CITY OF GLOUCESTER

DRAFT CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2004

FULLER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SCHOOL COMMITTEE ROOM

WILLIAM FEBIGER, CHAIRMAN

MEMBERS PRESENT William Febiger, Chair Amy Donnelley Richard Everett Max Schenk Elizabeth Steele

MEMBERS ABSENT Ann Jo Jackson, Vice Chair Arthur Socolow

STAFF PRESENT Nancy Ryder, Conservation Agent Kelli Eckroth, Recording Clerk

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Ryder informed commission, the 11/17/04 minutes were not received in time to present them at tonight’s meeting.

II. CLOSURE OF HEARINGS, REVIEW OF FINAL INFORMATION AND REVIEW, AMENDMENT AND SIGNING OF PERMITS OR DECISIONS

A. Anne Meyer: 56 River Road, Map 118, Lot 59

Mr. Febiger asked Ms. Ryder what information the comission had on Anne Meyer, 56 River Road.

Ms. Ryder responded that the DEP response sheet came in and there were no issues with DEP. She noted that additional references were made to this plan in the minutes of 11/03/04 and 11/17/04, the plan has several references as well.

Mr. Febiger asked what if any conditions were there in reference to this permit.

Ms. Ryder responded that she does not recall, she will need to reference the minutes of the 11/3/04 and 11/17/04 meetings, she recommended including the conditions noted at both meetings and on the plan in the special order of conditions.

Mr. Febiger adressed the room and questioned if anyone was present to adress this issue. There was no response from the room.

MOTION: Ms. Steele made a motion to approve the Order of Conditions with conditions referenced in the 11/03/04 and 11/17/04 meeting minutes to be included as special conditions as discussed.

SECOND: Mr. Schenk seconded.

VOTE: 5 - 0 IN FAVOR

B. Blatchford: 25 Riverview Road

Mr. Febiger asked what new information had been received for 25 Riverview Rd.

Ms. Ryder responded that the commission had previously reviewed an application which did not have a DEP number on it. The Commission put the application on hold until the DEP # had been submitted. She noted that DEP had stated an alternatives analysis should have been reviewed or if appealed it would be remanded back for work within riverfront. She noted that in reviewing the file and past minutes there was no evidence that the RRA aspect had been considered.

Ms. Steele recalled that she had asked for additional information and that it had been put on hold for that reason also.

Mr. Febiger asked if it was a single family home.

Ms. Ryder offered the site plans to the commission. She answered that it is for the construction of a single family home, a permit was never issued because there was no DEP number at the time.

Ms. Steele asked if there were any special conditions on the plan.

Ms. Ryder stated that it had one draft with no special conditions.

Ms. Steele asked if Agent Ryder had the minutes from the meeting where this plan had previously been reviewed.

Ms. Ryder Passed the copy of the minutes around the table. She noted the DEP e-mail referenced a DEP #2872

Mr. Febiger stated that as a single family home there are not many alternatives, as this is a waterfront location, it must be conditioned to protect all resources.

Mr. Schenk stated that he would like to take a look at the site.

Mr. Febiger asked if the applicant knew that the permit doe not have approval

Ms. Ryder replied that yes, they do know.

The comission discussed availability for meeting to perform a site visit. The census was to do a split site visit, those who could make a Saturday morning visit would meet on 12/11/04 @ 8:30 AM, others would attempt to attend a weekday visit, time and date to be.

Ms. Ryder stated that she would ask M. Kyrouz to notify all abutters and post notice of this issue at the 12/15/04 meeting to be continued at 7:05 PM.

MOTION: Mr. Febiger made a motion to continue this isue until the 12/15/04 meeting to be heard at 7:05 PM.

SECOND: Mr. Schenk seconded

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

C. 12 Juniper Road, Certificate of Compliance

Mr. Febiger asked if the comission had the certificate of compliance for 12 Juniper road.

Ms. Ryder presented the certificate of compliance.

Board signed Certificate of Compliance

D. Correspndence fron Wayne Lozzi of DEP RE: Insignificant plan changes for 6 Thatcher Road

Ms. Ryder asked comission to refer to their packets as a letter was contained regarding this issue. The Stop and Shop entrance at Thatcher Road requires a replacement of the culvert. There is a large pile of debris on the adjacent property right off Bass Avenue, which has blocked the culvert and caused damage to a salt marsh. Enforcement had been initiated by a previous agent. She noted that the abutter, Robert Beard has claimed that a permit has been issued, the permit dates back to 1969, but relates back to the single family homes not to the pile of debris and fill near the outfall pipe. Ms. Ryder stated Stop and Shop placed a plate over the culvert to prevent flooding of the property, but W. Lozzi of DEP requested that this plate be removed. The request is for the Comission to amend the local permit based on the letter from DEP.

Mr. Gene Crouch of VHB Retail Trust stated that the corrugated pipe that is currently in place is in bad condition, if they follow through with the DEP request, it will expose the pipe to the edge of the property line. He submitted and referenced plan date 11/16/04 Re: Thatcher Rd., Driveway Culverts, Stop and Shop. He stated that the stone is course enough for water to seep through, this may create some soil erosion. DEP wants the plate removed. There is little space between the end of the pipe and the property line, if the plate is removed, it will flow out onto neighboring property. There seem to be no restrictions on the side where the marsh is located.

Mr. Febiger asked if there are any concerns.

Mr. Crouch noted that the marsh has been filled in the past to the soil line. The pipes were buried on the neighboring property; at high tide, water does seep out through the fill and spreads around, otherwise it dosen’t come above the soil or ground level, back on November 11, water did come out at the highest tide.

Ms. Steele sugested continued monitoring of the site.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to approve a minor modification to the plan, to be consistent with the DEP’s superceding order.

SECOND: Ms. Steele seconded

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

Ms. Ryder requested that the board move to add 104 Bass Ave. to agenda on 12/15/04.

Ms. Steele asked if theis was in refence to the salt marsh.

Ms. Ryder it is regarding a 2003 enforcement order. Owner claimed that the fill was legal, the concrete and wire mesh used was not approved or allowed by the DEP. The request is that it be removed.

Mr Febiger asked for a motion.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to add this matter to be discussed at the 12/15/04 meeting.

SECOND: Mr. Everett seconded

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Febiger asked if anyone was present for public comment.

Ms. Jennifer Durier approached and stated that she was present representing Mr. Steve Golden.

Ms. Ryder suggested that she wait until the comission began with correspondence as the comission would be addressing a Letter from Steve Golden at that time.

Ms. Durier agreed.

Mr. Febiger asked if there was anyone else present for public comment, there was no reply. He reequested that the commission move on to correspondence.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

Correspondence reviewed and submitted to the Commission for discussion includes;

A letter from Kurt Getsinger, DOA-ACE Research and Development Center re experimental work to develop suitable biocontrol techniques for phragmites;

A letter from S. Elwell of the City Sewer Division regarding changing the sewer main connection from Neptune to East Main St;

North Shore Conservation Commission Network agenda;

MA Riverways News Notes # 13;

BioMap and Living Waters Core Habitats of Gloucester;

A list of sites that need inspection;

The Wetlands Ecology and Conservation Biology course book from a recent training seminar, the book will be available in the Conservation Office Library;

A letter to D. Standish, DEP reviewer for 604 Washington Street, re the superceding OoC;

MBTA stockpile issue, photo;

Recommended Final Decision in the Matter of Christopher Nash, Coles Island Road affirming the Commission’s decision;

A Request for Action regarding Riverdale Place by S. Goldin;

Misc email

Discussion

Ms. Ryder received a letter from Steve Golden on 11/30/04 dated 11/29/04 regarding Riverdale Place. Previously the comission voted to take no action on matter.

Mr. Schenk asked if The Commission would suggest that a stop order be issued.

Mr. Febiger asked if this was in reference to what had been discussed about the gate on Mill Pond.

Ms. Ryder answered no, that this is in reference to filing a complaint and having Riverdale Place ordered back to comission, previously the comission took no action.

Mr. Febiger stated that the new letter changes nothing.

Ms. Steele suggested that the course of action should be first to request remand, second request stop work order based upon conservation and protection, in terms of pollution and wildlife habitat.

Mr. Febiger suggested that this is not an assertion of ongoing damage

Ms. Jennifer Durier present regarding Mr. Golden’s letter, her statements were as follows: The enabling statue mandated that three permits be required, first costal construction needs a lowland permit, the detention pond falls within this realm. Practices should be consistent and the comission should recommend against this permit. This also will require a curb cut , the conservation comission needs to notify the DEP of this project and recommend agains issuing a curb cut permit.

Mr. Febiger stated that he is sure that the DEP has been alerted of the curb cut for permit.

Ms. Durier continued; This field is a historical field, it is the last untouched field since the expansion of the sewer project. She suggested that the site should be left untouched as it will enhance surrounding home value and that it should be left for people to enjoy.

Ms. Steele asked for clarification, is this a recommendation that we not allow the three permits.

Ms. Durier replied yes, the conservation comission should act to preserve land and make sure that all required permits are pulled before work begins.

Ms. Steele replied that all necessary permitting agencies should already know about this issue.

Ms. Ryder suggested that each issue should be addressed separately, there are several issues going on with this case.

Mr. Mike Faherty was present his statements were as follows; No copy of this memo or letter from Mr. Golden has come to us. This letter does not raise new information on this case. Mr. Golden has continuously appealed with little or no evidence to back his appeals. So far, all of his appeals have been dropped, there is noting to remand, there is no pollution activity. The decision was made years ago on the use of this land, nothing has changed, there is nothing to do, no action to take, he has presented no competent information here.

Ms. Ryder requested to defer any action or decision unless or until any additional information is received from Mr. Golden.

Mr. Febiger stated that it was difficult to act, as the comission was lacking useful information.

Mr. Febiger stated that the comission needs to see some burden of proof from the petitioner to reopen, it may be that the gate is legal, that is one point to review, that dosen’t mean that we need to go back and reopen and review the whole case..

Ms. Ryder stated that the current request is based on possible pollution and wildlife habitat.

Mr. Febiger stated that maybe legal guidance is needed, he needs to be certain that the changes made are worthwhile.

Mr. Faherty stated that no activity would occur within 100 ft. of the pond, previously Mr. Socolow made us aware that any run off, unabated, would go through a detention.

Mr. Febiger stated that more information is needed, he was not persuaded that anything had changed, Mr. Golden’s letter lacks supporting evidence.

Ms. Steele stated that she would like to hear more from Mr. Golden if he does in fact have supporting evidence, without any further real evidence, the letter holds no weight. Mr. Golden should come back with evidence.

Ms. Ryder suggested that the request was to defer the decision.

Mr. Febiger responded that the matter was disposed of last time. He questioned the comission if they felt that the matter should be placed on the next agenda.

Ms. Steele stated that it should be left off without more information and evidence.

Mr. Febiger questioned why it was on the agenda.

Ms. Ryder stated that she made a point of placing correspondence on the agenda that may be controversial or connected to a controversial issue or case to make sure anyone who wanted to hear the discussion surrounding it would have the opportunity.

Mr. Febiger suggested that the public not speak on future matters of correspondence

Ms. Ryder the MBTA station construction has been pulled back within 10 feet of stockpile and is adjacent to wetlands. The raising of the bulding and paving has exceeded the permitted limit of work.

Mr. Febiger asked if there was an existing enforcement order.

Ms. Ryder replied that she will follow up at next meeting.

The comission sent a letter of support to Tim Purinton re: fish ladder, increase in spring fish count at Alewife.

Stanwood Point Camp- Pete Sonvay and Michelle Harrison correspondence, the two permits have expired and all work will be rolled into one permit.

There have been numerous issues with Mass Mudders re: driving on Haskell Pond Pipeline, it is on the agenda to address this issue, correspondence with C. Milhouse and Mass Mudders.

V. VIOLATIONS

Ms. Ryder reported that there are no current violations which needed discusion.

VI. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00 PM

A. Myrtle SquareLLC to construct 2 new buildings, parking and drainage improvements to 21 Myrtle Square Map 24, Lot 57

Mr. Mike Redemacher present stated that there have been a few changes proposed for plan at last meeting

Ms. Ryder questioned if the plans had been received by Commission members as they copies were mailed out separately.

Mr. Redemacher continued; since the last meeting there have been some changes, the bufferzone and BMP construction detail, please refer to section C2 of plan dated 11/01/2004. We received a status summary on 11/17/2004. Reference to a memo dated 12/01/2004 with a concern of discharge of stormwater. The last hearing on this issue covered issues with parking at Myrtle Square, the gravel would be paved with asphalt to prevent stormwater runoff from the wetland areas, it was requested by the Engineering Department that an additional catch basin be installed, diverting all basins into a manhole. There has been some correspondence with the DEP regarding infiltration on the fill area, new development and pristine areas, this area is existing and in use, therefore it is acceptable to the DEP.

Ms. Steele asked if the comission or Mr. Redemeder had this information in writing.

Ms. Ryder stated that she would request a summary from Jill Provencal, DEP.

Mr. Febiger verified that the Engineering Department was requesting a continuation to allow response from third party review regarding the stormwater and drainage aspects of the project, and asked how much time would be needed.

Ms. Ryder stated that it should be ready for the 12/15/2004 meeting.

Mr. Redemacher agreed.

Mr. Febiger asked for a motion to continue.

Ms. Ryder inquired about the RAM plan for the project, noting it would not be in by the time of the NPDES design review but that it could be conditioned for separate review and approval if the project was permitted.

Ms. Steele asked when will the comission will receive the review.

Mr. Redemacher answered before the 12/15 meeting and asked if it would be possible to close on the issue at this meeting.

Ms. Steele stated that RAM permits can all be very different, there is no way to tell what will be required, she would not like to review the project and make any decisions without the RAM plan.

Ms. Ryder referred to a discussion held at the previous site visit regarding potential for Community Outreach. She noted that within the wetlands invasive vines on surrounding maples are choking them out. J. McNiff noted that they would discuss the possibility. She reviewed the list of concerns and review items with the GCC, the final information that is needed other than the RAM, which may be submitted as an amendment, was the engineering review

Ms. Ryder asked the GCC if they would like a rough draft decision prepared for the next meeting pending submittal of Engineerings final review and the results of the third party review. Yes. A draft will be prepared as soon as the final engineering report is received. The draft will be sent to the GCC and applicant prior to the hearing continuation if possible.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made motion to continue

SECOND: Ms. Steele seconded

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

B. 633 Washington St. Map 113, Lot 30 Robert Zerbe, replacement of ramp and float

Ms. Ryder explained that this issue must be continued until the 12/15/04 meeting as no site visit has been done.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to continue this matter until the 12/15/04 meeting at 8:00 PM.

SECOND: Mr. Everett seconded motion.

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

VII. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:30 PM

A. Arunas Martinionis to amend the order of conditions #28-1149 for the project located at 77 Eastern Point Blvd. Map 136, Lot 9

Ms. Ryder asked that this issue be continued until the 12/15/04 meeting at the request of the applicant. There were no objections to this.

MOTION: Mr. Everett made a motion to continure until 12/15/04 meeting at 8:30 PM/.

SECOND: Ms. Donelly seconded.

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

B. Manny Silva to amend order of conditions #28-1603 for the project located at 9 Fenley Rd. Map 242, Lot 29

Ms. Ryder requested that the comission continue, she referenced site photos showing erosion up the the existing house

Ms. Steele stated that Max and she had been out to do a site visit, she is very disturbed that the rock, up to the homes, is delapidated.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to continue until the 12/15/04 meetig at 8:30 PM.

SECOND: Ms. Steele seconded.

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

C. John Haley to amend the Order of Conditions #28-1611 for project at 5 Aileen Terrace Map 137, Lot 3

Ms. Ryder we have received the final plan for project, it is a two-part plan submitted since the last meeting titled S1 and S001, no date is on the plan, submitted 12/01/2004. The plan was submitted to incorporate issues brought up at last meeting. A construction process and sequence plan for the tank removal had also been submitted.

Mr. Febiger asked if anyone had any questions or comments. There was no response. He proceeded: This is a plan regarding project amendments including an oil tank removal and drainage system. He noted that the GCC requested some information at the last meeting; how will drainage be taken care of and what will be the porcess in the removal of the oil tank, how will the dirt be handled.

Mr. Haley reviewed the details of the plan and noted that a truck will hold and test the dirt for contamination prior to it’s being removed off site.

Mr. Febiger asked if the agents questions had been answered with all of the new information.

Ms. Ryder replied yes.

Ms. Steele asked if there were any other approvals needed.

Ms. Ryder responded that there are questions about landscaping and the dock area. These will be submitted as future amendments to this filing

Ms. Steele asked Mr. Haley if they had a fire department permit.

Mr. Haley replied yes.

Ms. Ryder added that the Board of Health has also been involved, asked if Mr. Haley will submit a copy of the fire department permit.

Mr. Febiger asked for a motion.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to approve project at 5 Aileen Terrace, dated 12/01/04, the standard 37 conditions apply, with approved amendments and original conditions.

SECOND: Mr. Everett seconded.

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

MOTION: Mr. Febiger motioned to take a 10 minute recess. 8:55 PM.

SECOND: Mr. Schenk seconded.

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 9:05 PM

VIII. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION

A. City Requests the Comission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act and the Local Wetlands Ordinance to perform subsurface investigation program in the Western Harbor off Pavilion Beach

Mr. Dave Minor present, City Engineering requests a determination by the comission for the Washington street drain outfall, proposed at the west harbor, Pavilion Beach, it is currently under contract to design a flow system for Washington Street and Prospect Street, it would come down Wahington street to the corner of Washington street and Mansfield Street. There are actually two proposed routes; first it would be routed down Mansfield Street or second it would continue down Washington Street to Western Avenue. Currently there is a an outfall pipe, a 500 ft. outfall into 15 ft. of water, it runs into a low water area. The proposed work is in the initial stages of design, we still need to consider soil conditions, support, and means of construction. A plan was submitted to the Commission ny Mr. Minor, titled Alternate Routes for Washington Street Drain, no date on plan. Mr. Minor continued; ultimately we need to determine stability, a lot of the soil is soft, we may hit bedrock. We will be conducting boring, a hole will be drilled, 15 feet deep and 4 inches wide, at the marine bottom in the harbor, total time of disturbance will be maybe 4 days that the drill will be at the harbor, there will be a need to coordinate with the Harbor Master and the Coast Guard, would like to have work done before the onset of harsh weather.

Mr. Febiger asked if the boring would be done every 5 ft.

Mr. Minor answered no, there will be 3 soils samples done at a 5 ft. vertical depth.

Mr. Febiger asked what the total depth would be, involving the boring.

Mr. Minor asnwered 15 ft.

Mr. Schenk stated that there had been issues in the past regarding the quality of the materials in the harbor, suspended and localized sediments.

Mr. Minor replied they will be conducting the soil test inside of a tub on a barge, the testing soil stays confined within the tub to result in minimal spillage.

Ms. Ryder stated that there had been previous issues with Creasote Oil releases, the full extent of the contamination is unknown, no one believes that is extends beyond the inner harbor.

Ms. Steele asked if she meant reportable or actual released contaminants.

Ms. Ryder stated actual

Ms. Steele added and PCPs from overload runoff

Ms. Ryder stated this case will not deal with that, this will be small drill holes that will be refilled

Ms. Steele asked how will you contain this if there is an issue of contamination that results from this work.

Mr. Minor answered they are not sure, as the risk of contamination is low, they will have all sampling materials contained and actual testing will be done in an offsite testing lab.

Ms. Steele asked about the process of grouting the holes when they are to be refilled.

Mr. Minor stated that there would be grout pumped through the drill holes to fill the holes, this grout will set underwater.

Ms. Steele requested more details about the grout, how will it be contained underwater, is it injected and how do you know when to stop, how can you tell that the hole is filled, what will the process be if overfilling results.

Mr. Minor answered that the hole will not pose a threat if overfilled, they can measure how much to inject based upon the size of the hole, it is a basic cement compound, one that sets in water.

Ms. Steel asked if it needed to be done by April, ‘05.

Ms. Ryder stated that the project is not in a subject area for migration of fish and shellfish, she noted it could be conditioned to require approval from DMF.

Mr. Febiger asked if there are any other issues or comments on this project.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to give a negative determination on project plan dated 11/17/04, for proposed borings with conditions as noted.

SECOND: Mr. Everett seconded

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

IX. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 9:15 PM

A. Parisi, Extension request for the project at Lot 28, Squam Ln., File #28-1097

Ms. Ryder stated that continuation of this case is required.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to continue this hearing to the 12/15/04 meeting at 9:15 PM as no one was present.

SECOND: Mr. Everett seconded

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

B. Mari Shiel to tear down existing house and build a new dwelling at 101 Wingaersheek Rd. Map 261, Lot 27

Mr. Bill Manuel and Architect Dan Gooden present

Mr. Gooden stated that the location of the site is between the wetlands behind Castle View and the Coastline. The house sits in middle of lot, home frontage is on Wingaersheek Rd., there are three homes surrounding the property. It is 500 ft. to dune beach interface, out of wave action area, on a costal dune resouce area, the lot is a 5000 square foot lot, the existing home and leach field take up almost the entire lot, they propose to tear down the existing home and rebuild in in almost the exact same footprint. A plan was submitted to the comission, dated 06/28/04 with a revision date of 10/27/04. Mr. Gooden continued; there are a row of homes between the beach and the dunes, the lot has bordering vegetation and wetlands lie opposite of Wingaersheek Rd. from the lot. To the northwest there is an isolated wetland area, the idea is to demolish the existing ranch style home and rebuild, adding a second floor. They have determined that the best route to go is to tear down and rebuild, as opposed to adding a second story. They propose to rebuild on top of steel piers or piles with a vault constructed below the sand surface with access below the stair area, since it will be below dune surface, it is not subject to wave action, but construction will allow lateral sand movement. Preservation of vegetation on site is limited to two mature cherry trees, the intent of this project is to preserve and restore, there are two sheds on site that will be removed, all disturbed areas will be restored using beachgrass, this meets the preferred standards of areas of resource. The plan will allow and restore natural soil migration. There will be haybales at existing fence line. A resource area, land subject to coastal storm flow, is beyond ACEC. There will be no removal of existing vegetation, the site has a 100 ft. upland edge. There will be no increase in inpervious surfaces within upland edge. No components of the sepyic system will be changed, the system pre-dates current ordinances.

Ms. Ryder stated she had been on a site visit with the applicants representatives and noted that the lot is either imperviousor disturbed and is surrounded by existing homes on three sides and the road on the fourth.

Mr. Febiger asked for an explaination of the proposed cellar.

Mr. Manuel the cellar would be an accessible concrete vault. Plan given to comission dated 10/01/04, titles Architetural Site Plan, for purpose of explaining cellar.

Mr. Goodman continued the cellar will have 12 in. thick concrete walls, waterproofed, similar construction has had no leaks without waterproofing, there will be a waterproofed, reinforced slab across the top, steel piers/piles will mount to concrete wall, there will be 5 pier/piles on each side of the rectangle. The cellar will be below and will allow natural sand movement, above will be a standard home with piles or piers separating them except for two small square connecting structures for the stairs and the utility connections.

Mr. Febiger asked what the vertical distance is between the bottom of home and the top of the cellar.

Mr. Goodman answered 8 ft. 6 in., the foundation is down 18 in.

Ms. Steele asked what about the existing septic system.

Mr. Goodman stated that it sits toward the street and will not be disturbed.

Mr. Schenk asked how many bedrooms the structure will have

Mr. Goodman answered it is going from a 4 bedroom to a 3 bedroom house.

Ms. Steele asked how it will work, is it a regular septic tank, there is a pool, how will that effect it.

Mr. Goodman replied that the pool is a drainless pool, it filters and reuses water.

Mr. Everett asked where will they park their automobiles.

Mr. Goodman answered that there is currently side parking, there is an easement between home, neighboring home, and beach.

Mr. Febiger stated that parking seems to be next to ACEC bounary, would esixting vegetation be replaced.

Mr. Goodman answered yes, the trees in the front would not be disturbed, the vegetation surrounding the rest of the house is minimal.

Mr. Febiger asked with the cellar, is the 2.5 ft. enough space to allow sand migration, should it be deeper, do other areas of the upland edge comply with perfomance criteria.

Mr. Goodman stated that they are compliant.

Ms. Ryder suggested a site visit, this plan takes the site from no preservation to restoring preservation of sand migration, the entire site is already developed or disturbed, it is not new construction.

Mr. Febiger asked if the new plan would effect groundwater movement in upland edge, he is concerned that 2.5 ft. is not enough space. He was also concerned that over time the sand migration would cause the cellar to be partially above ground.

Mr. Goodman stated that the 2.5 ft. measurement comes from the sand cover over the top of the cellar.

Mr. Schenk asked if the comission can get a site view.

Mr. Goodman replied yes and they will also furnish the Natural Heritage ESP letter.

Ms. Ryder added that it also needs a CZM letter.

The Commission will take individual site visits.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to continue until the 12/15/04 meeting, requiring a DEP number and revised CZM letter.

SECOND: Ms. Donnelly seconded

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

X. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 9:45 PM

A. Rhonda Murray to construct an addition at 6 Stanwood Ave. Map 219, Lot 100

Mr. Bill Manuel this project is the construction of a second floor addition, refer to the sketch and photos, The home is a one story Cape, we propose to take the roof off and build the second floor, the wetlands are shown on the plot plan. The home is 55 ft. to the existing wetland, currently there is a Forsythia, 12 ft. high and 12 ft. wide at boundary. There is a stream that runs along heading toward Winthrop and Annisquam river, it dries up often and is not listed on the USGS map, known as an intermittent stream. The construction of a deck is also proposed, there will be 11 sona tube holes dug at ground level to support deck and stairway, this will occur within existing lawn area,

Mr. Schenk inquired about current roof runoff

Mr. Manuel stated that it runs off into lawn area, water table is high for lot so infiltration is not really an option.

Ms. Steele asked if the area of existing pavement would change on the lot.

Mr. Manuel answered that paved area would remain the same, the porch will lie in same footprint as existing porch.

Ms. Steele commented that thre are no dimensions on the plan to reference.

Mr. Manuel answered that the stairway is 4 ft. wide, the plan is a photo reduced plan.

Ms. Donelly asked is this just the layout for the second floor.

Mr. Manuel answered yes.

Ms. Donelly asked if this will change the home to a 2 family home, will the upstairs be used as an apartment.

Mr. Manuel answered it will stay a single family home.

Mr. Febiger asked if there were other issues. No response.

Ms. Ryder asked where building meterials would be stored.

Mr. Manuel answered in front of home and in the driveway.

Ms. Donelly asked where the dumpster would be located

Mr. Manuel answered in the same area

Ms. Ryder pointed out that photo #2 shows two debris piles in the wetland area between flags 1 & 2, and around flags 1 & 4, there must be no further dumping in the wetland, no dumping behind the Forsythia, or near the stream or BVW.

Mr. Febiger asked for a motion and asked if the hearing could close yet.

Ms. Ryder stated that a DEP number was needed.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to continue this hearing on 12/15/04 at 7:05 PM

SECOND: Ms. Steele seconded

VOTE: 5 – 1 IN FAVOR

B. Carrigan Enterprises to confirm the wetland delineation at 14 Tufts Ln. Map 115, Lot 30

Michael Seacamp, Michael Carrigan, and Michelle Harrington Attorney for applicant present.

Ms. Ryder stated that no site walk has been done yet, she would like to arrange a site walk, she requested several commissioners attend the site walk as the site is topographically difficult and several people reviewing the site is important.

Mr. Seacamp stated that he would like to meet with staff to identify issues and areas on site, prescreen the areas of interest, then the Commissioners can walk the areas in question. He noted that the site was 30 acres not 15.

Mr. Febiger asked if this falls under the state WPA or under the city of Gloucester Ordinance, is there isolated land subject to flooding.

Mr. Seacamp referred back to plan section A.

Ms. Ryder stated there are more wetlands shown on the site plan than are listed on city plans.

Mr. Febiger asked if areas A and B on plan were state jurisdiction.

Mr. Seacamp reponded probably, maybe, not sure

Mr. Febiger asked if I series and area E/D series jurisdictions were regulated under a bylaw or local ordinance.

Ms. Ryder stated that the M/O series and E/D are wetland areas regulated under both, there is an intermittent stream.

Mr. Seacamp stated that the area has been flagged by others.

Mr. Febiger asked why by others.

Mr. Seacamp answered by staff and others

Mr. Febiger asked if there were any further questions, opened matter for discussion, asked if anyone had anything to say on matter.

Mr. Dan Manor approached; he reported there had been a spotted turtle seen crossing the lot May of 2004.

Ms. Ryder asked that Mr. Manor submit a copy of the letter or observation form that he has submitted to NHESP.

Mr. Manor stated that he had also submitted the letter to Natural Heritage, the turtle was spotted at the end of Hutchings Ct.

Mr. Febiger asked if it was at the left side of the lot, referenced the plan.

Mr. Manor answered yes, there have been several reports of spotted turtles throughout area, requests that commission contact Natural Heritage Society to see if this is an actual wetland habitat of concern.

Ms. Ryder asked Mr. Seacamp if there has been any wildlife surveys.

Mr. Seacamp answered no, possibly in area A, but they have not consulted Natural Heritage as the site is not shown on the state map.

Ms. Ryder stated commission must know what is there, are there vernal pools, if so what lives there, request permission to look into issue, do a site visit in the spring to confirm.

Mr. Seacamp answered if the potential is there then yes, but they are not required to perform a wildlife evaluation on the entire site.

Ms. Ryder stated that the commission is not looking for a wildlife evaluation, just confirmation of the status of the shown potential vernal pools. She noted that if warranted, NHESP would be asked to conduct a review during any hearing for work proposal. She asked if wetlands off the site but within 100 feet had been delineated. No.

Linda Souvey and Noelle Mann abutters present to speak;

Ms. Mann stated that the site borders Langsford Pond, the boundaries of the pond have shifted since the beavers have arrived, they want that adjusted on the plan, want the plan to show current boundaries.

Mr. Seacamp stated that the area is delineated in a section where it comes within 100 ft., the entire pond is not delineated.

Mr. Febiger stated that this pond may continue to the right of O3, refrencing the plan.

Mr. Seacamp answered yes, and to the right of N series, bordering Langsford Pond, there is obvious beaver activity there, water levels may have risen.

Mr. Febiger stated that there is quite a distance from O3 to N1

Mr. Seacamp stated that they can delineate the edge of pond before a site visit, he would prefer that abutters not be present for site visit, he refers that decision to the land owner.

Ms. Souvey noted that there were streams in the area of the two vernal pools.

Linda French and Lester Chick abutters present

Ms. French asked permission to get flag M1 off site

Mr. Chick stated that he would like to be present for site visit, if anyone is allowed

Mr. Febiger stated that this will end public comment on issue, after discussion with the applicant and abutters, it was agreed that Mr. Chick would be acceptable as a representative for the abutters.

Ms. Ryder stated that she will need to do weekday site visits to start as the wetlands are so extensive, she asked that members coordinate a site visit.

Mr. Schenk and Ms. Steele agreed on 12/12/04 at 8:30 AM

Mr. Febiger agreed to this time.

Ms Ryder will schedule site visit time to get started on the site prior to that.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to continue hearing for 14 Tufts Ln. for the purpose of a site visit until 12/15/04 at 8:30 PM

SECOND: Ms. Steele seconded

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

C. Rowe Square Corporation to amend the Order of Conditions File #28-1170 for the project located at 6 Rowe Square Map 11, Lot 4

Mr. Bob Griffin present

Mr. Griffin stated he is here to amend the order of conditions to redevelop the site at Rowe Square, this is the site of the Casino Boat, at the existing building site there is a large retaining wall which creates an upper and lower area. The proposed project is to put a new bulding on top of the existing garage, the upper portion of parking area will eventually be made into a restaurant, this is not a lot different from the previous project, utilities will be extended as shown. There is no need to change the existing parking lot, the wetlands and coastal bank will not be impacted. There are fishing vessels when the Boat Casino is not in the docking area, the idea is to eventually host cruise vessels in the area, so far three trial cruises have docked there and all have returned positive feedback. The new plan is somewhat scaled down from last proposed plan, storm drains will be put in to help in removal of solids from area resulting from street sweepers, the project will not require reconstruction of lower parking lot.

Ms. Steele asked about the guardshack on site.

Mr. Griffin answered that the area will need customs officers and there will be a need to secure the land surrounding docking area so that people can not get around customs area if used for cruise boats.

Ms. Ryder asked where the fence will run

Mr. Griffin responded that there is currently no fence on the plan.

Ms. Steele asked if there would be work done on opposite side of fence.

Mr. Schenk asked if landscaping would be done.

Mr. Griffin answered some low planting, shrubs will be placed along Main St.

Mr. Febiger inquired about the Storm Ceptor entering into ship area

Mr. Griffin replied that there will be a steel sheet by the retaining wall

Ms. Steele asked why the choice of Storm Ceptor over Vortex

Mr. Griffin replied because of price, it is cheaper

Mr. Schenk asked how are substances like grease and and solvents from the restaurant going to be handled.

Mr. Griffin responded by use of a grease trap

Ms. Ryder requested that GCC receive AUL and LSP reports. She questioned if the erosion control defined the limits of work. Yes.

Mr. Griffin referenced the plan, stated that Storm Ceptor will be model 400 of 450 , they will replace catch basin 4 with the Storm Ceptor. The StormCeptor in the parking area collects ¾ of the parking area and discharges under the slips/wharf.

Mr. Febiger asked if there were other issues or question on project.

Ms. Ryder asked that site drainage be verified with engineering, a request has already been made to submit copies of the plan. The LSP should be on site during the project to supervise any excavation or soil disturbance, similar to the Maritime Heritage Center.

Mr. Febiger asked that they add a small Storm Ceptor on plan within the current storm drain on the access road in catch basin 4.

Mr. Febiger closed comment period

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to continue issue to 12/15/04 meeting at 9:00 PM for engineering review purposes.

SECOND: Ms. Donelly seconded

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

.

XI. CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE

A. Request for File #28-1312, 59 Coles Island Rd.

MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved to continue this item to 12/15/04 meeting as site visits were taken but not conclusive. N. Ryder will revisit.

SECOND: Mr. Schenk seconded

VOTE: IN FAVOR

B. Request for 43 Fort Square

MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved to continue this item to 12/15/04 meeting.

SECOND: Mr. Schenk seconded

VOTE: IN FAVOR

XII. OTHER COMMISSION BUSINESS

A. Election of new Chairman and Vice Chair for 2005

Mr. Febiger asked comission to nominate new chair to be addressed on next agenda, 12/15/04. Comission nominated Mr. Schenk to be Chairman, Ms. Steele to be Vice Chair.

MOTION: Mr. Schenk made a motion to accept board nomination and place this issue on next agenda.

SECOND: Ms. Steele seconded.

VOTE: 5 – 0 IN FAVOR

ADJOURNMENT: 11:23 PM

MOTION: Mr. Schenk moved to adjourn the meeting.