Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-14 Conservation Commission Minutes 1 North Andover Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes November 14, 2018 Members Present: Louis A Napoli, Chairman, Jr., Joseph W. Lynch, Deborah A. Feltovic, Douglas W. Saal and Sean F. McDonough Members Absent: Albert P. Manzi, Jr., Vice Chairman and John T. Mabon Staff Member Present: Jennifer A. Hughes, Conservation Administrator Meeting came to Order at: 7:05 Quorum Present. Pledge of Allegiance Acceptance of Minutes  A motion to accept the minutes of October 24, 2018 as reviewed and amended is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Small Project NACC #224, 12 Autran Avenue (DaSilva)  The Administrator states this filing originated from a building code issue and that there is a stream running behind Autran Avenue. A legal landing existed and is within the 100 foot buffer zone and more than 50’ from the No-Build Zone. An enlarged landing was constructed with inadequate footings. The landing will be returned to the original size but proper footings are required.  Mr. Lynch states that footings will be 50’ away and confirms the project meets the square footage requirements.  A motion to accept this as a Small Project A is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous.  A motion to approve the small project permit as proposed with post construction inspection is made by Mrs. Feltovic and seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Small Project Application Checklist w/Supporting Documents Request for Determination of Applicability Stiles Street (Lots #33, 34 & 37) (Gene Willis)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until November 28, 2018 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from e.p.willis999@gmail.com requesting a continuance until 11/28/2018 730 Massachusetts Avenue (B.P Logue)  The Administrator stated at the last meeting the Commission approved the gas line to be installed to the house. She states they were waiting on the alternatives analysis for the generator which has been received for the Commissions review.  The Administrator reviews the alternatives analysis with the Commission, showing other possible locations.  The homeowner Mike Ryley is present to answer questions about the proposal. 2  Mr. Lynch questions if these are all the alternatives or just the ones being presented. He states this was a violation resulting in after the fact permitting leaving the generator in a location that typically does not comply with the Commissions by-laws.  Mr. Lynch states he's not sure they’ve seen all the alternatives and questions plans submitted for the Commissions review.  The Administrator states the plans are from the original meeting with the contractor. The original plans were for the installation of propane tanks on the back corner of the house; this location is still available but would still be within the 50’ No-Build Zone.  Mr. Napoli states it took the engineer a long time to provide the alternatives analysis and expressed his concerns with things being done in the wrong order but feels the alternatives analysis is thorough.  The Administrator states that the propane tanks were removed from the project because they didn’t allow enough run time for the generator.  Mrs. Feltovic states it is a very in depth alternatives analysis but that they typically are given 2-3 locations, not just one analysis.  Mr. McDonough questions the location of the generator on the plans.  The Administrator identifies the utilities on the plans, and explains why the route for the gas line was chosen.  Mr. McDonough questions the generators distance from the wetland vs. the alternatives analysis location.  The Administrator states the current distance is approximately 28/29 feet vs. the alternative analysis location which would be 30/40 feet.  Mr. Lynch steps out of the meeting room.  A motion is made to table the discussion is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 4-0 Unanimous.  Mr. Lynch returns to the meeting room.  A motion to approve the waiver is made by Mr. Saal, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 4-1, Opposed; Mr. McDonough  A motion is made to issue a Negative Determination #3 for after the fact permitting in the No Disturbance Zone with no additional trenching and post construction inspection is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Letter, dated November 6, 2018 prepared by Coughlin Environmental Services, LLC. Bridle Path (Verizon)  The Administrator states this is a standard Verizon RDA for installation of conduit within the roadway and in the road right of way. The GIS wetlands layer along with a site visit were used to create the plans. The Field Inspector did a site visit today and located an additional isolated area and an intermittent stream channel, both of which have been added to the plans along with the appropriate erosion controls.  Mr. Joe Callahan, ES&M presents on behalf of the applicant. He states this is for the installation of utilities on Bridle Path and states they're asking for a waiver of the abutter notification. They have submitted engineering plans to the town for a petition of right for the installation of utilities. The telecommunication lines are 1 ¼ inch PVC, installed in trenches with a series handholds. Wires and cables will eventually be pulled through them with a dedicated line for the town for police or fire uses.  The Administrator states there was a request to wave abutter notification because abutter notification of the project was done through the Board of Selectmen pole petition process. She states this is a local bylaw regulation which makes it waivable if the Commission chooses.  Mr. Lynch questions if it is single conduit with multiple wires or just Verizon infrastructure.  Mr. Callahan states the PVC will contain several conduits and references the plan he provided.  Mr. Lynch questions if the project is to replace an entire bank of conduits and if so will it require a concrete cap.  Mr. Callahan states it will require a control density fill. 3  Mr. Lynch states the area is very high ground water and questions if they are proposing trench dams.  Mr. Callahan states they are not in the proposed plan.  Mr. Lynch states he would like to see trench dams included in areas of high groundwater.  The Commission discusses the waiver for the abutter notification.  A motion to approve the waiver of notification of abutters is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous.  A motion is made to issue a Negative Determination #3 with conditions to work within the buffer zone, trench dams and pre and post construction inspections is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Request for Determination of Applicability Letter, dated October 29, 2018 prepared by ES&M, Inc.  WPA Form 1 - Request for Determination of Applicability  North Andover Conservation Commission Waiver Request Form, dated October 30, 2018  Site Locus Map, dated October 30, 2018  Resource Area Plan and Erosion Control Details, sheets 1-4, dated October 30, 2018 prepared by ES&M, Inc.  ROW 1A2GT0Q Bridle Path, prints 1 of 7, dated July 19, 2018 prepared by UC Synergetic  Resource Area Plan and Erosion Control Details, sheets 1-4, dated November 14, 2018 prepared by ES&M, Inc. Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation 242-1741, ANRAD Request, 0 Turnpike Street (Map 9, Parcel 20) (William & Sparages)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until November 28, 2018 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from ghochmuth@wsengineers.com requesting a continuance until 11/28/2018 242-xxxx, ANRAD Request, 0 Great Pond Road (Brooks School)  The Administrator states the wetland line was reviewed and several flags were changed. The plans have been revised.  Mr. Greg Hochmuth of Williams and Sparages, LLC presents on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Hochmuth states the filing is for Brooks School, ANRAD at 0 Great Pond Road and reviews the plans with the Commission. He states adjustments were made to the plans after a site walk with the Administrator on October 25, 2018. He states the project required an ANRAD to be filed with Boxford because there are jurisdictional resource areas in Boxford as well.  Mr. Hochmuth states the plans shows only a portion of the 31.3 acres, the Commission is not being asked to considering any of the other land mass then what is shown on the plan.  Mr. Lynch states the Commission will determine the ANRAD based on the jurisdictional areas that the plans depict.  Mr. Napoli questions how the land will be accessed.  Mr. Hochmuth states they contemplating a potential development on the property, 1-2 houses and the access point would be through Boxford.  The Commission discusses the plans.  Mr. McDonough asks how much of the 31.3 acres are depicted in the plans.  Mr. Hochmuth states he doesn’t know an exact number but thinks it’s about ⅓ of the 31.3 acres. He states that everything from the top of the hill towards the school is in the Watershed Protection District.  The project still needs a DEP file number.  A motion to continue until November 28, 2018 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. McDonough. 4  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation Application  Plan to Accompany ANRAD, dated September 04, 2018 prepared by Andover Consultants Inc.  Wetland Plan to Accompany ANRAD, dated September 4, 2018 prepared by Andover Consultants Inc.  Revised Wetland Plan to Accompany ANRAD, dated November 1, 2018 prepared by Andover Consultants Inc.  Letter, dated November 12, 2018 prepared by Williams & Sparages, Inc. Notice of Intent (NOI) 242-1739, Rea Street Subdivision (Messina Dev.) (Christiansen & Sergi)  The Administrator states project has been on going due to discussions with the Planning Board, and several changes have been made to the layout. The Riverfront Analysis, drainage review and floodplain discussion has been submitted for the Conservation Commissions review.  Phil Christiansen of Christiansen & Sergi and Greg Hochmuth of Williams & Sparages, present on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Christiansen states the Commission's concerns with roadway drainage has been addressed adding catch basins and curbing to the roadway allowing the water to flow from the catch basin into the infiltration systems to be treated.  The Planning Board has approved a cul de sac with an island, the new plans will show this change.  Mr. Lynch questions if the cul de sac will be enlarged due to the placement of the island.  Mr. Christiansen states the size of the cul de sac will remain the same.  Mr. Christiansen states a sewage pumping station will be place in the right of way easement just outside of Lot 7. The pumping station will allow 15 homes on North Cross Road and Rea Street to be tied into the system. The Town of North Andover will reconstruct about 200 feet of existing sewer line on North Cross to connect to the new pump station. The invert of the pump station has yet to be set, waiting on the Town to provide the design so the definitive plan can be revised with a set pump station level.  Mr. Christiansen states about 4.5 acres of the site are to be cleared for construction up to the erosion control line shown on the revised plan.  The Administrator shares copies of the revised plans with the Commission provided by Mr. Christiansen.  Mr. Christiansen states this filing is for the roadway and drainage work, not for individual houses. They would like to come back and file for the houses separately because of past issues with Certificate of Compliance. Mr. Christiansen states it is his understanding from Mr. Hochmuth that Mass Dep now prefers the houses to be separate from the subdivision.  Mr. Lynch states his concerns with the filing being done this way due to holistic hydraulic analysis of what the total impact of impervious area is.  Mr. Christiansen states an analysis has been done and it assumes the subdivision will be developed but that a filings will be done only for the homes that require them.  Mr. Lynch states that the Commission must know on a per lot basis the square feet of impervious area.  Mr. Christiansen states the analysis will show the forest cleared as well as the lawn and driveway.  Mr. Lynch states that with each individual permit application that comes in for a house the Commission can make sure it stays at or below that threshold for the impervious area.  Greg Hochmuth states that the alternative analysis has incorporated the lots in the analysis because the percentage of alteration is big when dealing with work purposed in the riverfront area. He states they are below the threshold of the entire subdivision not just the roadway and drainage but also the lots.  The Administrator states issues on a prior filing that was done this way, as the lots were constructed larger than shown on the approved plans. The Administrator questions if a number can be provided as a comparison.  Mr. Christiansen states they would have to go lot by lot to get the numbers, which can be done.  Mr. Lynch requests a table be provided to be used a matrix on future filings. 5  The Administrator states her concerns regarding stabilization with opening up 4.5 acres of site without permits for the houses.  Mr. Lynch states if the project is the roadway and utilities within the roadway, including lot development to the point of clearing, grubbing and stabilization the applicant will be responsible.  Mr. Christiansen mentions the importance of a homeowners association maintenance agreements for the storm water systems. He states although the agreement was put in place for the roadway the homeowners will be the ones that will need to take care of it.  The Administrator states that stabilization has been spoken about but no plan have been put in place. She states it can be written into the Order of Conditions so that no portion of the site will be left open/un stabilized for more than thirty days.  Mr. Christiansen states the plan shows the erosion control line is the limit of the work as well as the tree cutting line. The detail sheet now shows a siltation fence that has been added behind the silt sock at the request of the Administrator. Standardized wording on the sedimentation control sheet regarding 2 to 1 slopes has been removed as it doesn’t pertain to the project. He points out a small area near one of the infiltration areas that needs to be graded and states that notes have been added to the plans.  Mr. Lynch questions if the infiltration systems are in virgin material or fill and if they are above the water table.  Mr. Christiansen states the infiltration systems are in virgin soil, after the area is brought up it will higher then grade. Infiltration testing has been performed on those locations.  The Commission discusses the type of soil on site.  Mr. Lynch questions that the infiltration area will be used for short term storage as well as ground water infiltration for run off control and also for over flow in an emergency.  Mr. Christiansen states all of the houses will be tied into the drainage system or will have their own separate infiltration areas in the yard.  The Administrator recommends the Commission conditioning permanent monumentation of the limit of clearing in the form of a stone wall.  Mr. Lynch questions if monumentation would be along the entire subdivision or each individual lot.  The Administrator states monumentation would be continuous, not a lot by lot basis.  Mr. Napoli states the site has some stone wall monumentation in place.  The Administrator states some stone wall monumentation is in place and that it may be possible to leave that monumentation in place at those locations, adding markers to the existing wall.  The Administrator states the limit of work in one location has changed and that monumentation would consist of the remainder of the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone and the 100 foot zone of natural vegetation in Riverfront on the remainder of the project.  The Administrator states one issue that has come up while on a site walk is use of the detention pond on North Cross Road. The detention pond is quite large and appears to have access capacity for discharge. Mass Dep has questioned if the detention pond is being maintained. The Administrator has concluded the basin is not being maintained at this time. More research will be needed to find out who owns the drainage basin and has the right to maintain it.  Mr. Christiansen states the basins seems to be functioning with a lot of infiltration. The basin doesn’t seem to overflow, the outlet pipe is half full of debris but the water is able to flow out.  Mr. Christiansen states the town may have easement rights to the basin but that more research will be needed.  Mr. Napoli questions the new pumping station and what type of system is currently on North Cross Road.  Mr. Christiansen states North Cross currently has a dry sewer. He states 15 homes between North Cross, South Cross and Rea Street will be able to tie in to the new pumping station. A couple of homes on those streets will be unable to tie in due to elevations.  The Administrator states that because this is a residential subdivision the alternative analysis is required to see if there are any other properties of this size in town for a similar subdivision.  Mr. Hochmuth states the Planning Board has deemed this a definitive subdivision, not an A and R lot type development. The Rivers Protection Act requires the scope of alternatives to adjacent lots and other land 6 areas within the town that can be reasonably obtained. A market analysis of parcels that have adequate size for a development of this type has been performed. There are three parcels of land large enough, one off Cedar Lane, Campbell Road and one on Forest Street. The problem with the lots is they are ninety percent wet. The analysis shows no practicable alternatives available within the municipality that are currently on the market for a project of this size. These results bring the analysis back to the project lot and adjacent lots.  Mr. Hochmuth states that the bulk of the alteration in the Riverfront area that’s been proposed is where the new roadway intersects the existing roadway. There are more minor alterations purposed in the riverfront area on lots 1 and 2 due to cul de sac design, but 165 linear feet of vegetated buffer remains between the limit of work and the river.  Mr. Hochmuth states that 8.6% of the riverfront area on the parcels for the whole project, the bulk of it is where the roadway connects. Some of this is redevelopment because of the existing paved area or areas absent of topsoil which is about .8% of the 8.6%.  The Administrator states her concerns with the CDC unit and that 80% manufacture credit was taken for TSS removal.  Mr. Christiansen states that before infiltration 40% of the soils need to be removed. If they are to get 25% from a catch basin and 25% from the CDC unit being installed this would give you enough removal that it wouldn't require the 80% the manufacturer suggests. The state of Massachusetts requires you to do your own research and allows the Commission to decide what is valid, 50% removal would still meet the standard for TSS removal.  The Administrator questions the revision to the O&M Plan to clean the CDC units with a vac truck.  Mr. Lynch questions who will be responsible for the maintenance.  Mr. Christiansen states anything on the property would be the homeowners as opposed to the roadway.  The Administrator requests a separate report for the homeowner on what the maintenance would be.  Mr. Christiansen agrees to provide the requested report.  Mr. Napoli states the Commission’s stand on the monumentation with a stone wall.  Mr. Lynch questions the SWPPP, and if it will overlap jurisdiction  Mr. Christiansen states the SWPPP is filed and is in the developer’s best interest to close things up to slow down the monitoring.  The Commission asks if any abutters are present for the meeting.  Two abutters are present, no questions are asked.  A motion to continue until November 28, 2018 is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Alternative Analysis, dated October 24, 2018 prepared by Williams & Sparages  Alternative Analysis, dates November 14, 2018 by Termini Associates, LLC  CDS Verification Report Final, dated September 2013 prepared by NJCAT Technology  Definitive Subdivision Plan, dated November 14, 2018 prepared by Christiansen & Sergi, Inc.  Response Letter to Conservation, dated November 14, 2018 prepared by Christiansen & Sergi  O&M Plan, dated October 17, 2018  100 Year Flood for Mosquito Brook, dated September 4, 2018  HEC-RAS Analysis Report, dated October 25, 2018 prepared by Christiansen & Sergi, Inc.  Stormwater Review Letter, dated October 22, 2018 prepared by SSV Engineering Inc.  Stormwater Review Letter, dated November 8, 2018 prepared by SSV Engineering Inc.  DPW Review Letter, dated October 15, 2018  Response Letter to DEP Comments, dated October 17, 2018 prepared by Christiansen & Sergi  Response Letter to DPW Comments, dated October 17, 2018 prepared by Christiansen & Sergi  Stormwater Packet, dated October 17, 2018 prepared by Christiansen & Sergi  Waiver Request Letter, dated October 3, 2018 prepared by Christiansen & Sergi 242-1742, 50 Saw Mill Road (LaRosa) (Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC) 7  The Administrator states the filing is for the replacement septic system in the 100’ Buffer Zone and River Front Area. The system is within the 100’ and has received a waiver from the Board of Health. The Administrator states the plans will be amended with the following changes; two flag changes, stockpile location, construction access and erosion control details. Access to the location will be on the left side of the house, not on the riverside. Erosion controls (compost sock) will be specified on the plans. The original leach field is not show on the plans but is out front and is closer to the resource area than would be purposed.  The homeowners Mark & Heather LaRosa are present to answer questions about the proposal.  The Commission discusses the location of a permitted shed.  The Commission discusses the construction access.  A motion to continue until November 28, 2018 fore revised plans is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Notice of Intent Application Checklist w/Supporting Documents  Septic Plan, sheet 1 of 2, dated September 11, 2018 prepared by Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC.  Septic Plan, sheet 2 of 2, dated September 11, 2018 prepared by Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC. General Business 242-1604, COC Request, 288 Sutton Street (Mathews Way) (EES)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until November 28, 2018 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from Brian Vaughn requesting a continuance until 11/28/2018 242-1717, COC Request, 2198 Turnpike Street (Jorge Solano)  The Administrator states the site has been brought up to compliance.  A motion to grant a full and final Certificate of Compliance is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  WPA Form 8A - Request for Certificate of Compliance  As-Built Septic System Repair, dated June 20, 2017 prepared by JM Associates 242-1692, Modification Request, 1210 Osgood Street  Mr. Napoli has recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest; Mr. Lynch will act as chair.  The Administrator states that approximately a month ago while on the site with the environmental monitor they appeared to be walking in what looked like crushed glass, corks, drink straws and other debris. After speaking with the on-site contractor it was discovered that they were using a crushed glass aggregate fill material. The Administrator states she was aware at that time of the condition that nothing other than clean fill was to be used, it was her opinion that the fill being used was not clean fill. Several compaction reports have been received along with materials analysis related to the crushed glass material and concrete aggregate being used on-site. She states there are concerns that this was not the material permitted in the conditions requiring clean fill. There are concerns with how this relates to the site, development and where the material is being used.  Mr. Lynch questions that this is a modification request, not a violation.  The Administrator states there was a discussion on how to bring this matter to the Commission, if the fill was to remain this would be the best way to bring the issue to the Commission for further discussion. 8  Joe Peznola of Hancock Associates presents on behalf of the co-applicants Princeton Properties and NRP.  Brendan Gilmore a representative from NRP is present to answer questions.  Mr. Peznola states they are not necessarily seeking a modification; they are looking to clarify a few things with the Commission. They are using a material that is known as PGA (Process Glass Aggregate) and have provided a document from DEP and Bureau of Waste Prevention which speaks to the use of unrecyclable mixed colored glass (PGA) as an aggregate to replace stone. This glass cannot be used in glass recycling so would otherwise be sent to a landfill. DEP has studied this material and feels it to be an acceptable substitute for how it’s being used.  Mr. Peznola reads a portion of the policy # BWP-94-011 to the Commission, which he believes states PGA is indeed clean fill and therefore would not be a violation of condition #73. He states one of the issues the Administrator had with the material is existence of other materials in the PGA that is not glass. The DEP document speaks to the allowance of other materials as long as it’s less than 5% of the total volume of the material. The supplier of the material has assured them that the PGA meets this requirement. They have had an independent third party to test the material and results have found it meets that requirement. He states some issues with the other materials is how light in weight they are, causing them to float to the top during heavy rains and making these products more visible.  The material is being used with the oversight of a Geotechnical Engineer, Kevin Martin of UTS. He is on- site daily looking at the material, placement and compaction. The compaction results have been shared with the Commission on a daily basis. The PGA is being mixed with on-site material as well as recycled concrete to make up a combination of what Mr. Martin feels to be an appropriate fill material.  Mr. Peznola mentions three concerns one being the environmental issue, the fill is considered clean per the DEP document. The second being the structural integrity of the fill, a letter from the Geotechnical Engineering has been submitted stating it is proper structural fill. Finally the use of the material in and around the drainage facilities, from the PGA standpoint there's no question as it is a uniform aggregate. The material is porous and would have no impact on permeability of the fill material.  Mr. Peznola states there was question of the use of recycled concrete and the permeability of the material. UTS did some testing on the concrete material; the perk rate was 2 minutes an inch which is equivalent to sand. A written letter from Kevin Martin was submitted with the results, stating in his professional opinion it will have no impact on the drainage facilities.  Mr. Peznola states the Administrator questioned the specifications on the approved plans regarding fill around these systems. He states the specification was with the approval of the site engineer, Mr. Peznola states he is the engineer of record. Mr. Peznola was before the Commission during the approval process, and that he is intimately involved in the construction process with regards to inspections. He does rely upon Mr. Martin for the Geotechnical pieces but in the end he is the one who has to certify to the Commission that everything is right and ready.  Mr. Peznola feels that with the given information, no action is needed by the Commission. He states they have ceased the use of the PGA on-site at this time but they are still using recycled concrete as an additive.  Mr. Peznola states a retaining wall was built around the lower half of the perimeter of the site as a dam to protect the wetlands and is working exactly as planned but the wall is holding a lot of water on-site. Mr. Peznola states a dewatering plan has been worked out with the Administrator and is working well.  He states that Greg Hochmuth is the Environmental Monitor that has been assigned to the project and is reporting to the Commission. Some erosion has occurred near the entrance, they are working on stabilizing the area.  Mr. McDonough questions the amount of PGA on-site.  Mr. Gilmore states they have approximately one hundred tons of material on-site.  Mr. McDonough questions if the material was transported by dump trucks and how many loads it would have taken to transport to the site.  Mr. Gilmore states each tri-axle truck can hold seventeen tons.  Mr. Lynch states he helped create condition #73 to prevent dumping of material like PGA.  Mr. McDonough states the DEP document only states what is not considered solid waste, and questions what solid waste is. 9  Mr. Peznola states solid waste from DEP standpoint is something that belongs in a landfill, anything that is not recycled. He states this is a strange situation because fill is usually considered soil and PGA is a non- soil aggregate that DEP states is acceptable and not considered solid waste.  Mr. McDonough questions if there is something between clean fill and solid waste, the document only states PGA is not considered solid waste.  Mr. McDonough states the document does not reference PGA as clean fill in the document.  Mr. Peznola states they are proceeding under the direction of a Geotechnical Engineer; the engineer is the one who has to certify the material is appropriate. He mentions that aggregate is a stone material or a kind of additive that gives volume to a soil material. In this case they are using PGA as an aggregate substitute mixed with on-site material. PGA is an appropriate clean substitute that will not cause any environmental hazards.  Mr. McDonough states the document does not identify clean fill but it speaks about solid waste and that PGA can be used but that differs from what is written in the OOC. Mr. McDonough questions the use of crushed concrete and if the OOC allows this material to be used.  The Administrator states this is the first time a fill material like this has been used in her 10 years of being the Conservation Administrator. She has spoken with Lisa Eggleston who did the storm water review for the project and she has concerns about the concrete material cementing. The Administrator states she is not familiar with the material and states that we do spell out brick and other materials that cannot be used as fill in our conditions, we do not call out concrete specifically.  Mr. McDonough questions if the concrete aggregate is only being used below the infiltration systems.  Mr. Peznola states the aggregate concrete is being used site wide.  Mr. Lynch states it comes down to what the Commissions conditions say and what the Commission thinks that means. How does it affect the infiltration system functionality and the analysis that supported the functionality and what is acceptable with regards to the cleanliness of the material. Mr. Lynch states the product is homogenized with other material, no longer meets the definition that the policy supports and violates condition #73.  Mr. Lynch states recycled concrete is not necessarily a clean product as it can contain residue materials such as cable, wires, electrical boxes and conduit. He questions how the material functions, which is unknown because of the lack of quality control other than a random grab sample that UTS does and a compaction test.  Mr. Lynch states outside the 100 foot buffer zone areas and outside of any stormwater management system outside of the 100 buffer zone, under building, roadway and parking lots this would be a decent material to use because of its compaction and Geotechnical capability.  Mr. Lynch states they don’t have data stating this is an adequate product that won't over time work its way down into the infiltrating systems cementing the infiltration medium beneath it compromising functionality of the stormwater system. Mr. Lynch views the use of this product as a violation of condition #73. He states anywhere it is within the 100’ Buffer Zone area and any stormwater management area outside of the 100’ Buffer Zone area which the Commission rests control over because of the connection back to a hydraulic system. He states the material is unacceptable and needs to come out.  Mr. Peznola disagrees that there is an issue with mixing materials. He states the material alone in a subgrade wouldn’t be possible as the product is not malleable, compactable or workable. He believes the product may be mixed with the guidance from a Geotechnical Engineer, which they have done.  Mr. Lynch states no sampling materials or testing has been done and if it has, results have not been provided to the Commission.  Mr. Peznola states they have two infiltration systems that have been impacted. The natural material on-site is poor quality from the standpoint of permeability. They systems they designed do not hold a lot of infiltration in them. They are looking at the PGA and mixed concrete material from a standpoint of permeability and the product exceeds expectations. Once the water has gotten through the material it still needs to get down to the glacial till before it gets to the ground water. All calculations have been based off the glacial till material. 10  Mr. Peznola states he had similar concerns with the potential for sealing off of the bottom of the system. He has been reassured by Mr. Martin that once the cement has been cured it does not reconstitute.  Mr. Lynch states the product may not reconstitute but that it does become silt which becomes impermeable.  Mr. Peznola states Mr. Martin does not share the same concerns with regards to its long standing functions. He states they can do monitoring and testing of the system but they would like to avoid removing the systems and pulling out the materials.  Mr. Lynch states documentation is only worth discussing should condition #73 be modified.  Mr. Peznola feels the have not violated condition #73. He states if the Commission doesn’t feel that’s the case then a clarification of condition #73 that's inclusive of the material, supported by documentation as the Commission sees fit.  Mr. Lynch questions Mr. Peznola position is on recycled aggregate materials brought on-site have contributed to any difficulties with stormwater management and siltation control on-site.  Mr. Peznola states he does not, he feels it’s a combination of the dam they built and the glacial till.  Mr. Lynch expresses his concerns with the functionality of how the systems work. He states glacial till doesn't permeate downward and he feels they didn’t account for that in the drainage analysis. He brings up his concern with the permeability of the PGA and questions if it changes the way water would move through the site.  Mr. Peznola states he does not see this as an issue. The alternative would be to use standard structural fill which would have a similar permeability to the mix that they are using.  Mr. Lynch expresses his concerns with moving this much water through shallow depths, changing the drainage, frost and performance patterns in the roadway. He questions if this does not create frost patterns does that mean the water is moving, and if so where is water the going.  Mr. Peznola states it would be moving as groundwater moves, creating a false water table. He states the material they are using has not changed the characteristics of the design intent.  Mr. Lynch states if Commission considers the materials meets condition #73 it goes beyond permeability, DEP statements and Geotechnical statements. He suggests another review at the storm water management calculations with the use of this material.  Mrs. Feltovic states her concerns whether or not the PGA material is clean fill or not.  Mr. Saal states it comes down to whether or not the PGA material is suitable in the location it’s being use on a site under the jurisdiction of the Commission.  The Administrator states she had a conversation with Lisa from DEP and that she would be willing to review the stormwater site with the use of this material. The main concern would be who decides the suitability of the material. Lisa has recommended DEP but the Administrator is unsure if they'd be willing or able to provide documentation to the Commission.  The Administrator asks Mr. Lynch if he has any suggestions on a third party who could review the material on behalf of the Commission.  Mr. Lynch states he rather do his own research within the industry that he works, as he is very involved with DEP soil waste.  The Administrator states she has shared photos with the DEP Wetlands section and they were not familiar with this type of fill in the Northeast. She states she will need some guidance on where to go to get more information.  The Administrator states they need to do research on the suitability of the material and how it impacts the site with the way it’s been used.  Mr. McDonough reads Mr. Manzi’s written statement regarding his disagreement with the use of the material for the public record.  Mr. McDonough questions why this material wasn’t purposed during the open public meeting.  Mr. Peznola states that he is unable to answer that question.  The Commission discusses the options on how they should proceed.  Mr. Peznola wishes the Commission to allow them to provide more information about the material being used as fill. 11  Mr. Lynch suggests they memorialize the cease and desist the use of the PGA material, only conventional material is to be used. He also states a specific time table be laid out for this to move forward.  The Administrator suggests gathering as much information as they can within the next two weeks.  Mr. Peznola asks for clarification regarding the two materials and states they have ceased the use of the PGA material and questions the use of the recycled concrete under the infiltration areas or within the 100 foot buffer zone.  Mr. Lynch states the material is not to be used inside the 100 foot buffer zone or in any areas affected by stormwater management.  Mr. McDonough states his concerns allowing continued work on the site, allowing the materials to become buried and making them more difficult to remove if that is the decision the Commission makes.  Mr. Peznola states the UTS is tracking the materials that are being placed in there reports.  Mr. Lynch states this is a very serious matter but that he doesn’t want to slow or stop the construction or have the site sit in an unstable condition through the winter.  Mr. Saal states he doesn’t see an issue using recycled concrete as a form of fill material, as long as it's not filled with unsuitable materials.  Mr. Peznola states this is not demolition recycled concrete, it is waste concrete from plants.  The Commission states the PGA and recycled concrete materials are not to be used in the areas discussed in the next two weeks.  Mr. Gilmore clarifies the amount of PGA that was brought in was one thousand tons of material.  A motion to continue until November 28, 2018 is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Ms. Feltovic.  Vote 4-0 Unanimous, Recused; Mr. Napoli Documents  MassDEP Bureau of Waste Prevention, Policy BWP-94-011, issued May 26, 1994  Architectural Site Plan, dated June 19, 2018 prepared by Princeton Development, LLC.  Memorandum, dated November 6, 2018 prepared by UTS of Massachusetts, Inc.  Memorandum, dated October 15, 2018 prepared by UTS of Massachusetts, Inc.  Soil Testing Results - Transmittal Report, dated July 19, 2018 prepared by UTS of Massachusetts, Inc.  PGA Testing Report, dated October 24, 2018 prepared by UTS of Massachusetts, Inc.  Site Pictures, dated November 7, 2018 Enforcement Order/Violation 43 Scott Circle (Assefa)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until November 28, 2018 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from jacksull53@comcast.net requesting a continuance until 11/28/2018 350 Forest Street (Logan)  The Administrator states two letters have been sent to the homeowners, with no response. One violation letter regarding dumping of materials into a town owned wetland. The second letter was an enforcement order that was sent in regards to a stone wall that was constructed into the buffer zone. The homeowners were asked to remove the debris and re mark the no disturbance zone, as well as prepare an after the fact filing for the wall in the buffer zone.  The homeowners are not present.  The Administrator suggests formal enforcement of fines starting today.  The Commission discusses the violation and enforcement order.  A motion to issue formal enforcement and fines starting today is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. 12 Documents  Violation Letter w/photos, dated October 11, 2018  Violation Letter w/photos, dated November 6, 2018 810 Salem Street (Paige & Kravette)  The Administrator gives the Commission background on the Enforcement Order.  The homeowner, Ron Kravette is present and provides the Commission with updated photos of the constructed stone wall.  Mr. Kravette states they have replaced the wooden fence with a field stone wall per the Commission’s request.  The Administrator questions if the stone wall connects like the previous fence.  Mr. Kravette states to the best of his knowledge the wall is in the same place the fence was.  The Commission discuss the time frame it took for the wall to be construct and reviews the photos.  The Commission agrees a post construction inspection will be done prior to the release of the Enforcement Order.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Documents  Site Photos Emergency Certification 64 North Cross Road (Alexander)  The Administrator gives some background on the proposed emergency certification and the reason for the request.  She states the emergency certification would be for permitting the breaching of the beaver dams  A motion to issue an emergency certification as proposed is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Adjournment  A motion to adjourn at 9:55 is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous.