Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-22 Conservation Commission Minutes Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes December 22,2004 Members Present: Scott Masse, Chairman, and Albert Manzi, Jr , Vice Chairman, John J Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, Sean McDonough Members Absent: Joseph W Lynch, Jr , Beth Wescott Staff Members Present: Alison E McKay, Conservation Administrator, and Pamela A Merrill, Conservation Associate, Donna Wedge, Conservation Secretary Meeting came to Order at: 7:05pm Quorum Present. General Business 242-871,Partial Bond Release, Berrington Estates (Mesiti Development Corporation)(cont. from 10/27/04)(request to coot. to 1/26/05) No one was present Ms Merrill stated the continuance is because James Carroll the owner has sent paper work to DEP requesting a Certificate of Compliance from DEP It might take 2 weeks A motion to continue to January 26, 2005 meeting was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous 242-1282, Modification,45 Bridges Lane (Koenig) The applicant Mr Michael Koenig was present Ms McKay stated upon the review of the site and in house files, it was found that the applicant had expanded an existing deck and added an additional deck with associated stairs without an Order of Conditions Further, the deck expansion and addition are in violation of the North Andover Wetlands Protection Bylaw, as they are within the 50-foot No-Build Zone Therefore,the NACC has determined that the r applicant, owner or any successor in control of the property is responsible for properly removing any and all unauthorized newly constructed decks are clearly defined on the plot plan, submitted with the rejected building permit application, and are reflected on the Plan of Record reference herein The applicant shall contact the Conservation Department prior to the removal of the said structures to determine any additional wetlands protection measures " The applicant is requesting a modification to these conditions as they feel that they were rightfully permitted to build the additional deck and stairs from their building permit The staff does not agree with this conclusion Further, staff does not agree that the following had ever occurred as stated in the modification letter (3`d paragraph, 3`d sentence from the end) "Per our contractor, Ms McKay visited the site during construction progress and observed scope of work-while reviewing another permit application No violation was ever noted" This statement is false I am 100%positive that I did not do a site inspection for the following reasons There was no Conservation permit for the work, one of the building permits was denied by myself and the approved permit was for replacement of the porch in kind with no ground disturbance The nature of the approved work would not have triggered an inspection by this Department Mr Keomg stated the builder was Jim Testa my Lawyer is Donald Bornstein, I, would request a continuance to the next meeting to be able to talk with my Legal Counsel Mr Keomg stated there is no violations on the property see you in court Present to vote Scott Masse, Albert Manzi, Jr, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to deny the modification was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous 242-1268, COC, 1135 Great Pond Road(Brooks School)(Rist-Frost Shumway Engineering) No one was present Ms Merrill stated the Order of Conditions was issued on September 22, 2004 for construction of a screened porch(on sonotubes) with stairs and stone drip trench to an existing single-family dwelling at 1135 Great Pond Road Steve Erikson,Norse Environmental was designated as the project' s Erosion Control Monitor The reports were submitted to this office throughout the construction A site inspection was conducted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 The site appeared stable with no evidence of erosion The wetland flags were up and staff was able to take field measurements to the new porch The as-built plans were consistent with the record plan The markers had been put up prior to the pre-construction meeting Mr McDonough states how close was the project to the wetlands Ms Merrill states 77-feet away Present to vote Scott Masse, Albert Manzi, Jr, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to issue the COC and bond release was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous 242-1219, Modification & COC, 1112 Turnpike Street (Ferragamo)(New England Engineering) The applicants Mr &Mrs Ferragamo and Ben Osgood of New England Engineering Services, Inc were present Ms Merrill stated the Order of Conditions was issued for the installation of an in-ground pool, deck, and cabana within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland Julie Vondrak reviewed the wetland boundary and wanted flags A-2 & A-3 relocated upslope These two flags are the closest to the project location From what I gather, the-flags were changed on the plan (new plans show new location of wetland flags, dated 10/8/04), never in the field Prior to the commencement of the work, the corners of the patio were staked, as required by Conservation Staff It is unclear if New England Engineering or the applicant staked it At any rate, it was measured off the original flags The applicant has informed me that he moved the entire project 10 extra feet towards his house (further from the wetland) for extra precautionary of the 50-foot No-Build zone A compliance inspection was conducted on December 21, 2004 The site appeared stable The wetland flags and markers were up in the field Field measurements were not consistent with the record plan, as the A-2 & A-3 were never relocated in the field My field measurements differ from wetland flag A-3 to the grill by 21', and from wetland flag A-2 to cabana by 4 5' Furthermore, it is still unclear to me how New England Engineering got the measurements shown on the as-built plan The difference from the old A-2 & new A-3 is 8 5', and new A-3 is 15' Mr Osgood was designated as the Erosion Control Monitor one report was found in the file New England Engineering submitted a request for a modification for the installation of a pool filter, a wooden raised garden bed and fence was installed along the perimeter of the pool patio These items conform to the 50-foot No-Build Zone However, a permanent brick grill was constructed and is shown encroaching into the 50- foot No-Build Zone Please note that I have heard different stories from both parties New England Engineer is in opinion the Conservation Staff were responsible for moving the wetland flags in the field I strongly disagree Conservation Staff should not be responsible, nor should we make any flag corrections without the wetland consultant present The person who delineates the wetland is responsible for the flag locations The applicant is nervous the he will have to remove his grill because of New England Engineering's mistakes Mr Osgood stated I, thought Julie Vondrak told me she had moved the two flags in the field Mr Manzi stated this has happened in the past where staff went out and moved flags on their own Also this area should be re-flagged with the corrected flags and setbacks being meet Present to vote Scott Masse, Albert Manzi, Jr, John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to continue to January 12, 2004 meeting for revised plans was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous NACC # 13, COC, 443 Boston Street (Mongell)(Giles) The applicant Mrs Mongell was present Ms Merrill stated on November 13, 2001 the NACC voted to deny the Notice of Intent associated to DEP # 242-1084, which entailed the replacement of a 12' x 14' deck with a 12' x 20' enclosed porch, as well as constructing an additional 10' x 2V deck within the 50-foot No-Build Zone The applicant appealed the decision to DEP and was subsequently issued a Superceding Order of Conditions on January 31, 2002 The Superceding Order of Conditions expires January 31, 2005 The applicants filed another Notice of Intent on 4/25/2002 for construction of a screened porch (outside of the 50-foot No-Build Zone)within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland The NACC issued an Order of Conditions under the local bylaw only, (NACC # 13) on May 23, 2002 The Order did reference that it was associated to the Superceding Order of Conditions issued by DEP (242-1084) On July 9, 2003 the NACC issued modification for revised plan dated 5/29/2003, which depicts the footprint dimensions of the screened porch increased from 12' x 18 to 16' x 22', two additional sonotubes, and the repositioning of the erosion control line/limit of work The applicant recorded the Order of Conditions associated to NACC # 13, but never recorded the Superceding Order of Conditions, since the original project changed considerably Leah Basbanes, Basbanes Associates was designated as the Erosion Control Monitor The reports were submitted throughout the life of the project There were no other special conditions outlined in the Order The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Compliance for NACC# 13 A stamped engineer letter and as-built plans from Frank S Giles, I P E accompanied the applicant's request Conservation Staff conducted an inspection on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 The as-built plan is consistent with the most recent record plan 5/29/2003 The field measurements were taken (wetland Flag A-4 to sonotube 64', A-5 to sonotube 61') and were also consistent Setbacks have been met The site appeared stable with no sign of erosion I authorized the homeowner to remove the erosion controls Present to vote Scott Masse, Albert Manzi, Jr , John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to issue the COC and bond release was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous 242-1065, COC,Foster Farm Fields (Town of North Andover)(DPW) The Town Engineer Jack Sullivan was present Ms Merrill stated an Order of Conditions was issued on November 15, 2001 for construction of 3 athletic fields, a gravel access driveway with a paved entrance, gravel parking lot, fencing, and irrigation system The contractor went Bankrupt in 2004 and our bank was notified that the Department of Revenue had levied the performance bond ($10, 412 79, includes interest) As such, the NACC no longer has an escrow account balance for this DEP file# Little Environmental Services, contract retained Seekamp Environmental Consulting as the erosion control monitor, and had failed to pay them Therefore, Seekamp Environmental Consulting had stopped monitoring the site in February of 2004 A compliance inspection was conducted on November 15, 2004 All areas were observed stable with no sign of erosion I informed Jack Sullivan that the erosion controls could be removed The markers (on wooden posts) were observed installed at the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone associated with wetland flags E-1 through E-21 Please note during my inspection, several posts (about 6) were observed lying on the ground along the 50-foot No-Disturbance Zone associated with wetland Flag E-22 through E-48 (a k a vernal pool) Also the markers were missing along the 50-foot No-Disturbance Zone, up gradient of wetland flags A-37 through 43(other vernal pool) The signage will need to be re-installed prior to the meeting I have also informed Jack Sullivan of this The sideslope up gradient from wetland flags A-41 through A-48 experience some major erosion last fall and winter, as mentioned by Seekamp Environmental Consulting, Inc It appeared as though this was correct since the area was 100%vegetated The as-built plans note that the contractor encroached into the 50-foot No-Disturbance Zone within the above- mentioned area, as well I measured 44' from the wetland flag A-46 to the erosion control and the wetland marker The area is stable with thick, tall grasses Perhaps just moving the marker up 6' to the 50-foot No-Disturbance Zone on the slope may suffice, in addition to refraining from maintaining this area Will the areas outside of the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone and the 50-foot No Build Zone(1 a along the curbing areas, islands, ect) ever be mowed in the future? I asked because it doesn't look like it has been done The leaching basins were installed with 6"PVC and riprap apron, in lieu of the RCP flared end outlet, as depicted on the record plans Will this function the same or is there a greater increase of erosion, since there is no sheet flow? Additionally, I noted that Phil Christiansen' s letter, dated October 28, 2004 states the leaching basins do not have pre-treatment devices on them, as shown on the record plan Condition# 54 states that a device such as AquaShield TM filters system or equivalent to, shall be installed and maintained in perpetuity Why were these devices put on? Condition# 65 states that evidence of maintenance of the stormwater management structures shall be provided to the NACC on an annual basis from a P E , for two years from the date the structures went on line I did not find these reports in our file Was this ever done?I observed two piles of grass clippings on the wetland side of the erosion control at both fields These should be removed Ideally,the ground crews should not be dumping anything on site I don't want the landscapers to get in the habitat dumping towards the No-Disturbance Zone Condition# 41, states that an operational procedure plans (trash pickup & other site maintenance activities, ect) for the recreational fields was to be submitted to this office I did find this in our files Was it ever submitted? The wooden guardrail along the parking lot was installed this was not shown on the record plan However, it is outside of the 50-foot No-Disturbance Zone, and it still conforms to regulated setback The portable toilet was removed from the site I sent Jack Sullivan a memo of my findings He will not be able to tend to these items until spring of 2005 Mr Sullivan stated the town is holding $ 21, 000 dollars the should of paid to them but the Department of Revenue may seize the money also The Commission discussed about not having any bond money in place because the Town of North Andover would post the bond money the Commission would reduce the bond amount to $ 5, 000 Mr Sullivan will withdraw the request for the COC also the landscaper that mows for the town is Tyler Monroe Mr Sullivan stated a continuance for a 1-year extension Present to vote Scott Masse, Albert Manzi, Jr , John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic and Sean McDonough i Public Hearings 8:25pm No Recess 242-1231, Amendment, North Andover Town Commons Utility Project (Mass Electric)(ENSR)(cont. from 9/22/04) David Klinch of ENSR and Robert Herbert of Mass Electric were present Ms McKay stated the abutters within 300 feet of the proposed work have been re-notified as requested The new plans have been designed The work within the no-disturbance and no-build zone has been significantly reduced (1,625 s f to 190 s f) The reduction in the buffer zone disturbance and project impacts was achieved by removing the gravel access drive (eliminating the crossing) and moving some structures onto the road shoulders of Osgood Street and Cranberry Lane Additionally, the manhole was moved across Osgood Street and placed in an underground vault The work remaining in the no-disturb zone includes subsurface cabling (duct installation), Comcast power supply (switchgear) and pedestal services There would be limited limbing, tree and brush clearing on the shoulder of Osgood Street and Cranberry Lane A waiver is being requested for this work redesign and a waiver request form has been re-submitted To mitigate for this work within the No-disturb zone, the applicant is proposing a 2 1 mitigation area of native shrub plantings (Highbush Blueberry and Northern Arrowood) approximately 24 shrubs are proposed to be installed within the no-disturb, within the natural tree line created by annual cutting of the pasture The plan incorporates the proposed planting mitigation area The access to the remaining structures within the No-Disturb will be through the existing opening in the stonewall off Osgood Street The access to the other structures on the lot, not within the no- disturb, will be completed from the Osgood Street and Cranberry Lane road shoulders No crossing of the drainage swale or any vehicular access is proposed Mr Masse stated were there any meetings between Mass Electric and the Town of North Andover Mr Klinch stated there were many meetings with Raymond Santilli and William Hmurciak for almost a year Mr Manzi stated the alternative analysis cutting the disturbance to only between 190 s f and 125 s f is fine with me happy they cut down the disturbance in this area Mr Osgood of New England Engineering the Common in North Andover is in historic district there is much history of the common The residence of North Andover does not want the common looking like a Substation Mr Manzi stated I do not care about the politics of the Town of North Andover they have done what I had requested to lower the amount of disturbance in the sensitive areas Present to vote Scott Masse, Albert Manzi, Jr , John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic and Sean McDonough A motion to issue the Amendment was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon 3 to 2 vote Scott Masse and Sean McDonough denied Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation 242-0000, Salem Street(Chestnut Development,LLC)(West Environmental,Inc.)(cont. from 12/8/04)(request to cont. to 1/12/05) No one was present Mr Masse and Mr Manzi recuse from voting they left the room Mr Mabon stated continue indefinitely No Quorum to vote 242-1290, Molly Towne Road (Chestnut Development,LLC)(West Environmental, Inc.)(cont. from 12/8/04) No one was present Mr Masse and Mr Manzi recuse from voting they left the room Mr Mabon stated continued indefinitely No Quorum to vote Notice of Intent(s) 242-1279, Willow Street(Chatterjee)(CAQ Engineering)(cont. from 11/17/04)(request to cont. to 1/12/05) No one was present A motion to continue to January 12, 2005 meeting the applicant needs time address information received by,Lisa Eggleston, was made by Mr Mabon, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous 242-1261, Cotuit Street & Leyden Street (Burke)(New England Engineering)(cont. from 12/8/04) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering Services, Inc and Abutter Robert Soloman were present Ms McKay stated at the last meeting the Commission requested revisions to the plan which included a gate at the fence around the detention pond, a cross section of the pond embankment, a repressed emergency spillway, and the buffer plantings as requested by the abutters, and labeling the location of the trash guard on the outlet pipe for the detention pond on lot 5 The plans were revised to include this information and are discussed in detail on the 12/14/04 cover sheet letter Mr Osgood stated there would be No Salt signs and No Snow Stockpiling signs Present to vote Scott Masse, Albert Manzi, Jr , John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to close and issue a decision in 21 days was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous 242-1289, 1491 Turnpike Street(Kiesel)(New England Engineering)(cont. from 12/8/04) Ben Osgood of New England Engineering Services, Inc was present Ms McKay stated the filing is for the installation of a replacement subsurface sewage disposal system with associated grading in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland A 4' high segmental retaining wall is proposed to support the grades needed for the system installation Several sections of the wall encroach into the 25' no-disturb, as well as some associated grading A waiver of the 25-foot No- Disturbance Zone is being requested and was included with the application, as there is no other alternative location for the system on the site The site is completely surrounding by the bordering vegetated wetland, and the project as proposed does appear to be the only suitable location The new septic tank, pump chamber, and distribution box is proposed no closer than 22-feet from the resource area The leaching field is proposed to be no closer than 29-feet from the resource area The erosion controls are proposed between the work and the resource area and will be set no closer than 13-feet from the wetland, except in the location where the septic tank be will installed where the erosion controls will but up against the wetland The 25-foot no- disturb is being maintained as lawn around the majority of the site, but it appears as though is has always been maintained as such, as the lot most likely pre-dated the Bylaw No Building or Conservation records found in the file for this lot The staff has reviewed and approved the wetland boundary with the exception of a few off property wetland flags Recommend soil- stockpiling area to be depicted on the plan (the end of the driveway would be the most suitable location) 2 1 mitigation was not proposed or included in the application filing as required under the Bylaw for disturbance within the 25-foot No-Disturbance Several matured trees will have to come down in the front to accommodate the system This is a great site for buffer zone enhancement and should be proposed Mr Masse stated the applicant should be tying into the sewer line Mr Osgood stated the line 3,000 feet of piping the cost would be $ 60,000 dollars and you have to hire detail police officer because this is a state road The applicant she does not have that kind of money to spend She was trying to get two neighbors to tying into sewer line but they were not interested Also the water table is 24 inches in this area This is the best place for the septic system Present to vote Scott Masse, Albert Manzi, Jr , John Mabon, Deborah Feltovic, and Sean McDonough A motion to close and issue a decision in 21 days was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous 242-1291, 121 Raleigh Tavern Lane (Harrison)(New England Engineering) Ben Osgood 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 replacement subsurface sewage disposal system and associated grading,in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland The applicant is requesting a waiver for work to be performed within the 25-foot No- Disturbance zone and 50-foot No-Build zone, as there is no other suitable/alternative location on the site The proposed leach field will be constructed approximately 20-feet from the resource area(4% of leach bed within 25-foot no-disturb zone) The septic tank and pump chamber are proposed at 38-feet from the resource area The associated grading is proposed at 7-feet from the resource area at the closest point The erosion controls (haybales and silt fence) are proposed along the limit of the work The erosion controls will be placed at a distance of 4-feet from the resources area at its closest point(between wetland flags 5B & 6B) and is shown on the plan The proposed will not require any vegetative clearing, as work is within maintained lawn (see treeline on plan) The wetlands were reviewed and approved by staff At the time of the review, erosion controls were being installed A filled pile on concrete rumble observed between wetland flags I OB & 9B It is significant and staff recommends it to be removed by hand in the spring Mr Osgood stated these houses were built 1969-1970 filled wetlands back then and a lot of ledge out here on this site A motion to continue to January 12, 2005 meeting was made by Ms Feltovic, seconded by Mr Manzi Unanimous Decisions 242-1281, 50 & 52 Farrwood Ave. (Heritage Green Condominium Trust)(Neve-Morin Group, Inc.) A motion to set the bond amount at $ 2,000 was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous NACC# 17, 165 Bridle Path (Schmitt)(Andover Consultants, Inc.) A motion to set the bond amount at$ 1,500 was made by Mr Mabon, seconded Ms Feltovic Unanimous 242-1285, 125 Campion Road (Stoddard)(Norse Environmental) A motion to set the bond amount at $ 7, 500 special conditions stabilizing the slope jute mating and loam and seeding, erosion controls in place construction starts, check dam,two growing i I I seasons for the mitigation plantings being installed, was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous j 242- 1283 Berry Street (Hingorani)(Wetland Preservation, Inc.) A motion to set the bond amount at$ 15,000 was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Mr Mabon Unanimous i 242-1261, Cotuit Street& Leydon Street (Burke)(New England Engineering) A motion to set the bond amount at$ 20, 000 and accept the Order of Conditions as drafted was made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous The Conservation Commission voted to stay at the Department of Public Work Conference room for all the 2005 meetings will be held at 384 Osgood Street,North Andover, Ma A motion to have meetings at 384 Osgood Street, made by Mr Manzi, seconded by Ms Feltovic Unanimous A motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:OOpm was made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.