot No-Build zone Mr McDonough asked about the pervious pavers Mr Napoli asked about the erosion controls to the rear and the existing 3 1 slope He also asked if the applicant proposed to level out the yard Mr Dimartino stated that the deck was constructed when the house was built Also there is no grass in this area for stabilization because the rear is heavily shaded Mr Lynch asked about access for the proposed work and if it would require being within the 25-foot No- Disturbance zone A motion to continue to the October 12, 2005 meeting was made by Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous A motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30pm was made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Ms. Feltovic. Unanimous. r s 5