Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 North Andover Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2019 Members Present: Louis A Napoli, Chairman, Albert P. Manzi, Jr., Vice Chairman, Joseph W. Lynch, Deborah A. Feltovic, Douglas W. Saal and Sean F. McDonough Members Absent: John T. Mabon Staff Members Present: Jennifer A. Hughes, Conservation Administrator and Benjamin Curell, Field Inspector Meeting came to Order at: 7:03 p.m. Quorum Present. Pledge of Allegiance Acceptance of Minutes  The minutes for the April 24, 2019 meeting are not ready for approval. Request for Determination of Applicability 40 Ridge Way (Chicoyne)  The Administrator states the plans have been updated. There is a second plan showing restoration of the shed area.  Dennis Griecci, Andover Consultants, Inc. states the shed is proposed to be moved outside the 25- foot No-Disturbance and 50-foot No-Build Zones. The existing shed area will be restored and 6 buffer zone plantings (3 high-bush blueberry & 3 northern arrowwood) will be planted by hand. He describes how the shed will be transported to the new location. A stockpile location is shown on the new plans.  The Administrator would like to know what the new addition will sit on.  Mr. Griecci states the addition will sit on a full basement.  The Administrator would like to know if the material removed for the foundation will be trucked off site.  Mr. Griecci confirms the material will be trucked off site. There will be some disturbance of the top soil when this is done.  The Administrator recommends the driveway be swept daily to prevent material tracking.  Mr. Lynch questions if monumentation should be placed along the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone.  The Administrator states she recommends monumentation.  The Commission discusses the construction access.  Mrs. Feltovic would like to know if the Administrator would like an EO for the shed removal prior to the start of construction.  The Administrator recommends an EO be issued for the removal and restoration of the shed area prior to construction.  7:14 p.m., Mr. McDonough enters the meeting room.  Mr. Griecci states the shed can be moved immediately without affecting the stockpile location.  No abutters are present.  A motion to issue an Enforcement Order as proposed is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0, Abstention: Mr. McDonough.  A motion to issue a Negative Determination #3 as recommended (pre and post inspections, monumentation and stabilized construction entrance) is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Saal. 05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10  Vote 5-0, Abstention: Mr. McDonough. Documents  Request for Determination Cover Letter, dated April 29, 2019 prepared by Andover Consultants, Inc.  Site Plan, dated April 4, 2019, revised April 29, 2019 prepared by Andover Consultants, Inc.  Restoration Plan, dated April 30, 2019 prepared by Andover Consultants, Inc. Notice of Intent (NOI) 242-1745, 350 Winthrop Avenue (RDM, Inc.)  7:16 p.m., The discussion is tabled.  8:16 p.m., The applicant has not shown up. The discussion continues to be tabled.  8:46 p.m., The applicant has not shown up. The Administrator states the project should be continued to the next meeting.  Mr. Lynch states he took a google earth image and superimposed the applicant’s proposal over the site. This shows an open perennial stream next to a snow stockpiling area prior to the Shawsheen River. He feels the proposal is inadequate.  The Administrator states she understands Commissioner Lynch’s concerns and will pass the information along to the applicant.  A motion to continue until May 22, 2019 is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email Correspondence, dated May 7, 2019 prepared by Joseph Lynch 242-1753, 247 Chickering Road (Enterprise Bank)  The Administrator states a Restoration Plan was received.  David Jordan, MHF Design Consultants, Inc., presents the Restoration Plan. He states approximately 2,200 s.f. is proposed to be restored. This will include a variety (Winterberry, Red- Osier Dogwood, Serviceberry, and Eastern Redbud) of approximately 35 shrubs. They propose monumentation of the 25-foot No-Build Zone with a fieldstone wall. They have another series of plantings (evergreens) that will screen car headlights for the residential abutters. The Planning Board has requested a stockade fence vs. plantings. The Commission prefers plantings vs. a stockade fence.  The Administrator states the buffer zone planting are 100% native. She’s not concerned that some of the screening plantings are not truly native.  Mr. Lynch states the shrubs will prevent snow stockpiling. He doesn’t feel a fence would give the resource area any added protection.  The Commission discusses the snow stockpiling location and plantings in this area.  Mr. Napoli states as No-Snow Stockpiling Area needs to be designated.  Mr. Jordan states the catch basins on the South side of the building have been replaced with curb inlet tree box filters. The remainder of the drainage system remains the same as originally proposed.  The Administrator states they are still waiting on comments from the peer reviewer. She feels the applicant should have something on file stating they have permission to work on the abutting property.  There are no abutters present.  A motion to continue until May 22, 2019 is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  2nd Stormwater Review Letter, dated May 1, 2019 prepared by Horsley Witten Group 05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10  Landscape Plan, dated March 13, 2019, revised May 8, 2019 prepared by MHF Design Consultants, Inc.  Site Redevelopment Plans, dated March 13, 2019, revised April 15, 2019 prepared by MHF Design Consultants, Inc.  Stormwater Management Report, dated March 13, 2019, revised April 24, 2019 prepared by MHF Design Consultants, Inc.  Response Letter to Horsley Witten Comments, dated April 24, 2019 prepared by MHF Design Consultants, Inc.  Response Letter to TEC Comments, dated April 24, 2019 prepared by MHF Design Consultants, Inc.  Restoration Letter, dated May 7, 2019 prepared by Norse Environmental Services, Inc. 242-1754, 326 Campbell Road (Welch)  Dennis Griecci, Andover Consultants, Inc. presents on behalf of the applicant. The site was designed as if the ponds were vernal or ephemeral pools. He states Norse Environmental has conducted five site visits. The pools meet the physical criteria but not the biological criteria.  The Administrator states the criteria the Commission uses to certify vernal pools when there's no biological criteria. She states given the information provided the pool would be an ephemeral pool. She doesn't feel the larger pond functions as an ephemeral pool and doesn’t think the evidence provided proves that.  The Commission discusses the ponds.  Mr. Lynch states the function of the ponds is immaterial because the site was designed as if they were vernal or ephemeral pools.  Mr. Grecci states the 50-foot NDZ will be impacted to remove the existing dwelling. He would like to close the meeting tonight with this site plan. If they can provide evidence the pond is not a vernal or ephemeral pool they could come back for a minor modification. The modification would be limited to moving the deck to the rear of the house and clearing more of the lawn area.  The Administrator states there will be a lot more removal of vegetation if clear up to the 25-foot NBZ.  The Commission discusses the certification of the pools. They feel more evidence is needed.  The Administrator would like to know if they are willing to close and issue with the current plan.  Mr. Grecci states they are comfortable closing and issuing with the current plan.  Mr. Lynch would like the OOC to be very detailed when describing the resource area.  The Administrator states the OOC will be written with the given subzones until proven otherwise.  Mr. Manzi is concerned with future owners knowing where the resource area is.  The Administrator states the 50-foot NDZ will be monumented.  Mr. Napoli would like to know if they have spoken with the abutter regarding the property line and well.  Mr. Grecci states the applicant has spoken with the abutter. He’s unsure if the abutter will hire a surveyor to do a property line survey. The abutter was unable to locate the decommissioned well on his property. They spoke with Brian LaGrasse, Health Director who had no comment regarding the well. Ms. Golden, MassDEP informed him a decommissioned well typically wouldn’t be able to be recommissioned if a septic system was built in and around the decommissioned well.  Mr. Napoli would like to know if there is an existing septic system, if so will they use the same location.  Mr. Grecci states the existing house does have a septic system. There is no record plan of the septic system. They do plan to put the new septic in the same location.  Mr. Lynch states the Commission will act on the facts before them.  Mr. Saal states there is a shed in the 25-foot NDZ that hasn’t been discussed. 05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10  Mr. Grecci states the shed will be removed.  The Administrator states the area near the driveway doesn’t need to be that subzone since it appears to be 100-feet from the pond. This would enable the applicant to have more lawn.  Mr. Grecci states he thinks the resource area extends that far but will double check.  A motion to issue a temporary waiver for temporary disturbance (500 s.f.) for purposes of encroaching within the 50-foot NDZ for the purpose of demolishing the existing dwelling and shed is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous.  A motion to close and issue in 21 days is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Subsurface Sewage Disposal Plan, sheet 1 of 2, dated March 28, 2019 prepared by Andover Consultants, Inc.  Subsurface Sewage Disposal Plan, sheet 2 of 2, dated March 28, 2019 prepared by Andover Consultants, Inc.  Vernal/Ephemeral Pool Analysis Letter, dated May 8, 2019 prepared by Norse Environmental Services, Inc.  NHESP Letter, dated May 3, 2019 General Business 242-1722, COC Request, 173 Campbell Road (Prescott)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until June 12, 2019 is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from kprescott11@yahoo.com requesting a continuance until 6/12/19 242-0960, COC Request, 1270 Turnpike Street  The Administrator states this is a request for COC for an invalid OOC for work never done. The work was done under DEP # 242-1095.  Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates presents on behalf of the applicant. He states they are requesting a COC for an old OOC for housekeeping purposes. There is no evidence that work was ever started.  The Administrator states the plans show the proposed plan for the new project with existing conditions. She states DEP #242-1095 already received a COC by the Commission.  A motion to issue a Full and Final Certificate of Compliance is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  COC Request Letter, dated April 24, 2019 prepared by Hancock Associates  WPA Form 8A- request for Certificate of Compliance  Topographic Plan of Land, dated December 19, 2018 prepared by Hancock Associates 242-1653, COC Request, Wellington Way (Messina Development)  Bob Messina, Messina Development states they are seeking a COC for the waterline to Wellington Way.  The Administrator states this project was done prior to the construction of Wellington Way. She believes there are some erosion controls still in place along Boxford Street. They will need to be removed prior to the COC being issued.  The Commission discusses the erosion controls and review the As-Built. 05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10  A motion to issue a Full and Final Certificate of Compliance and hold until confirmation of removal of erosion controls is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  COC Request Letter, dated April 26, 2019 prepared by Christiansen & Sergi  WPA Form 8A- request for Certificate of Compliance  Water Main As-Built Plan, dated April 25, 2019 prepared by Christiansen & Sergi 242-0628, Partial COC Request, 66 Meadowood Road (Hurban)  The Administrator states no additional information was received. There is no copy of the O&M in the file, and she suspects it may not have had one. She states the only issues are with the detention basin.  The Commission discusses the construction of the development.  Mr. Lynch confirms the PCOC is for a single dwelling.  The Administrator states it is for a single dwelling but includes the detention basin. No information stating the easements for the maintenance have been recorded. She has been corresponding with Merrimack Engineering on the project.  A motion to continue until May 22, 2019 is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  No new information was submitted 242-1647, Modification Request, 172 Summer Street (D’Angelo)  The Administrator states everything proposed is outside the subzones.  Joseph D’Angelo presents the Modification Request to the Commission.  The Administrator states the OOC expired on June 25, 2018. She would like to know if the applicant applied for an extension.  Mr. D’Angelo states he did not apply for an extension. He states it’s important to install the proposed propane tank for the plumbing inspection to get signed off.  The Commission discusses what type of filing needs to be applied for to finish the work.  The Administrator states if the propane tank is outside the 50-foot NBZ it can be installed.  Mr. D’Angelo states the mason has been scheduled to come in two weeks. He’s concerned the walkway is on the edge of the 100-foot Buffer Zone and in some areas within the 50-foot No Build and 100-foot Buffer Zone(s).  The Administrator states the site is fully stabilized.  Mr. Lynch would like to know how long the work will take to complete.  Mr. D’Angelo states he believes the work can be completed by September 2019.  Mr. Lynch would like to know if the applicant can complete the project and apply for a COC by October 1, 2019.  Mr. D’Angelo states that he can meet the deadline of October 1, 2019  The Commission discusses issuing an Enforcement Order.  A motion to issue an Enforcement Order as proposed is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Updated Landscape Plan  Modification Drawing 242-1735, Modification Request, 1429 Osgood Street (Oliver Enterprises) 05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10  The Field Inspector states the proposal is to replace a planting bed with asphalt. They propose to offset the increase in impervious cover by extending the rain garden. They have also proposed flipping the parking and loading areas.  The applicants are present for questions.  The Administrator would like to know if the permit will be instituted soon.  The applicant states they’ve had some issues with engineering.  The Commission discusses the project.  A motion to issue a Modification as proposed is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Loading Dock Changes Sketch  Layout & Materials Plan, dated April 9, 2019 prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.  Insignificant Change Letter, dated April 24, 2019 prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc. 242-1729, Request for Partial Bond Release, 213 Berry Street  The Administrator states based on monitoring reports the site is in compliance. There is ongoing monitoring of 2 shrubs that require 1 year of monitoring. The project As-Built has been received. The project was bonded in the amount of $2,000.00.  The Commission discusses the partial bond release.  The Administrator feels it would be appropriate to leave a $500.00 bond in place.  The Commission discusses the removal of erosion controls.  A motion to issue a Partial Bond Release ($1,500.00) and removal of erosion controls is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  As-Built Plan of Land, dated May 6, 2019 prepared by Hancock Associates Enforcement Order/Violation 503 Boston Street (Mann)  The Field Inspector states he noticed tree cutting when responding to another complaint (515 Boston Street). The trees cut were barely within the 100-foot Buffer Zone. He also noticed brush dumping in the wetland next to the driveway. The EO required the debris be removed no later than May 31, 2019 and no additional tree cutting should take place until after the May 8, 2019 meeting.  The homeowner states several years ago National Grid was supposed to trim the limbs that intertwined in the wires. She didn’t realize she was in violation. She states they placed the fallen branches on the side of the driveway.  Mr. Lynch states he doesn’t feel this was intentional. Any stumps that remain should be left and not ground down. He would like to know if there is a lot of work to be done to clean up the area.  The Field Inspector states no restoration is needed for the trees along the Buffer Zone.  The Administrator would like to know if the homeowner has been able to remove any of the debris.  The homeowner states she was able to remove some of the debris. The Field Inspector recommended she call a contractor to remove the remaining debris.  The Administrator states they are more concerned with the larger debris. She recommends placing wetland markers on the tree line to prevent dumping in the future.  The Commission discusses the wetland line, placement of wetland markers and the deadline for the debris removal. 05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10  A motion to amend the Enforcement Order as proposed (wetland markers & debris removal by September 1, 2019) is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Violation Letter, dated April 24, 2019 515 Boston Street (Dussault)  The Field Inspector states the Enforcement Order was for the removal of multiple large pine trees. Some of the pine trees were within 100-feet of a wetland. The wetland is located on the other side of Boston Street. The EO stated no additional tree cutting should take place until after the May 8, 2019 meeting.  The homeowner states they are planning on adding some vegetation to replace the trees.  The Field Inspector states he would like a formal Restoration Plan for the front yard.  Mr. Lynch would like to know how far into the yard the Buffer Zone extends. Restoration is only needed within the jurisdictional area.  The Field Inspector states the front yards starts approximately 75-feet from the resource area.  The Commission discusses the tree stumps.  The homeowner states the stumps were removed when the trees were cut down.  The Field Inspector states the stumps were still there during the April 17, 2019 visit.  The homeowner states the card left by the Field Inspector wasn’t noticed until several days later. She would like clarification of where the restoration area begins.  The Administrator states the restoration area is 25-feet from the edge of Boston Street.  The Commission discusses the violation and the plan required for the restoration.  The homeowner states they plan to replant the front of the yard. They are looking to avoid planting near the corner of the driveway.  Mr. Lynch states a Restoration Plan is required to be submitted no later than July 1, 2019. The restoration work is to be completed by October 1, 2019.  The Administrator states they are not requiring the homeowner to replant the entire 25-feet from the roadway. Some of the area may be grassed. They are looking for information on how the area will be stabilized.  A motion to amend the Enforcement Order as proposed is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Violation Letter, dated April 24, 2019 2053 Salem Street (Richards)  Ben Osgood Jr., Ranger Engineering presents on behalf of the applicant. He states the wetlands were re-delineated by Rimmer Environmental Consulting. They propose replanting of the 25-foot No Disturbance Zone with (6) red and white oaks. The wetland area will be replanted with some red and white oak trees along with shrubs. A row of white pine trees will be planted between the wetland area and existing yard. They do not propose to replant trees between the 25 and 100-foot zones. As compensation they propose to provide 1,525s.f. of new wetland area planted with red maple, highbush blueberry, and winterberry and reseeded. The homeowner would like to do some additional work to the home including the removal of more pine trees.  Mr. Lynch states white pines are not an ideal choice. He suggests upping the other species in place of the white pines.  The Administrator states this is Endangered Species Habitat.  The Commission discusses the Endangered Species Habitat and the violation.  The Administrator states the Restoration Plan doesn’t show restoration for the area on the side of the driveway. 05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10  Mr. Osgood states the area on the side of the driveway was grass.  The Administrator states she needs to refer back to aerial images to confirm.  The Administrator states this will require a MESA and an after the fact RDA filing for any of the clearing they wish to keep. She states the 25-foot No Disturbance Zone needs more under story.  The Commission discusses the EO and the process moving forward.  The Administrator recommends the Commission set a date (1 month) the RDA filing must be received.  Mr. Osgood would like to know if the homeowner can start the process of removing the logs by hand.  The Commission discusses the removal of the logs.  Mr. Osgood states they will hold off on the log removal.  A motion to amend the Enforcement Order as proposed (MESA & RDA filings and revised Restoration Plan) is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Buffer Zone Disturbance and Restoration Plan, dated May 1, 2019 prepared by Ranger Engineering & Design  Revised WPA Form 9 - Enforcement Order, dated February 28, 2019  Revised Enforcement Order Letter, dated March 4, 2019 242-1692, 1210 Osgood Street (NRP Group, LLC.)  Mr. Napoli recuses from the discussion due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Manzi steps in as chair.  Commissioner Manzi states he and Commissioner Lynch have conducted separate site visits. After the site visit some questions were discussed with the Environmental Monitor. The questions were presented to the applicants via email on May 5, 2019. He confirms the applicants are ready to respond to the email.  Dan Brenner, The NRP Group LLC introduces the team, Joe Peznola of Hancock Associates, Vern Kokosa of Sanborn Head & Associates, Inc., Paul McManus of EcoTec, Inc. and Paul Lockwood of LRT. He presents Bio’s for the team to the Administrator.  Paul Lockwood, LRT states pictures of the site have been provided to the Commission. He explains the wellpoint system, how it was designed and what it is intended to do. They have placed a row of wellpoints upgradiant of the retaining wall where the water was entering the wetlands. When the system is turned on it will collect the water creating a buffer preventing the water from entering the wetlands. The water will then enter a treatment system installed on site. The water will be treated to meet the turbidity standards set by the Commission. The water will then be discharged to an established discharge point. His firm was obtained on April 26th to manage some of the surface water on site.  Mr. Lynch confirms they are taking the water down below the original grade to prevent water from working its way under the wall.  Mr. Lockwood states an analysis was done to make sure the wellpoints were placed in the correct location. Once established the water level was surveyed with a water level indicator inside the well.  Mr. Lynch would like to know if the inline filter at the final discharge is filtering particles or if it's for chemistry.  Mr. Lockwood states it’s a bag filter that acts as a safety net. Each wellpoint has its own independent valve. A Technician will need to maintain the series of valves to keep the vacuum as high. Inside the wellpoint there’s a drop tube that goes down in the middle. They can raise and lower the tube to target different depths.  Mr. Manzi reads a list questions the Commission would like addressed.  Mr. Lockwood states when the wellpoints were installed an initial water level measurement was taken of each of the wellpoints. No water has been discharged off the wellpoint system but it has 05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 been bumped. The system is meant to be running continuously and will take time to achieve a steady state. If they system is not running as well as expected they have supplemental points that can be installed and attached to the existing system.  Mr. Lynch confirms they are trying to intercept all the water that was finding its way through/under the wall and beyond.  Mr. Kokosa, Sanborn Head & Associates states once the system is turned on they won’t see much seepage.  Mr. Manzi would like to know what the calcite is chemically doing to the resource area and how long they will need to intercept the calcite. He states the wellpoint system is not permanent.  Mr. Kokosa states they will be able to answer the question better once the wellpoint system is up and running. They do not want any further impact to the wetland which is the reason the system was installed. The system can be operated for a long time and can be turned on and off.  Mr. Manzi would like to know if they have done a further chemical analysis on the calcite. He would like to know what’s in it and what impact it’s having to the resource area.  Mr. Kokosa states no further chemical analysis has been done.  Paul McManus, EcoTec, Inc. states a cleanup was done where the calcite formed a crust. He feels there is more cleanup to be done. When the calcite crystalizes and forms a crust it’s an impediment to biological activity. Once they have eliminated the outbreak in these areas the standing water will hopefully go away. They proposed to continue the cleanup process using hand tool’s once water is controlled. Outside of the channelized flow there are areas where you can see some discoloration. He feels this material is inert biologically and does not warrant to be cleaned up.  Mr. Manzi would like to know if this is the amber color they’ve seen on site. He would like to know what the amber color is and if it’s been analyzed.  Mr. McManus believes the amber color to be a thin veneer of calcite which was formed when the water was high.  The Commission discusses the different residues on site.  Mr. McManus states his intent is to look at the biological communities on site in the coming weeks. He feels it’s too early in the growing season to do an evaluation.  Mr. Lynch states that it’s important they look at the entire ecosystem. He would like to know if the calcite stays in suspension or if it’s in a solution. He would like to know how much of it is carrying downstream, how far it goes and if there are impacts.  Mr. Kokosa states there can be calcium carbonate in solution.  Mr. McManus explains the flow from the seep and the locations where the calcite has been found. He would like to do an assessment of the macro invertebrate community that inhabit the streams. He explains the process in which this will be done. He will provide a written report of his findings to the Commission and what they propose to do about it.  Mr. Lynch would like to know how he equates toxicity.  Mr. McManus states he will be looking at ecological toxicity. He proposes to find out what the material has done to the environmental receptors on the site.  Mr. Kokosa states they first plan to turn on the wellpoints and treat and pump. This will take several days for the seepage entering the wetland to decrease. The invertebrate studies of different parts of the stream will occur. Once things have dried up, they will conduct the remainder of the cleanup with hand tools.  The Administrator would like to know how the resource area will dry up if they are discharging to the wetlands.  Mr. Kokosa states they proposed three discharge points but will only be using the two existing discharge points.  The Commission discusses the discharge locations.  Mr. Manzi states he would like the water in the pond on site tested.  Mr. Lynch would like to know what happens when they introduce more water into the system. 05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10  Mr. Lockwood states the system isn’t running at full capacity. If more water is introduced, they will be able to manage it.  Mr. McDonough would like to know if calcite is the only chemical, they are dealing with. He would like to know if this is a naturally occurring compound.  Mr. Kokosa states calcium carbonate is a byproduct from RCA. They are confident this is the only chemical they are dealing with.  Mr. McManus states in some environments this is a naturally occurring compound. This has occurred from a material that was introduced and not the native conditions.  Mr. Saal would like to know what impact the calcite will have on the environment. He feels if the material has no adverse effect on the environment it’s not an issue. He would like to know how long the impact will last.  The Administrator states from a wetlands perspective sediment is an effect on the environment.  Mr. McManus agrees that where the crust exists it is a problem. It acts as a physical barrier to biological activity. He hopes the negative effects are limited to the physical barrier.  Mr. Kokosa feels once the hardscape is done and the stormwater is collected conditions on site will improve.  Mr. Manzi states the Commission is considering an expert to work in parallel with the applicant’s experts.  Mr. McDonough would like to know Mr. McManus, experience working with calcite.  Mr. McManus states he has experience working with Ecological Risk Management, not calcite.  The Administrator states she thinks it would be best to reach out to DEP.  Mr. Saal feels this issue has to have existed somewhere else.  Mr. Lynch disagrees with reaching out to DEP. He feels it’s best to assess the calcite, pump and treat, secure the site and evaluate the wetlands.  The Administrator states there is an agent’s network. She plans to email them to find out if there has been any other issues like this. DEP can also advise them on what to do and if they have seen other situations like this. The violation will remain a recurring item on the agenda until they decided otherwise.  Mr. Saal would like to know if all the existing RCA on the site has been removed except for what's under the existing buildings.  The Administrator states RCA was used across the site. It was excavated from underneath the infiltration units and in the Buffer Zone where it could be.  Mr. Saal expresses his concerns with the material still being used on site.  The Administrator states they have the UTS reports which tells them where the material was used on site.  Mr. Lynch would like to know in one month what the impact is for ground water movement.  Joe Peznola of Hancock Associates states they removed the RCA from under the systems and 10- feet around. He states once the systems are operating the water will move vertically.  The Administrator states everything will be channeled through the infiltrators. The water won’t flow downward because glacial was placed under the infiltrators.  A motion to issue an Enforcement Order is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous, Recused: Mr. Napoli. Documents  No new information was submitted Adjournment  A motion to adjourn at 10:03 p.m. is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. 05 08 19 NACC Meeting Minutes