Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-23 Conservation Commission Minutes F y Y Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2004 r Members Present: Scott Masse, Chairman, and Albert Manzi, Jr, Vice Chairman, Joseph W Lynch, Jr , and John J Mabon, Sean F McDonough Members Absent: Deborah Feltovic, Beth Wescott Staff Members Present: Alison McKay, Interim Conservation Administrator, Donna Wedge, Conservation Secretary Meeting came to Order at: 7:10pm Quorum Present. General Business 242-1113, COC, 934 Salem Street (Crabtree)(New England Engineering) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering was present Ms McKay discussed some of the history of the project The Order of Conditions was issued on 12/12/01 fouthe installation or a sewer force main within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland and within the 25 feet no-Disturbance Zone Former Administrator issued an Enforcement Order in August of 2002 for many violations to existing Order 13 were noted The Enforcement Order was never complied with In addition to these violations, unauthorized clearing and filling activities were observed along the slope of the driveway in close proximately to the wetland resource area The Enforcement Order mandated complete compliance with the Order of Conditions and the restoration and removal of all unauthorized fill material located within the 25-foot No- Disturbance Zone The Enforcement Order also required the following immediate measures 1 Installation of erosion controls along the driveway shoulders—erosion controls were installed 2 Removal of all unauthorized stable fill along the driveway shoulders and loaming, seeding, and planting the slopes with woody vegetation—None of these items were complied with 3 Posting of a DEP sign—this has been completed 4 Hiring a wetland scientist to act as a designated Erosion Control Monitor and the submission of the name and phone number of the Erosion Control Monitor there is no records in the file indicating compliance to this requirement 5 Submission of an existing conditions monitoring report and restoration plan for altered areas along the slope driveway by Erosion Control Monitor—Nothing has been submitted in this regard In addition, a fine of$ 300 was levied There is no evidence that this was ever paid Mr Manzi stated this filing is not approval at this time Mr Osgood stated the applicant had the sewer line put in the contractor filled and piled up along Flag A2, A3, and B2 The Enforcement Order issued was to remove the fill he had cut some woody vegetation down The applicant has some mulch by the driveway would be planting flowers Ms McKay stated she has concerns that the fine was never paid A motion to deny COC require restoration plan and planting plan was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous 242-971, COC, 15 Forest Street(Cassell)(New England Engineering) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering and the applicant James Cassell were present Ms McKay discussed some of the history of this filing The Order of Conditions was issued on July 21, 1999 for the replacement of a septic system within the buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland The as-built plans are in conformance with the proposed plans The site is stable there are no issues A motion to issue COC and bond release was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Mr Manzi Unanimous Decisions were done in the time between General Business and Public Hearings. Albert Manzi left the meeting at 9:30pm Recess 5 mins Public Hearings 8:00pm Requests for Determination of Applicability (RDA) 15 Nutmeg Lane (Pope)(New England Engineering) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering was present Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms McKay stated the filing is for construction of a deck on sonotubes footings to the rear of an existing single-family dwelling within the buffer zone to an isolated vegetated wetland A stormwater treatment area is also located on the property Under the regulations,these areas are not considered wetland resource areas and are not jurisdictional The lot was constructed as part of Abbott Village Subdivision (242-784) The proposed work is to be by manual labor No machinery is required as proposed The addition is proposed at 90 feet from the closest wetland boundary All setbacks are met as proposed Erosion controls are proposed A note on the plan indicates that the wetland location and topography were taken from the Abbott Village plans During the boundary review, it appears that the boundary was not re-delineated as boundary stakes were noted a few feet inside of the resource area and not along its exact boundary Because a change in a few feet would not affect the project, I recommend approval, but not for the wetland boundary as depicted Mr Manzi stated is the difference 2-feet plus or minus Ms McKay stated yes it is only 2-feet plus or minus A motion to issue a negative determination with conditions was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Mr Manzi Unanimous Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (s) 242-1256, Summer Street& Mollytowne (Gillen)(Christiansen & Sergi,Inc.)(cont. from 6/9/04). Leah Basbanes of Basbanes Wetlands Consulting Associates was present Ms McKay discussed the filing is for the confirmation of the wetland resource area boundary only Staff reviewed the wetland boundary with Leah Basbanes and noted several flag changes In addition, it was observed that an ephemeral pool appears to exist within the bordering vegetated wetland Staff recommended the limits of the pool be surveyed on the plan and adding a notation indicating the Ephemeral Pool Revised plans were submitted on June 22 (after the 7-day filing deadline), which reflect the flag changes and the edge of the water limits However, there is no indication that this limit is an ephemeral pool as recommended I also question the pool limits, as measurements in the field appeared to differ in some locations Staff would like review the pool limits as surveyed It was also observed that there had been historic (old) dumping between wetland flags 26A & 23A, along the existing gravel drive Which is also evident by the topography shown in the area on the plan Ms Basbanes stated the wetland line reviewed we verified the edge of the water and moved two flags 6-feet to 8-feet also the soils were reviewed Mr Manzi stated the Commission would require a third party review to absolutely verify the correct wetland line that is present out on the property also the pool needs to be verified also Ms Basbanes stated she waives the right to bid Wetland scientist recommended is Mark West of West Environmental, Patrick Seekamp, and Michael Howard of Epsilon A motion to set up escrow account in the amount of$ 1,000 for third party review was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous A motion to continue to July 14, 2004 meeting was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous Abbreviated Notice of Intent (s) 242-0000, 55 Amberville Road (Martin)(Gouveia) (cont. from 6/9/04) No one was present A motion to continue July 14, 2004 meeting because No DEP #was made by Mr McDonough, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous Notice of Intent(s) 242-1223, lot 6 Ogunquit Road,Rocky Brook Estates (Breen)(Neve-Morin Group)(cont. from 12/18/03)(Request to cont. to 7/28/04) No one was present A motion to continue to July 28, 2004 meeting was made by Mr McDonough, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous 242-1250, Adams Ave Drainage Improvement Project(DPW)(Westin & Sampson)(cont. from 6/9/04) Frank Occhipinti and James Finnegan of Westin& Sampson were present Ms McKay stated the applicant has submitted a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation as required I have reviewed the study The study indicates that the streambed itself provides very limited wetland wildlife habitat resources It states that the larger trees lining the bank provide the most significant wildlife habitat The study indicates that the tree canopy and shrub layer(although mostly invasive) provides important habitat for wildlife After reading the study, I am still of opinion that a few enhancement plantings would greatly benefit the resource area and any existing wildlife habitat (see study for a additional information) At the last meeting, construction of a berm at the end of the street was discussed and a cross-reference of the neighborhood drainage systems existing drainage and future drainage proposals Mr Lynch stated the drainage here poor a lot of the neighborhood was causing a problem with there own drainage was running into the sewer line Mr Occhipinti stated the berm would be a separate filing from this one but the Town may add services for the neighborhood A motion to close and issue a decision in 21 days was made by Mr Mahon, seconded by Mr Manzi Unanimous NACC # 16, 315 Turnpike Street-Monican Boulevard Relocation (Merrimack College)(Sasaki Associates) Tracey Gangi of Sasaki Associates,Robert Coppola of Merrimack College and James Bolduc of Wetlands Preservation, Inc were present Ms McKay discussed that the escrow account was set up Lisa Eggleston has submitted her review, which was limited to a hydraulic balance of the isolated wetland system (Town of Andover is having their consultant review all of the drainage for the site) Her only comment was that the proposed grading at the area south of the catch basin # 16, currently the easternmost row of parking in the existing lot, would dram toward the wetland and potentially increase the runoff flow to the wetland over the existing conditions In order to prevent this, she recommended that the final grading of this area be done in such a way as to maintain the existing drainage boundary and to direct the flow away from the wetland(e g through a shallow swale) She also suggested that finished grading be inspected at the completion of the project to verify that this objective had been satisfied Mr Lynch stated that Andover is fine with the project A motion to close and issue a decision in 21 days was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous 242-1252,315 Turnpike Street-Synthetic Turf Field (Merrimack College) (Sasaki Associates) (cont. from 6/9/04) Tracey Gangi of Sasaki Associates, Robert Coppola of Merrimack College and James Bolduc of Wetland Preservation, Inc were present Ms McKay stated the staff performed another inspection to determine the approximate locations of the resource area across the road The intermittent stream follows the road approximately 5-10 feet from existing pavement, in addition the associated bordering vegetated wetland The resource area and the buffer zones across the street were not identified on the plan This can be noted in the Order of Conditions An alternative analysis has been submitted for the encroachment of the field and the grading activities within the already disturbed (maintained lawn) 25-feet No-Disturbance Zone Staff is satisfied with the analysis The plans have been revised to show correct buffer zone locations A buffer zone restoration area table has also been added to sheet C3-1, consisting of 35 shrub plantings and 35 red maple tree plantings to be planted within 4, 956 s f of the 25-feet No- Disturbance Zone (see table on plan or Appendix A& B of the alternatives analysis report) The staff has not analyzed the numbers to determine whether the proposed number of plantings would be sufficient for the disturbance size This can be addressed further in the Order of Conditions A letter from the applicant was submitted indicating that the original field originated between 1983 and 1984 (staff found the proposed plan for original field project, DEP # 242-300 if the Commission wishes to see it) Mr Lynch stated the erosion controls to be added to the other side of the roadway Mr Bolduc stated there would be no problem adding hay bates and silt fence on the other side of the roadway A motion to close and issue a decision in 21 days with conditions was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous 242-1257,284 Salem Street (Palmer) (Rimmer Environmental & McKenzie Engineering Group)(cont. from 6/9/04) The applicant David Palmer, Mary Rimmer of Rimmer Environmental and William Needham of McKenzie Engineering were present Ms McKay stated the soil data was submitted as requested At the last meeting, the Commission questioned whether a building permit was issued for the pool on the site that has since collapsed and is no longer there A building permit was issued to George Reich with sign off from Richard Doucette in July of 1993 The comments from Natural Heritage have still not been received Mrs Rimmer hand delivered Natural Heritage results at the meeting and there are no issues with Natural Heritage Mr Palmer presented some pictures to the Commission to put into the file for the record Mr Lynch stated should mulch bed the wall infiltration system would be and improvement here for the run off all set A motion to close and issue decision in 21 days was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous 242-0000, 72 Sugarcane Lane (Curtin) (New England Engineering) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering was present Mr McDonough read legal notice Ms McKay stated the filing was required under an Enforcement Order, which was issued on May 26, 2004 for authorized filling of rear yard An administrator fine was levied and has been paid The grading activities will occur outside the 25-feet No-Disturbance Zone The landscaping retaining wall and the fence are proposed outside of the 50-feet No-Build I believe that the applicant wishes to riprap the graded slope All setbacks are met as proposed The staff has reviewed the wetland boundary and noted several changes The wetland flag 4A should be moved 10' towards up gradient and wetland flag 3A should be moved 12' towards wetland flag 4A and 12' up gradient The site is located within Estimated Habitat Notification has been sent to Natural Heritage for comment Mr Osgood stated 100 yards of fill back to Town of North Andover land They must clean up the slope open soil exposed need to stabilize slope double hay bales silt fence and riprap A motion to continue to July 14, 2004 meeting was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous 242-0000, 90 Tucker Farm Road(Raymond)(New England Engineering) The applicant Anthony Raymond and Ben Osgood of New England Engineering were present Mr McDonough read legal notice Mr Masse stated a direct abutter no conflict Ms McKay stated the filing is for construction of an addition to an existing single family dwelling and associated grading activities within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland An OOC for original house construction was issued in 1985 and has received compliance A plan,which appears to reflect as-built conditions, was submitted with the COC request in 1990 Several issues are of concern with the recently submitted plan and are as follows The difference in the wetland line are concerning There appears to have been some significant filling over the years and evidence of this was observed in the field The engineer's certification letter indicates that existing house is 40 feet from the wetland resource area and is located just beyond the existing 20' wide Diversion Easement The current proposed plan indicates the wetland resource area 60- 70 feet from the existing dwelling and 30 feet from the drainage easement I performed my inspection prior to in-house file review and questioned the wetland boundary due to the obvious filling activities (thick bark mulch layer of 4-6 inches in some areas) Once soil could be augured, hydric soils were present in areas up gradient to the flagged boundary Because of this, I would like to re-view the wetland line with the wetlands consultant There is no evidence that permits (Building or Conservation) were applied for, the existing decks, which would be in violation to the 50' No-Build if the wetland boundary were determined to be inaccurate The 25' No-Disturb is being maintained as lawn or bark mulch areas Mr Lynch stated the 50' No-Build and the 25' No-Disturb the Conservation Commission needs documentation to determination of the wetland line here this is very important Mr Osgood stated he could do some test pits on the lawn to see if there are wetlands under the grass A motion to continue to July 14, 2004 meeting for additional wetland review, associated plan changes, DEP # was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr McDonough Unanimous 242-0000, Cotuit Street& Leyden Street(Burke)(New England Engineering) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering was present Mr McDonough read the legal notice Mr Lynch a direct abutter no conflict Ms McKay stated the filing is for construction of 4 duplex homes site grading and utility installation within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated There are 5 lots shown on the plan(4 proposed& 1 already created lot with existing dwelling) The applicant has noted that the project is exempt from the stormwater management requirements, since there are 4 or fewer lots proposed I am not certain that the project as proposed actually doses fall under this exemption because of existing lot on site Would this be considered a fifth(redevelopment or phased) lot, thus triggering stormwater requirements?I have reviewed the section of applicability stormwater regulations I believe that the WPA was updated a short time ago to include new language relating to new stormwater management applicability I have not been able identify or find this new information, as the Town' s Internet access and e-mail system has not been operating for the last several days The staff will look into this further The applicant has submitted plans to the Planning Board for review The Town Planner is on vacation this week, but I was able to locate the file on the project From this file, it appears that the applicant is creating 5 lots from the existing 1 The staff will verify this information with Town Planner following her return A new plan was submitted to the planning department dated 6/18/04 requesting lot line change approvals Note# 2 on the plan indicates that the wetlands were located and delineated by New England Engineering Services, Inc The wetland boundary was not marked in its entirety upon,therefore staff could not confirm the resource area boundaries Mr Masse talked to all the abutters that attended the meeting the wetland line cannot be verified so this is going to be automatically continued Mr Osgood stated the field was mowed so the field needs to be re-flagged The Commission discussed having third party review escrow account set up for the amount of$ 1, 200 A motion to set up escrow account for$ 1,200 was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Mr Lynch abstained from voting A motion to continue to July 14, 2004 meeting was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous 242-0000, 44 & 50 Woodlea Road (Garger)(New England Engineering) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering was present Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms McKay stated the filing is for installation of a below-grade drainage pipe to replace an existing drainage swale with associated grading activities and the construction of an addition and retaining wall with in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland and within Riverfront area to Mosquito Brook The wetland line was reviewed and not approved It appears that the wetland boundary was not re-delineated 2 of the 3-wetland flags reviewed by staff were off by 6-15' Note # 2 on the plan indicates that the wetlands were delineated by others The wetland boundary for this project appears to have been taken and surveyed in the field from the Woodlea subdivision plans, which was approved in 1996 This would make the wetland boundary more than 8 years old The wetland boundaries are only valid for 3 years All new projects submitted beyond the 3-year time frame of an existing project for the same wetland boundary shall be re- delineated if changes in the boundary are apparent The staff did not complete the wetland boundary review because of the above findings and feels that an adequate review of the project cannot be made until the wetland boundary is confirmed No DEP # A motion to continue to July 14, 2004 meeting was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr McDonough Unanimous 242-0000,240 Charles Street-Greater Lawrence Sanitary District(GLSD)(Hogan)(ENSR) Richard Weare of Lawrence Sanitary District, Brenda Bhatti of ENSR, Douglas A Rice of Wright-Pierce, and Jeffery R Pinnette of Wright-Pierce were present Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms McKay stated the filing is for construction of several upgrades and improvements including the installation of stormwater management controls and associated grading activities to an existing wastewater treatment facility within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland and Riverfront is shown on site, but no work is proposed within the Riverfront The improvements are proposed to reduce the frequency and quantity of combined sewer overflows into the Merrimack River and involve the construction of a aerated grit facility, new access road for an additional receiving area, and a secondary bypass system including a chlorine tank and bypass manhole The impacts to the buffer zones and resource area are unclear and extremely confusing as written in the Notice of Intent A small manhole structure is proposed within the 50' No-Build zone The associated excavation and regarding activities in association with this manhole are proposed within the 25' No-Disturbance Zone No alternative analysis of mitigation was provided for this disturbance The alternative analysis needed for work within riverfront is exempt for wastewater treatment plant-10 58 (6)(H) No erosion controls are not shown on the plans The wetland boundary has not been review Set up escrow account for stormwater review Mr Weare stated the stormwater overflow sewer running into the Merrimack River, and the DEP and EPA wants to clean up the river of the sewer overflow into the river There is about 2/3 of over flow of solid waste into the river Mr Pinnette stated drainage swale facilities stormwater management would have 4 new tanks above ground outside 100 feet buffer zone The head work structures tank and concert piping vault would be inside the 50',No-Build zone The pavement would be a total of 500 s f would be paved on existing lawn area Ms Bhatti stated there is a narrow wetland resource area in this area The culvert by the Airport is a very steep embankment here In area E hydrochloride waste water 300 thousand gallons of waste water the sewer tank chloride treatment tank the existing tank the manhole there would be about 25-feet to 50-feet of grading A motion to set up escrow account for the amount of$ 1, 500 was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Mabon A motion to continue to July 14, 2004 meeting was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr McDonough Unanimous Decisions 242-1237, Lots 277 &278 Cotuit Street (Highview LLC)(Environmental Design) A motion to set the bond amount at$ 5, 000, conditions stormwater management zero run-off, foundation plan, as-built plan, pre-construction meeting and post construction meeting include Mark West presentation in the Order of Conditions, was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Manzi Unanimous 242-1255,2177 Turnpike Street—Lot 66 (Casey)(Serwatka) A motion to transfer the bond amount and interest of$ 3000 from DEP# 242-1055 to Superceding Order 242-1255 also pre-construction, wetland foundation verify land survey was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Manzi Unanimous 242-1252,2192 Turnpike Street(Conroy)(New England Engineering) A motion to set the bond amount at$ 3,000 with conditions addition corner staked, adopt as drafted was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Mabon A motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:30pm was made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr. McDonough.