Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-04 Conservation Commission Minutes Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes 884rr August 4,2004 Members Present: Scott Masse, Chairman, and Albert Manzi, Jr, Vice Chairman, John J Mabon, Joseph W Lynch, Jr , and Sean F McDonough Members Absent: Deborah Feltovic, Beth Wescott Staff Members Present: Alison McKay, Conservation Administrator, Donna Wedge, Conservation Secretary Meeting came to Order at: 7:10pm Quorum Present. General Business 242-1162, 10 Commerce Way (Grasso) (Hancock Environmental Consultants) Stacey Carpenter of Hancock Environmental Consultants was present Ms McKay states the applicant withdrew previous modification request for an amendment The Commission requested alternative analysis for the transformer pad, which is proposed in the 50' no-build zone The amendment plans show a new location of proposed transformer pad, which is located outside of the 50' no-build and greater than 80 feet from the wetland resource area Additionally, the proposed electrical utilities will be buried and routed around the proposed parking area to the transformer pad A list of abutters notified was also attached with the amendment request Ms Carpenter states the lines would go underground to the transformer pad over 80 feet away from the wetland resource area A motion to close and issue amendment was made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr Manzi Unanimous 242-1209, Amendment, 139 Olympic Lane (Ferraizuto)(New England Engineering) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering was present Ms. McKay states the applicant withdrew the previous modification request for an amendment The revised plans show Boston Brook and associated riverfront boundaries The wetland line was reflagged and extended as requested The revised plan also proposes the shed to be relocated to an area outside the 50-feet no-build zone The revised plan also proposed an evergreen barrier along the maintained 25' no- disturbance area and it has been noted to abandon the existing lawn area in this location to allow natural revegetation of the 25-foot no-disturb Mr Osgood states that the applicant wants to put in an in ground pool instead of above ground pool Mr Lynch states how much bigger is the in ground pool going to be the above ground pool looks pretty small 16x 24 the in ground pool much larger and closer to the property line. Mr. Osgood states the in ground pool would be 20 x 30 and closer to the property line Mr McDonough states rather than evergreens would require a fence along the 25-feet no-disturbance area also requirement of wetland markers a boundary line A motion to continue to August 25, 2004 meeting was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr. Mabon Unanimous. 242-1093, Extension, 65 Flagship Drive (Ranger Development)(Epsilon Associates) Ms McKay states Michael Howard has re-established the missing flags The staff has re- confirmed the wetland boundary and it is consistent with approved plans A motion to issue a 1- year extension was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous 242-1160, COC, Osiood Street, Great Pond Road, Marbleridge Road, & Abbott Street- Sewer& water main—Contract 4A(R.M. Pacella, Inc.) (Guertin & Elkerton & Associates) No one was present Ms McKay states the Order of Conditions was issued on 8/27/02 for the installation of approx. 4, 600 1 f of gravity sewer installation of 25 pre-cast sewer manholes and the and the installation of approx 3, 500 1 f. of water main relocation/upgrade and appurtenances The as-built plans and engineering letter submitted All the disturbed areas have been properly restored As the associate, I had performed the pre-construction meeting and discussed the environmental monitoring condition with the contractor It was noted that Dave Baker of R M Pacella would be the monitor It was later discussed with Mr Baker that an environmental specialist be more appropriate as the monitor Mr Pacella indicated that Tony Zerelli of Weston and Sampson would be the monitor I spoke with Mr. Zerelli after not receiving any reports I have a hand written note dated 10/14/03 in which Mr Zerelli indicated that he would fax the reports No monitoring reports were submitted Other than above monitoring condition, the project is in compliance with the Order of Conditions The stabilization and compliance were also confirmed during my field review Mr Lynch states the taxpayers paid for this contract and those requirements were built into the cost of the project Mr Manzi states we have been done this road before the Town of North Andover projects Mr Masse states they would never be able to comply this will be an on going issue Mr Lynch we need an explanation why there were no monitoring reports for the time the job was going on Ms McKay states while the work was going on there should have been weekly reports coming in the office and there were not reports submitted A motion to deny the COC was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Mr Masse and amendment motion for the certification failed Unanimous. 242-1239,COC, 17 Massachusetts Avenue(Shell Oil Prod ucts)(EnviroTrac) Eric Simpson of Enviro Trac was present Ms McKay states the Order of Conditions was issued in April of this year for the excavation and removal of petroleum impacted soils and the installation of up to three groundwater-monitoring wells located within Riverfront area, BLSF, and buffer zone to associated bank and bordering vegetated wetlands An in house modification was approved for a larger excavation area A trench box shoring system was installed to support the foundation to allow excavation during construction A total of 237 66 tons of soil was transported from site to Aggregated Industries in Shrewsbury, MA for asphalt-batch recycling As-Built plans and certified engineering letter submitted as required Monitoring reports were submitted In compliance with the Order-No issues The site was restored and paved to its original condition the site is stable A motion to issue the COC and bond release was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous 242-461, PCOC, lot 27 Candlestick Road (#271) (Korn) Mr & Mrs Korn was present Ms McKay states the Order of Conditions was issued in May of 1988 for the roadways, utilities,and drainage facilities only(condition# 25). However, lots 15- 44, excluding lot 29, were attached to the filing. Lot 27 was developed under 242-461 The site is stable no issues. A motion to issue PCOC for Lot 27 only was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Mr Manzi Unanimous 242-474, PCOC, Lot 30 Hickory Hill Estates (#261 Hickory Hill Road)(Kilman law offices) No one was present Ms. McKay stated the Order of Conditions was issued in October of 1988 for construction of 19 duplex and six triplex condos including related praives, landscaping, parking, utilities and dentin basins. PCOC's issued for most, if not all, lots The Lot 3-A was attached to this filing and was later subdivided to include lot 30, hence the attachment This is a non jurisdictional lot A motion to issue a PCOC for Lot 30 only was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr. Mabon. Unanimous 242-158,PCOC,Lot 56 Bear Hill Road (# 132) (William O'Mara) Mr & Mrs O'Mara was present Ms McKay states the Order of Conditions was issued June of 1982 Non-Jurisdictional lot(condition# 18d& confirmed in the field) Administrative only A motion to issue a PCOC for Lot 56 only was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous Public Hearings 8:05pm Recess 5 minutes Abbreviated Notice Of Resource Area Delineation(s) 242-1256, Summer Street & Mollytowne Road (Gillen) (Christianson & Sergi, Inc.) Leah Basbanes of Basbanes Associates was present Ms McKay states the third party review was conducted One additional wetland flag was changed and the limits of the vernal pool were verified and extended and extended appropriately The revised plans have been submitted and are satisfactory Revision is also including all butter zones including those associated with the vernal pool Mr Patrick Seekamp has submitted a report based on the original plan set and the site walk review he had not received a copy of the revised set of plans I am of the opinion that the revised plans are now accurate and that a subsequent report is unnecessary A motion to issue an ORAD was made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr Manzi Unanimous Abbreviated Notice of Intent 242-0000, 55 Amberville Road (Martin)(Gouveia) No one was present Ms McKay states still no DEP#the applicants engineer and Donna have been working to get the resolved, the original paperwork was not sent to correct office at DEP and there may have been some confusion on where the state fee was supposed to be sent A motion to continue to August 11, 2004 meeting was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous Request for Determination of Applicability 1580 Salem Street (Sears)(New England Engineering) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering was present Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms McKay states the filing is for installation of a septic tank, loose boulder retaining wall and grading associated with a subsurface disposal system in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland The replacement system is proposed outside of the 100' buffer zone. The proposed tank will be approximately 88-feet from the wetland and the retaining wall will be about 83-feet away from the wetland boundary Minimal associated grading will also occur within 100-feet buffer zone. The erosion controls are proposed. The erosion controls on the northerly side of the property should be extended along the 100-foot buffer zone to the property line In the review of the wetland boundary, staff feels that the boundary extends upgradient to flag A-1 as a finger like projection All other wetland flag location was accurate A motion to continue to August 11, 2004 to determine the extent of the finger up gradient to flag A-1 was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous Notice of Intent(s) 242-1223,Lot 6 Oyunguit Road, Rocky Brook Estates(Breen) (Neve-Morin Group)(cont. from 12/18/03) John Morin of Neve-Morin Group was present No Abutters were present. Ms. McKay explained She recommended that upon approval of the filing, a deed restriction be put in place and for homeowners of lots 11A and 12C to submit a letter stating they could not alter any further beyond the existing limit of work She stated that the revised plans had reduced the proposed riverfront alteration by approx 3, 300 s f (from 20,000 to 16,700s f) The revised plans showed a significant reduction in grading and comply with all setbacks She stated she had received a letter from Natural Heritage dated July 2, 2004, which determined that based upon new information provided and a site evaluation that the proposed project would not adversely affect the actual habit of state-listed rare wildlife Ms McKay asked whether a deck would be proposed in the future, as it would be jurisdictional A modification or new filing would be required if deck was added She recommended the submission of Brian Butler's of Oxbow Associates, site evaluation be submitted for the file Mr Morin stated that there would be walkways and a deck and would revise the plans to show these features Mr Lynch asked about the retaining wall right up against where snow would likely be stored/stockpiled Mr Lynch requested that the house be pivoted for a driveway more aligned to the house and for a wall detail to be provided He also asked that the underground utilities be shown on the plan Mr McDonough asked for the height of the retaining wall Mr Morin responded that it would be 4- feet high with a guardrail at the edge of the driveway Mr Manzi felt that the garage/driveway were not functional as proposed A motion to continue to the August 25, 2004 meeting requiring revised plans was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous 242-1259, 90 Tucker Farm Road (Raymond)(New England Engineerina)(cont. from 7/14/04) The applicant Anthony Raymond and Ben Osgood of New England Engineering and an Abutter Terry Holland were present Ms McKay states at the last meeting, the Commission requested proof that the applicant did not fill the area Letters received from four neighbors was submitted stating the applicant did not do the filling on the land Mr Osgood states he is still researching Town records to gather information on who really did the filling of the wetlands here Mr Manzi states the Commission would require a report on who possibly filled the wetlands here Ms McKay states there was obvious violation done on the property Mr Lynch states the deck and addition would now be 33-feet from the wetland line as of June 9, 2004 A motion to continue to August 25, 2004 meeting requiring a report to be sent in on the filling on the site was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous 242-1261, Cotuit Street& Leyden Street(Burke)(New England Engineering)(cont. from 6/23/04) The applicant John Burke and Matthew Burke, Ben Osgood of New England Engineering an Abutter James Calavritinos of 6D Village Green Building 8, an Abutter Robert Sullivan was present Ms McKay states additional third party review was conducted to finalize the resource area boundaries revised plans have been submitted and are accurate. Mr Sullivan states the stream widens re-delineated 1997 and that is the truth The stream flows all the time water flowing all the time. My opinion this project has not been taken into consideration that the water runoff is all the time There are no dry times That stream is not intermittent New England Engineering has not been handling this project in the honest way Mr Calavritinos states he has concerns about the project being built right across the street facing Village Green The Commission was discussing what we should be doing with the stream static have Patrick Seekamp verify if the stream is intermittent or perennial. Ms McKay stated the comments from The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection required the applicant to follow Storm Water Management Regulations from the state pre-construction and post-construction A motion to continue to August 25, 2004 meeting was made by Mr. Mabon, seconded by Mr McDonough. Unanimous Albert Manzi left the meeting at 9:30pm. 242-1258, 44 & 50 Woodlea Road (Gamer)(New England En2ineerin2)(cont. from 6/23/04) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering was present Ms McKay states the construction of an addition is at 44 Woodlea Road and the proposed retaining wall is at 50 Woodlea Road The addition is proposed to be 50 25' to the wetland at its closest point The erosion controls are proposed around the entire limit of work The retaining wall is proposed just out side 25-feet No- Disturbance and will be constructed right up against the erosion control limit A detailed construction sequence of proposed work is imperative for this project (completion of the pipe installation 1st prior to any work associated with the addition) A construction sequence was outlined in brief in the NOI application. The sequencing is sensible, but a more detailed sequence of construction should be conditioned and the Order should be clear that the approved construction sequence is to be followed The staff reviewed the new wetland boundary with Leah Basbanes and several flag changes were made The revised plans have been submitted and are not accurate. The staff met with Town Engineer for his comments as to whether the installation of the pipe as proposed would function properly as proposed He feels that the proposed pipe at this site is a good idea He offered the following comments to me How was pipe sized9 Where calculations performed on the storm events for the sizing (no calcs were submitted with application) I suggested a perforated pipe wrapped in filter fabric (a 3' wide trench with 1' stone beneath) to provide better infiltration rather than PVC Suggested rip-rap at the end of the outlet structure to dissipate any flow velocity In addition, as recommended by the Commission at the last meeting,the developer of the subdivision was notified of the project He could not attend the meeting, but said that he had problem with the project as long as it wouldn't affect his ability to receive compliance Mr Lynch states that the slope is 0056 slope swale treatment TTS biological The slope 240 proposed 230 69 pipe 1-foot Mr Lynch states the need to raise back flood elevation at 242 also the pipe is in the easement A motion to continue to August 25, 2004 meeting require Flood Elevation and spot grades and rip-rap was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous. 242-1262, 240 Charles Street-Greater Lawrence Sanitary District (GLSD)(Hogan)(ENSR)(cont. from 7/14/04) The applicant Richard E Weare and Brenda Bhatti of ENSR were present. Ms. McKay states the applicant has submitted new calculations and comment letter based on the most recent revisions. She states that she is generally satisfied that previous comments have been adequately addressed and that the project as proposed would be in compliance with the state and local Stormwater Management Standards She noted to me by phone (and fax cover sheet) that any remaining items could probably be addressed in the Order of Conditions I am in agreement with this position Two remaining comments pertain to operation& maintenance Vortechnics unit and inlet and outlet protection details (see letter dated 8/4/04). A motion to close and issue a decision in 21 days was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr. Mabon Unanimous 242-1263,85 Flagship Drive (Lyons)(Giles Surveying)(cont. from 7/14/04) No one was present Ms McKay states the staff met with to discuss the items needed to move forward Specifically, to depict the resource area and associated buffer zones to the northeast of the property on the plan Revised plans were submitted in this regard Applicant has requested a continuance in writing to 8/11/04 A motion to continue to August 11,2004 meeting was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Unanimous. 242-1264, Massachusetts Avenue,Andover Street, Osgood Street and Salem/Johnson Street Junction (North Andover Old Center)(Town of North Andover)(Guertin & Elkerton & Associates)(cont. from 7/14/04) No one was present Ms McKay states a meeting was held with Scott, myself and Guertin& Elkerton&Associates to identify the main areas of concern within the 25' and 50' setbacks and to discuss alternatives/mitigation for these areas Since the last meeting, escrow in the amount of $ 2,500 was set up for stormwater management review I reviewed the jurisdictional areas with Bill Finn of Guertin and found that the few jurisdictional areas were lacking or inaccurate Some adjustments were made in the field at the time of the inspection others were made later by David Klinch of ENSR who has originally flagged the wetlands for the utility project Revised plans have not been submitted to include all revisions previously discussed (i e.-25' & 50' buffer zones,erosion control extensions/changes, and resource area changes, ect) as of Monday 8/2/04 Alternatives analysis and mitigation specifications also not submitted as of 8/2/04 Lisa Eggleston performed a preliminary review based on the original documents A preliminary fax of her review was sent tonight, however staff has not had a chance to review The applicant is moving forward and making progress on previous staff, Commission and consultant review The applicant has requested a continuance in writing to the meeting 8/11/04 to finalize requested information A motion to continue to August 11, 2004 meeting was made by Mr Lynch, seconded by Mr McDonough Unanimous + 242-1266, 1094 Salem Street (Stringer)(New England Engineering) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering was present Mr McDonough read legal notice Ms McKay states the filing is for installation of a replacement septic system, retaining wall and associated grading in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland The system is in the front of the house 93' from the wetland The erosion controls are proposed No record in files as to when house/deck were built and shed installed. Shed appears to have existed years previously Spoke with homeowner states that house was built in the 60's and the shed was put in the late 80's early 90's (pre-bylaw) I did not ask when the decks were constructed not did the owner offer this information. The 25' no-disturb maintained as mowed lawn up to the wetland edge The homeowner also stated that he had truck fill area with sand around the shed. Cat tails at the edge of the lawn. Soils augured in the lawned area around the shed Hydric soils present and sandy fill was confirmed The wetland boundary not approved as depicted on the plans. The staff to re-view boundary with Ben Osgood Mr Lynch states the Commission neither reject the wetland line nor accept the wetland line The septic is located in the front of the house 93-feet from wetland A motion to close and issue decision in 21 days was made by Mr McDonough, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous 242-1265,Wood Ridge Drive (Barkan Management Company, Inc.- Waldrop) (Merrimack Engineering) Robert Daley of Merrimack Engineering Services, Inc was present Mr McDonough read the legal notice Ms McKay states the filing is for the reconstruction of and improvements to existing inlets in the buffer zone to a buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland The site is located on Wood Ridge Drive off of Waverly Road The development is a housing co-operative consisting of seven clusters of multi-family housing, which was constructed in the late 1970 (DEP #009)by the Archdiocese of Boston The development provides housing along with parking facilities, recreation facilities and associated drainage. The drainage improvements are proposed to alleviate increasing stormwater flooding concerns impacting buildings, parking lots, driveways, roadways, and the overall development The improvements include more definition to an existing grass swale, construction of new grass swales, new catch basins, connecting into existing storm drainage systems, curbing repair, construction of earth berms, and the construction of several new drainage systems with three new manholes The excavation and removal of collected sediment in front of an existing flared end pipe outlet and the construction of an earth berm around the flared end portion is also proposed The erosion controls are proposed appropriately at jurisdictional locations However, Detail # 4 (sheet 3) does not show any sedimentation controls around the proposed work The work should be conditioned to perform work during low flow conditions or drier periods The O &M plan included in the Notice of Intent The drainage calculations were not submitted Third party review on the drainage is recommended The resource areas were delineated by Norse Environmental on 11/24/03 The staff has not yet reviewed and confirmed the wetland boundaries DEP File # comment What is the depth of sediments to be removed? Submit soil profile Mr Daley states along the swale 1 '/2 years ago catch basins were overflowing was happening the need clean out the catch basins have not been done for many years The Commission was discussing third party review for drainage to set up escrow account for review A motion to continue September 8, 2004 meeting was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Mr Lynch Mr McDonough to reconsider to continue to August 11, 2004 A motion to continue August 11, 2004 meeting was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Mr Lynch Unanimous 242-1267,Lot 11-2 Salem Street(adiacent to #612)(PJS Realty Trust)(Christiansen & Sergi)(Request to cont. 8/11/04) No one was present. Mr. McDonough read legal notice Ms McKay states the applicant request to Continue to August 11, 2004 meeting Decisions 242-1260, 72 Sugarcane Lane (Curtin)(New England Engineering) A motion to set the bond amount at $ 2,000 except as drafted was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Mr Lynch. Unanimous A motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:OOpm was made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mr. Lynch.