Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-09 Conservation Commission Minutes Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes APPROVED DPW Conference Room,384 Osgood Street July 9, 2003 - Members Present: Scott Masse, Chairman, Albert Manzi, Jr, Vice Chairman, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough Members Absent: Joseph Lynch, Jack Mabon, and Beth Wescott Staff Present: Julie Parrino, Conservation Administrator, Alison McKay, Conservation Associate Staff Absent: Donna Wedge, Conservation Secretary General Business—7 p.m. 242-1051, COC, 149 Marian Drive(Amundsen) Ms McKay explained that the Order of Conditions was issued on 2/7/01 for the construction of a replacement septic system within the buffer zone of a BVW She stated that as-built plan was submitted and confirms compliance with the approved plan The site was stable upon inspection and there are no issues Ms McKay recommended issuing the Certificate of Compliance Ms Feltovic moved to issue the Certificate of Compliance, Mr Manzi seconded Unanimous Enforcement Order Ratification • Woodlea Village—Ms. Parrino explained the history of the site pertaining to the ongoing drainage concerns She explained that drainage had not been correctly designed She explained that the owner, The Ashwood Companies, had agreed to properly fix the grading problem, which would require work within the 25' no-disturbance zone Ms Parrino added that a fine of$1000 was issued in lieu of this work Ms Parrino stated however that she has been dealing with this issue for a year and no drainage work has yet commenced Several abutters within Woodlea Village have also voiced their concern over the issue Ms Pamno said she sent an enforcement order to the Ashwood Companies for work to be completed Mr Manzi requested that an additional fine of$300 per day be issued(sending a violation ticket out each day)until work commences • 94 Autran Avenue—This Enforcement Order was issued for work without an Order of Conditions The violator had constructed a concrete wall around the back footprint of the house Work is within the 50 foot no-build and within the 25 foot no disturb zone • 641 Forest Street—This Enforcement Order was issued for the cutting and clearing of trees within the 50-foot no-disturbance area of a certified Vernal Pool The violator is working with a wetland scientist to put together a planting plan • 95 S. Bradford Street—The Enforcement Order was issued for the placement of a shed within the 50-foot no-build zone Ms Pamno explained that Ms McKay rejected the location of the shed as proposed on the building permit and met with the violator to explain that the shed was required under the Bylaw to be 50 feet away from the resource area Despite this on-site meeting, the shed was placed in the rejected location and no building permit was issued for the shed Ms McKay said she issued a 1-time fine of$100 with the 1 } requirement to remove the shed by a date certain Mr Manzi requested that if the shed was not removed by the date certain, $300 a day(with a ticket each day) should be issued • 24 Autran Ave—Ms Parrino explained that this Enforcement Order was issued for a deck, patio, and a fence within the 50' no-disturbance area She explained that the site was currently in front of the ZBA for an after-the-fact permit However, the plan submitted to the ZBA does not show the wetlands, which is a requirement At the last ZBA hearing, the applicant had hired an attorney and the hearing was continued Mr Manzi said he felt that the fence should be allowed to stay, but that the deck had to come out He continued that an NOI filing should be submitted by a date certain for the existence of the fence and deck and the removal of the deck Ms Parrino asked if the Commission wanted to see some restoration Mr Manzi said yes and indicated that low-bush blueberry and Hawthorne would be adequate Discussion 2060 Turnpike Street(Walter): Vote to proceed with legal action Ben Osgood Jr was present Ms Parrino explained that the applicant has not yet commenced work, which was due by May 1, 2003 She said that the applicant claims that he can not afford the bond thus could not start the work She added that materials had been sent to Town Council who has recommended the Commission pursue legal action Mr Manzi asked if any work/activity was going on at the present time Ms Parrino said that she was unaware of anything and the site was just sitting there unstable Mr Manzi moved to authorize the chairman and Town Council to meet with the Board of Selectmen to take legal action Ms Feltovic seconded Unanimous Next Meeting The Commission discussed their availability to attend the next meeting of 7/23/03 It was determined that a quorum could not be met for this date, but could be met for 7/30/03 Mr Manzi moved to hold the next scheduled meeting to 7/30/03 Ms Feltovic seconded Unanimous Public Hearings—8 p.m. Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD) 242-1199—Lot 1 & 2 Great Pond Road (Great Pond Realty Trust) (New England Engineering) (font. from 6/25/03) Ben Osgood Jr of New England Engineering was present Ms Parrino explained that she did not have a chance to review the delineation for Ben Osgood, Jr She explained that the site was previously reviewed by the Commission under a former filing in which work never commenced She said the delineation was significantly different because it was originally delineated before soils were taken into consideration Ms Parrino suggested a 3`d party review for the new delineation Mr Manzi moved to set up escrow in the amount of$1000 for a third party review by any one of the following firms, Epsilon Associates, TRC, or Seekamp Environmental Consulting Mr McDonough seconded Unanimous Mr Manzi moved to continue to the hearing of 7/30/03 Ms Feltovic seconded Unanimous 2 Request for a Determination of Applicability (RDA) 130 Laconia Circle(Schmidt) (New England Engineering) Ben Osgood Jr of New England Engineering and the applicant, Debbie Schmidt, were present Mr Osgood explained that the filing was for an addition to the rear of an existing dwelling within the buffer zone of a BVW The addition is approximately 79 feet from the wetland resource area,therefore all setbacks would be adhered to Mr Osgood stated that the erosion controls would be placed at the edge of lawn Ms Parrino asked if there would be any grading associated with the project Mr Osgood said no Ms Parrino recommended the issuance of a negative determination with the following conditions 1 Remove the debris pile found in the vicinity of wetland flag A10 prior to construction 2 Hold a pre-construction meeting 3 Place wetland makers every 25 feet along the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone, and 4 Submit an as-built plan upon completion of the work Ms Feltovic moved to issue a negative determination with the above conditions as presented by Ms Parrino Mr Manzi seconded Unanimous 101 Crossbow Circle(Brakely)(New England Engineering) Ben Osgood Jr of new England Engineering was present on behalf of the applicant Mr McDonough noted for the record that the published legal notice was misadvertised as a Notice of Intent and the filing was for a Request for Determination of Applicability Mr Osgood explained that the filing was associated grading only for work on a new septic system The septic system would be outside of the 100-foot buffer zone Work would be no closer than 67 feet from the wetland Erosion Controls are proposed around the work Ms Parrino added that upon site review, no wetland flags existed in the field She also noted that a significant brush pile, of mainly Speckled Alder, was identified within the resource area She said that the cuttings appeared to have been cut directly from the wetland She recommended that the debris pile be removed and re-vegetated with Alders and the hearing to be continued to 7/30/03 so that the wetland delineation could be addressed Ms Feltovic moved to continue to the hearing of 7/30/03 Mr Manzi seconded Unanimous Notice of Intent 242-1194—78 West Way(Milliken)(NE Engineering)(Cont from 6/25/03) (Request to cont. to 7/30/03) The applicant has requested a continuance to the next hearing Mr Manzi moved to continue the hearing to 7/30/03 Ms Feltovic seconded Unanimous 242- 139 Olympic Lane(Ferraguto) (New England Engineering) Ben Osgood Jr of New England Engineering was present on behalf of the applicant Ms Feltovic stated she was an abutter but felt she would not be a conflict of interest for the project Mr Osgood explained that the filing was for a septic system replacement in the buffer zone of a BVW associated with Boston Brook Work would be no closer than 44 feet from the wetland and the leach field would be 69 feet from the wetland He added that the project was currently in front of the Board of Health, but has not yet been approved Ms Parrino had several concerns She indicated that the Riverfront or wetland setbacks were not shown on the plan She questioned whether the site was located in Floodplain Ms Parrino stated she has reviewed and approved the wetland line The 25' no-disturbance area is being maintained as lawn almost to the wetland edge Ms Pamno indicated that at a minimum, wetland markers should be required No DEP number had been issued, so the project would have to be continued to the next hearing 3 Ms Feltovic moved to continue the project to the hearing of 7/30/03 Mr Manzi seconded Unanimous 242- 31 Wood Ave(McNaught)(RAM Engineering) Robert Masys of RAM Engineering was present Ms Panino discussed the revised sets of plans, which would explain the date the plans had been stamped in She indicated that the plans were revised per her recommendation, as field conditions were not reflective of the conditions on the plan The discrepancies included the location of the wetland delineation, the location of a stockade fence, and the omission of a culvert and associated grass swale She explained that the filing was for the construction of two additions in the buffer zone to a BVW She said the wetlands were delineated by Seekamp Environmental Consultants She explained that the wetland identified as series 14 delineates a small well-defined drainage channel She said the site is directly adjacent to the Northeast Storage property of which the swale wetland was not identified on the Northeast Storage plans and grading for the detention basin extends within close proximity of the channel A dry well infiltration system is proposed for the new roof runoff One of the additions is proposed within the 50-foot no-construction zone and the applicant has requested a waiver for the construction of this addition, despite the fact that the applicant was strongly advised that the waiver would not be approved She mentioned that some of the wetland flags were hung on the fence and this was confirmed by Seekamp Environmental She said that the site was a disturbed site with a portion of the wetland maintained as lawn area Mr Manzi had concerns with the waiver request He mentioned that no alternative analysis was presented to support the waiver, therefore the Commission could not accept the request Mr Masys inquired if the waiver would be granted if the appropriate additional information were to be submitted Mr Masse felt that it would not be likely that the Commission would grant the waiver in this case because the structure would be considered new and would not be constructed within the limits of an existing footprint The Commission agreed to tins reasoning No DEP file number has been issued, so the project would have to be continued to the next hearing Mr Manzi moved to continue the project to the hearing of 7/30/03 Ms Feltovic seconded Unanimous 242-1205—Farnsworth Reservation off S. Bradford Street(Essex County Greenbelt) David Rimmer of Essex County Greenbelt was present Mr Rimmer explained that the filing was for the installation of a wooden boardwalk over a bordering vegetated wetland resource area for the purposes of trail access on the Essex County Land He explained that Americorps volunteers would be used to help construct the boardwalk and work was scheduled to commence at the end of July, pending approval Ms Parrino explained further She said that the boardwalk would be 3' wide, 100 feet in length resulting in approximately 300 s f of permanent wetland impact She added that the applicants were proposing to install 6 wren-nesting bird boxes to enhance wildlife habitat No trees would be removed and a potential vernal pool existed adjacent to the trail in flagging series A The trail would be within the 50-foot no-disturbance area of the vernal pool, but alteration of vegetation would be limited in the upland areas Mr McDonough asked about upland vegetation removal Ms Parnno indicated there would be minimal disturbance Mr McDonough also asked about the equipment used during construction Mr Rimmer explained Mr Rimmer added that the boardwalk would be approximately 18 inches above standing water levels recorded in the spring of this year Mr Manzi felt that if the boardwalk needed to be 18 inches off the ground, than maybe this location was not a good idea 4 environmentally Mr Manzi asked if there was any way this location and the crossing could be avoided and if an alternative analysis was prepared Mr Rimmer responded that the entire area was a wet bottleneck and there was no other way to gain access without encroaching onto private property The Commission felt the project had too much wetland impact as proposed Mr Rimmer asked if replication would be considered Mr Manzi said he would have to see an alternative analysis to make that determination The applicant requested to close and was not willing to submit an alternative analysis Mr McDonough moved to close Ms Feltovic seconded Unanimous 242-1206-230 Abbott Street(Murphy) Malcolm Murphy, the applicant, was present Ms McKay explained that the filing was for the construction of a large addition within the buffer zone of a BVW She explained that the applicant had previously submitted a filing for a wetland crossing for a sewer tie-in The crossing had been completed, but the tank had not yet been installed The applicant is waiting to install the tank during the same time the addition is constructed The plan for the tie-in showed the existing home and proposed tank, but did not show the wetlands to the rear of the property where the addition was proposed Ms McKay explained that the new addition would replace an existing enclosed porch, an existing deck and an existing cement walkout area The applicant is requesting a waiver from the 50' no-build, since the new addition will replace the walkout area in the no-build area Leah Basbanes flagged the wetlands at the time the previous filing was submitted in April of 2002 The wetland line was reviewed and approved by Ms McKay Ms McKay indicated that an existing fence was not shown on the plan The approximate location of the fence is between the wetland and the 25' no-disturbance area Lawn is being maintained into the 25' no-disturbance area She recommended that the fence be located on the plan She also requested that the brush& debris pile be removed from the location adjacent to flag#10-A There was some discussion from the Commission regarding the cement walkout area and the way it was drawn on the plan Mr Murphy explained The Commission requested a revised showing the true nature of both the existing foundation and the proposed foundation. Mr Manzi moved to continue to 7/30/03 for revised plans Ms Feltovic seconded Unanimous. 242- Foster Farm Elementary School(North Andover School Building Committee) (DiNisco Design) Fred King of Schofield Brothers, Ken DiNisco, Steve Bolas(sp) and Pat Ceatus(sp) of DiNisco Design were present Before the hearing proceeded,Mr Masse had some preliminary questions He inquired about the date the Town planned to build the school Mr DiNisco said the earliest the school would be built would be 2007,the latest 2010 Mr Masse questioned why, in knowing that a Conservation permit would only be good for a maximum of 5 years, it made economic sense for The Town to move forward with the proposed at this time, if in 5 years the project would have to be refiled The applicant indicated that a letter of preliminary approval must be given to the state Department of Education by 8/28/03 in order for the project to be a secured project for state funding There was discussion from the Commission on how to go forward with a decision by this date Mr DiNisco proceeded with the presentation The site is 73 acres, divided into an upper and lower part The upper site would remain conservation area and the building, associated parking, and playing fields is proposed within the lower portion of the site The resource areas on site include Riverfront area associated with Mosquito Brook and associated Bordering Vegetative Wetlands, and a vernal pool Mr King explained the project in 5 more detail He discussed the soils on the site and explained the proposed stormwater ' management system in significant detail He said that water budget evaluations were evaluated to ensure that the integrity of the vernal pool would be maintained He said that the stormwater design meets and exceeds the 80%TSS removal requirement at 96% He added that Lisa Eggleston of Eggleston Environmental has been retained to review the stormwater management system and is currently reviewing the application Ms Feltovic moved to establish an escrow account in the amount of$5000 for stormwater review Mr Manzi seconded Unanimous Mr King said the project complies with the 50' no-build zone and the 25' no-disturbance area with the exception of the small crossing at the cart access road for the installation of a water line The only other resource area to be disturbed would be 6,000 s f of the outer Riperian Zone for grading purposes An abutter, Mr Tardy questioned the road location He felt that the entrance was dangerous, as the road was already one with many accidents He questioned why a second emergency entrance/exit was not required Mr King explained that it was not possible to have a second access road due to environmental constraints Mr King requested to continue to the next meeting of 7/30/03 Ms Feltovic moved to continue the hearing to 7/30/03 Mr McDonough seconded Unanimous Decisions 242-1205—Farnsworth Reservation off S. Bradford Street Mr Manzi moved to deny the project for the reasons that no alternative analysis was presented, there were no substantial reasons for allowing the trail access in the proposed location and the need for the access, and that the area was too environmentally sensitive to allow the proposed impact Ms Feltovic seconded Mr McDonough moved to approve The vote was 2-1 ! Denied i 6