Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-27 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 1 of 8 Approved 2/10/2021 North Andover Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 27, 2021 Members Present: The following identified themselves as present on the call: Louis A. Napoli, Chairman, John T. Mabon, Joseph W. Lynch, Albert P. Manzi, Jr., Vice Chairman, Sean F. McDonough and Anthony Capachietti Members Absent: Douglas W. Saal Staff Members Present: The following identified themselves as present on the call: Amy Maxner, Conservation Administrator and Taylor Andrews, Field Inspector Meeting came to Order at: 7:02 p.m. Quorum Present. The Administrator, Amy Maxner reads the following statement: that may gather in one place, this meeting of the North Andover Conservation Commission will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and/or parties with a right and/or requirement to attend this public who wish to watch the meeting may do so on their televisions by tuning to Comcast Channel 8 or Verizon Channel 26 or online at www.northandovercam.org. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time, via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we will post on the Town of North Andover website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive recording of the proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. If the public would like to participate in public hearings please email your question/comment prior to or during the meeting to amaxner@northandoverma.gov. The question/comment will be read during the proceedings and responded to accordingly. Acceptance of Minutes A motion to accept the minutes of January 13, 2021 is made by Mr. Mabon, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. Small Project NACC #270, 385 Rea Street (Barker) The Administrator states the application is seeking the installation of an aluminum picket fence that will run along the rear property line. A section of the fence will be within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to BVW, outside the 50-foot NBZ, no closer than 75-feet. The fence will be installed within an existing lawn in anticipation of a proposed pool that will be installed outside the Buffer Zone. The Administrator requested that the as-built plan be used to show the pool, patio and associated structures to ensure that all aspects of the pool are outside jurisdiction. She recommends approval of the project under Category "H" requiring a post construction site inspection by the Conservation Department. is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Vote 5-0, Unanimous, Recused: Mr. Capachietti. A motion to approve the Small Project as proposed with post construction condition is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mr. Mabon. Vote 5-0, Unanimous, Recused: Mr. Capachietti. Documents Small Project Application 01 11 21 Certificate of Compliance 242-590, Partial COC Request, 150 Flagship Drive (Flagship, LLC) 2021-01-27 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8 Approved 2/10/2021 The Administrator provides background on the Order issued in July of 1992. The subject Order only governed roadway extension work and associated utilities, wetland crossing and replication. The roadway created frontage for additional lots. A subsequent OOC #242-1690 which governed the development of 150 Flagship Drive, was issued a full and complete Certificate of Compliance was issued in October of 2017. The Town Engineer has confirmed that these are Town accepted streets; therefore, final close out of this OOC is the obligation of Town since it runs with the land. The property is in the middle of a real estate transaction and the title search showed this as outstanding. The involved parties seek to clear title with a Partial COC. The Administrator recommends issuing a Partial Certificate of Compliance. A motion to issue a Partial Certificate of Compliance is made by Mr. Mabon, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. Documents 150 Flagship PCOC Request, wpafrm8a Request for Determination of Applicability 400 Great Pond Road (Saxe) The Administrator states the applicant is seeking to relocate a 358-foot section of the domestic water line. They need to shift the location of its entrance to the house because lake water inundates the basement, leaving the water line submerged for long periods of time, making it vulnerable to freezing. The house is currently using hot-water radiators as the heating system, which poses a risk to losing heat and other possible complications. A work description has been provided by the contractor. Construction access is proposed down the paved driveway and through the lawn area. The trench will be 4-feet deep and 3-feet wide, dug at approximately 100-feet per day. No stockpiling is proposed, excess materials will be removed daily. The backfill areas will be seeded and protected with straw and advantage will be taken of the current frozen ground conditions. The need for dewatering is not anticipated due to glacial till conditions. Work is estimated to take one week to complete. The work is within the 100-foot Buffer Zone to the bank of lake and fringe BVW. The house is located between the lake and the area of excavation. Erosion controls are proposed to be installed along the downhill side of the excavation trench. The Administrator recommends to close the hearing and issue a Negative #3 Determination requiring pre and post construction inspections with the Conservation Department. Mr. Lynch questions if the applicant is proposing to solve the water inundation as part of the application. The Administrator states they are not seeking to cure the inundation; they are only seeking the relocation of the water line to a location in the basement that does not experience lake inundation and thus prevent the potential for freezing. The Commission discusses the proposal and agrees to issue a Negative Determination #3 with pre and post construction inspections with the Conservation Department. A motion to issue a Negative Determination #3 as recommended is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. Documents 400 Great Pond Road - Legal Notice 01 20 21 - Public Notice, 400 Great Pond Road - Legal Notice 01 20 21 - Tribune, Plan 01 21 21, RDA Application and Supporting Materials 01 14 21 Notice of Intent (NOI) 242-1787, 135 North Ramp Road (DeRosa) Mr. Napoli recuses from the discussion due to a conflict of interest, and Mr. Manzi steps in as Chair. The Administrator states she requested clarification on plan notations since the last meeting. Updated plans were received with clarifications and a memo. The extent of the proposed recycled asphalt cap on the site has been depicted on the plan. The side slopes will receive 4-inches of loam, seeding and erosion control blanket. The Administrator compared the wetland line from this filing to an Airport Vegetation Management Plan from 2006. There were some variations with the lines; the most notable difference was the point of the wetland that juts up closest to the toe of slope, WF A19-A17. Historic correspondence between Hancock 2021-01-27 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 Approved 2/10/2021 Associates and Mr. DeRosa from August and October of 2013 was reviewed by the Administrator. The correspondence stated that no evidence of wetland fill was found with the glass material. They did acknowledge that fill in the Buffer Zone had been conducted and that the toe of slope of the glass material was very close to the BVW. The correspondence did not direct the applicant to address the Buffer Zone Violation. Mr. Mabon expresses concerns with pollution of groundwater and Buffer Zone areas the nature of the material. He would like to know if there are any existing water quality monitoring wells in the vicinity of the wetland system that data can be obtained from. He also raises concerns about the historic correspondence that clearly states the limit of the 100-foot Buffer Zone was identified in the field and cordoned off by hay bales to set a limit of work. This limit of work has not been respected and now a Buffer Zone violation exists unaddressed. Mr. Lynch express directly adjacent to the Buffer Zone, creating an impervious site and concentrating infiltration into the gallery through this material which will no doubt run laterally into jurisdiction. He believes this is a solid waste issue approved this proposal under solid waste regulations. He believes the application is incomplete and that it cannot be sent out for a stormwater review until borings are conducted. He believes that once these have been conducted the NACC will better understand what the threat is to the Buffer Zone and the immediate wetland. He suggests an additional boring be advanced at the top of the slope that is closest to the wetland and at either end of the proposed infiltration gallery. Mr. McDonough agrees that borings are the best way to investigate the situation and to help make a determination. He expresses questions if the solid waste regulations will allow the pile to be sealed off or topped off. Mr. Manzi reviews some of the historic documentation. A letter from Hancock Associates, dated November 2000 to Brian LaGrasse, Conservation Administrator states that Mr. DeRosa intends to perform anticipated work 100-feet from the Wetlands Resource Areas avoiding a filing with the Conservation Commission. He expresses concern that this is not what happened, as the activities and the fill at some points are within 5-feet of a wetland flag. He believes that based on the information the site is in Violation and agrees with Commissioner Lynch that they do not have enough information. David Cowell, Hancock Associates states that MassDEP has reviewed and approved the plan prior to the NOI being submitted to the NACC. He states that MassDEP asked that they provide stormwater drainage and stabilization of the slope. He believes that an environmental site assessment is an exorbitant cost that they are apprehensive to offer. Mr. Manzi would like to know if the correspondence with MassDEP prior to submission was part of the NOI application. Mr. Cowell states the conversation with MassDEP was via conference call on May 28, 2020. The Administrator questions if the consultant received anything in writing from MassDEP. Mr. Cowell states that they can request that MassDEP speak on this, if so required. They are following the directive given to them by MassDEP. He feels the primary concern is slope failure and collapse; currently there are no existing erosion problems on the slope. Mr. Lynch states there are often conflicts between DEP Solid Waste and DEP Wetland Sections. He agrees with the consultant that there are no existing erosion control problems on the slope. He would like to know why they are capping the material if it's not over topping and not causing an erosion control problem. Rob DeRosa states the last site visit with MassDEP regarding the noncompliance letter issued to Integrated Paper was in November 2019. He states the cease and desist letter issued 1998/2000 by the NACC was never received by Integrated Paper. Per Mr. DeRosa the area in question has been held for storage and covered with asphalt RAP for years. They intended to return it to its original grade prior to the RAP material being destroyed. The toe of the slope has not changed however the wetland line did. He is not sure where the discrepancy came about; he maintains they did not fill in the wetlands. They are a tenant at will with no current lease. Mr. Manzi expresses concerns with the RAP material causing sheet flow and destabilizing the slopes. 2021-01-27 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8 Approved 2/10/2021 The Administrator clarifies that earlier in the meeting when she stated the 2006 and 2014 wetland line differed, they did not just change by 100- feet in most cases. The advance into the Buffer Zone was not a function of the wetland moving, it was the function of material being imported close to the wetland in the Buffer Zone. The material is approximately 10-feet from the closest wetland flag. Mr. Lynch states there is clear written documentation that all work was to take place outside of the 100-foot Buffer Zone. The letter of noncompliance states work within the Buffer Zone is a direct violation. Due to the egregiousness of the amount of material he does not see a benefit to removing it, but does not believe the material should be forgiven, it must be resolved. Mike Miller, Lawrence Municipal Airport states the property will not go out to bid, it will remain offers to speak with their environmental scientist to see if they are any existing monitoring wells in the area. He will share any information he finds with the Administrator. He hopes the area will be revegetated with low growing shrubbery. He does not know of any goals or objectives to remove the materials from the site. Mr. Manzi confirms that the stormwater system will need to go out for third party peer review. The Administrator states she recommends that it goes out for review. Mr. Lynch states once the boring data has been received, they can proceed with the stormwater review to determine whether additional borings may be necessary. He requests an explanation from DEP Solid Waste as fashion. He is unsure if they are looking at this from a stormwater wetland perspective act. Mr. Manzi would like the consultant to reach out to MassDEP to issue a statement or letter to the Commission. He also directs the Administrator to contact MassDEP. Charles DeRosa reads a letter from August 11, 1999 from Richelle Martin of the North Andover Conservation Department. He states it is his understanding that only the front portion of the site will be treated with RAP. Mr. Manzi requests a copy of this letter be sent to the Administrator. Mr. DeRosa agrees to provide the Administrator with a copy of the letter. The Commission discusses the protocol and location for the boring samples. They agree they need to know the suitability of the material to receive water and act as an infiltrated media. Whether the media has materials in it that might cause concern by moving water through it. The nature of the material and advancing the borings through the original ground material, down 5-feet into groundwater to determine if the presence of the material and the ongoing infiltration that has occurred has affected the groundwater condition. This information needs to be obtained and provided for the Stormwater Management review. Mr. McDonough would like to know if the Administrator has had any communication with MassDEP about the project. The Administrator states she has no contact with MassDEP thus far. A motion to continue to February 10, 2021 is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Vote 4-1-1 (In Favor: Mabon, Lynch, McDonough, Manzi, Abstained: Capachietti, Recused: Napoli) Documents 6-10-2020 Meeting Materials, 12-09-2020 Meeting Materials, 1-26-21 Response to Comments Letter, 21839 Rev4 1-26-21 (STAMPED) 242-1799, 243 Great Pond Road (Windhill Builders) 8:32 p.m., Mr. Napoli resumes as chairman. The Administrator states at the previous hearing the Commission discussed whether the proposed walkway could be located within the CR and whether stockpiling and equipment operation could be conducted within the CR. Town Counsel reviewed the CR and the plan and was of the opinion that the walkway would result in removal of loam/soil and therefore not allowable under the CR. Town Counsel left it up to the Commission to decide whether stockpiling and equipment operation would devalue the conservation values of the CR. This information was shared with the project engineer. A revised plan was received. The proposed walkway was eliminated from the plan and the stockpile area has been relocated outside of the CR limit. The notes on the plan include to specify the size of the equipment to be used and require the utilization of protective measures 2021-01-27 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8 Approved 2/10/2021 to reduce impact to the ground area. All areas of equipment travel will be over turf grass. The Administrator recommends closing the hearing and issuing an Order in 21 days. Mr. Mabon suggests the NACC condition that there are no permanent alterations to the Conservation Restriction area. Mr. Lynch questions if the access through the CR should be voted on or added to the findings in the Order. The Administrator states this can be noted in the finding of facts of the OOC. Mr. Napoli expresses concerns with the construction access. William Hall, Civil Design Consultants, Inc. states the intent is to stay between the erosion control and the house, outside of the Buffer Zone as much as possible and an additional line of erosion controls were added to the plan to provide more protection. A motion to close and issue in 21 days made by Mr. Mabon, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. Documents 01-13-2021 Meeting Materials, 12-09-2020 Meeting Materials, 20-10239-WPP-R2, L_011921 - CC 242-1800, 158 Forest Street (Triano) The Administrator states the plan was revised per Inspector of Building comments. They have achieved the 10-foot setbacks from the edge of the pool to the house foundation and side property line. These changes caused the pool to elongate alongside the house. The pool shed was moved to the rear of the house due to zoning restrictions. This is a late file, however the applicant and consultant requested to present the plan changes in order to receive feedback and propose the idea of a site visit. A formal waiver request has been ephemeral pool 75-foot NBZ with the Commission. They have proposed mitigation in the ephemeral pool 50- rea slated for removal. Mr. Napoli confirms the applicant is seeking two waivers, one for the pool shed the other for the deck and back corner of the pool. The Administrator states this is accurate, two waivers have been requested. Mr. Mabon believes the project is contingent on the ephemeral pool status. He would like to know why they The Administrator states the ephemeral pool is located on another property. Mr. Lynch would like to know if they will gain back Resource Area with the proposed restoration areas. The Administrator states they will gain back enhanced Buffer Zone Resource Area. The original permit for the house is from approximately 1997. Mr. Manzi agrees with Commissioner Mabon and states the time to certify the ephemeral pool is typically late March, early April. He would like to know if they requested permission from the landowner to observe the ephemeral pool. David Cowell, Hancock Associates states if they ask permission from the landowner, they will need to provide a full dialogue of what the potential ramifications are and that the proposed restoration area will provide a better habitat than the current existing conditions. He questions if it is necessary to conduct an ephemeral pool survey if they accept that it might be. Mr. Manzi states that a waiver request is usually accompanied by an alternative analysis that must be specific. Mr. Cowell questions whether verification of the ephemeral pool is pertinent to an alternative analysis. He believes that the compensatory mitigation will be a net benefit. Nick Triano, the homeowner states the ephemeral pool is not part of the record plan filed in 1998 or depicted on the NHEPS Map. He believes this is introducing a restriction on the property that did not exist. Mr. McDonough states ephemeral pools can show up years after the wetlands were last delineated. It is important that the Commission is consistent when dealing with issues like this. 2021-01-27 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 Approved 2/10/2021 Mr. Capachietti questions if the applicant would entertain a condition against using fertilizers containing nitrogen in perpetuity and if they considered permeable pavers for the construction of the pool deck. He suggests they provide a gap at the bottom of the fence to allow for critter migration. Mr. Triano states they are proposing stone pavers, not poured concrete. Mr. Cowell confirms the applicant may still fertilize the front lawn which is outside the 100-foot Buffer Zone. He questions whether the Commission would entertain a site walk. Mr. Napoli believes it's important to know if the Commission stance on the waiver requests before a site walk is scheduled. Mr. Lynch states if it is an ephemeral pool, he is not inclined to grant the waiver. He urges the applicant to seek permission from the neighbor to certify or decertify the potential ephemeral pool. Mr. Manzi states the Commission does not believe the proposal qualifies for a waiver request. Mr. Napoli states he is concerned with potential ledge within the footprint of the pool and impacts to the house foundation if they hammer that close. Mr. Triano states that he has spoken with his pool company and they believe ledge will not be an issue. Mr. Napoli directs the consultant to speak with the Administrator for information on how to determine/classify an ephemeral pool under the local bylaw. A site walk will be scheduled by the Administrator for any Commission members who would like to attend. A motion to continue to February 10, 2021 is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. Documents 01-13-2021 Meeting Materials, 12-09-2020 Meeting Materials, 25-50 Setback Exhibit Plan, 158 Forest St 1998 As-Built Plan, 158 Forest Street Site Photos-min, N. Andover Waiver Request Form 242-1802, 1010 Johnson Street (Riera) The Administrator states the applicant has requested a continuance. A motion to continue to February 10, 2021 is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mr. Mabon. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. Documents Email from KAVANAUGHJ@msn.com requesting a continuance until 2/10/21 General/New/Old Business 242-1784, Request for Partial Bond Release, Barker Street Culvert Replacement (Tim Zanelli Excavating, LLC) Mr. Napoli states he visited the site and is ok with the request. The Administrator states the culvert, fire hydrant and water main have been completed. The remaining work relates to wetland replication and final seeding and stabilization. The area of work is stable, aside from a couple areas of exposed soils that will receive erosion control blanketing or straw. The Order has been complied with throughout the project. The Administrator states she has no objection to reducing the bond by 50%, leaving $10,000 to cover the remaining work. A motion to issue a Partial Bond Release ($10,000.00) is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. Documents Xerox Scan_01192021134958 Discussion w/North Andover Planning Dept. - Osgood Pond Boardwalk & Discussion w/North Andover Planning Dept. - Rail Trail The Administrator states Osgood Pond Boardwalk came out of the Master Plan Implementation Committee. Part of the objective of the downtown improvements is making connections. Dan Beckley, Staff Planner, North Andover Planning Department states both proposals are for MassTrail Grants which require input from the NACC. He would like to know if there are any concerns and what the Commission feels might be needed. 2021-01-27 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 Approved 2/10/2021 Mr. Mabon would like to know if the boardwalk will extend across the entire pond. Mr. Beckley states the boardwalk will extend approximately 700-feet across the pond. The grant application is for engineering and design. They will work with abutters and get a better understanding of the wetland prior to determining how and where the boardwalk crosses to and from. They would like to avoid crossing directly along the properties on Water Street. Mr. Mabon states the proposed rail trail path is from the High School driveway to Stevens Pond however it continues well beyond this area. Mr. Beckley states beyond Stevens Pond the trail reaches an area that it cuts close to 4-5 houses. Unfortunately, they do not have the time to engage with the property owners before the grant application. The trail will be done in phases with this section cutting along Pleasant Street and up Great Pond Road. Mr. Capachietti suggests they consider a bump out on the boardwalk over Osgood Pond to allow for recreational activities like fishing. The Commission agrees they are in favor of the general concept of both of the projects. Osgood Pond Boardwalk - Documents Osgood Pond Boardwalk Concept Packet Rail Trail - Documents Rail Trail Concept Packet, Town of North Andover Mail - Fwd_ ConComm Public Comment - Rail Trail Proposal Enforcement Order/Violation 177 Great Pond Road (Strecker) The Administrator states an Enforcement Order was issued for unauthorized clearing within the Buffer Zone to BVW and Watershed Protection District Buffer Zones. A cease and desist letter was issued requiring work to cease, the installation of erosion controls and engagement of a wetland consultant to delineate the wetland. A site inspection was performed by the Planning and Conservation Departments. The homeowner engaged Norse Environmental to conduct the delineation however they have not visited the site yet. The erosion controls have been properly installed and inspected. There is a chicken/rooster pen and coops installed immediately adjacent to a wetland behind the house. The homeowner was informed that this will need to be moved and the area restored. The Administrator recommends the NACC issue an Enforcement Order for the continued cease and desist from activity and the applicant file a complete ANRAD for the property. She states the homeowner has been very cooperative and defers to the Commission on how they would like to handle the relocation of the chicken pen. Mr. Mabon would like to continue working with the homeowner to keep the momentum going. Mr. Lynch would like to know if the Administrator feels there is a better location for the chicken pen. installed several months ago, but an ANRAD plan would help better inform the relocation. Mr. Manzi states that he is in favor of backyard livestock and is happy to help find a suitable location for the coop if they need to be moved. The Commission discusses the violation and agrees a letter of engagement is required within 60 days. The chicken coop may remain in its location until the delineation has been completed. The delineation must be completed by May 1st. A motion to amend the Enforcement Order as proposed is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. Mabon. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. Documents 177 Great Pond Rd Violation Letter, 177 Great Pond Road GIS Aerial Map Decision 242-1801, 376 Salem Street (a.k.a. 0 Middleton Road)(Phillip C. Farmer Development, Inc.) The Administrator reviews the drafted Order of Conditions. The Commission discusses the bond which will be set in the amount of $10,000.00. A copy of the O&M Plan will be attached to the Order for recording purposes. Condition #43 requires 12-inch mulch sock to be double 2021-01-27 Conservation Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8 Approved 2/10/2021 row staked, backed with silt fencing when within 5-feet of a slope in excess of 3:1. Condition #44 requires 75-feet of additional mulch sock and two rolls of erosion control blanket to be on-site should an emergency A motion to adopt the Order of Conditions as drafted and amended is made by Mr. Mabon, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. 242- The Administrator reviews the drafted Order of Resource Area Delineation. A motion to adopt the Order of Resource Area Delineation as drafted is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr. Manzi. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. Signature Authorization - Permits Issued at the 01/13/2021 Meeting The Administrator states a vote needs to be taken authorizing her to sign decisions, permits and forms on behalf of the Commission for the following; o Small Project for 385 Rea Street. Partial Certificate of Compliance for 150 Flagship Drive. Determination of Applicability for 400 Great Pond Road. Amended Enforcement Order for 177 Great Pond Road. Order of Conditions for 376 Salem Street (a.k.a. 0 Middleton Road) and Order of Resource Area Delineation 1874 Turnpike Street. A motion to allow the Administrator to sign the permits as proposed is made by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr. Manzi. Vote 6-0, Unanimous. Adjournment A motion to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. Lynch. Vote 6-0 Unanimous. 2021-01-27 Conservation Commission Minutes