CITY OF GLOUCESTER

FINAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2004

GLOUCESTER HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE HALL

WILLIAM FEBIGER, CHAIRMAN

 

MEMBERS PRESENT

William Febiger, Chair

Ann Jo Jackson, Vice Chair

Amy Donnelley

Richard Everett

Max Schenk

Elizabeth Steele

Arthur Socolow

MEMBERS ABSENT

STAFF PRESENT

Nancy Ryder, Conservation Agent

Kelli Eckroth, Recording Clerk

 

I.          VOTE TO ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 2005

            Mr. Febiger: I open the meeting with nominations for Chair and Vice Chair, I invite nominations first for the position of Chair for 2005.

                        Ms. Steele: I nominate Max Schenk for Chair.

                        Mr. Everett: I second.

                        Mr. Febiger: Mr. Schenk are you willing to accept?

                        Mr. Schenk: I would be happy and proud to be Chair.

                        Mr. Febiger: I move to vote

                        VOTE:  7 – 0; All in favor

                       

                        Mr. Febiger: I now open for nominations for Vice Chair 2005.           

                        Mr. Schenk: I nominate Ann Jo Jackson

                        Mr. Socolow: I second.

                        Mr. Febiger: Are there any other questions, comments, or nominations? Ms. Jackson are you willing to accept?

                        Ms. Jackson: I would be happy to serve as Vice Chair.

                        Mr. Febiger: I move to vote for Ms. Jackson as Vice Chair.

                        VOTE:  7 – 0; All in favor

                       

II.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES

            The Commission approved the minutes of November 17, 2004 as amended, by unanimous vote.

            The Commission approved the minutes of December 1, 2004 as amended, by unanimous vote.

            Ms. Ryder submitted the agent’s notes for the December 15, 2004 meeting.

 

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

A.        Blatchford: 25 Riverview Road DEP File #28-1702           

                        Mr. Febiger: We will take a few minutes for the commission to review the bullets on this issue. The first of these bulleted items warrants discussion

                        Ms. Ryder: We received a memo from Fred Geisel asking that we continue this hearing for amendment; we can close with no action to amend.

                        Mr. Febiger: Is this issue subject to Rivers Protection Act standards?

                        Mr. Socolow: Has he amended it?

                        Ms. Ryder: They finally got the DEP number a year and a half later.  It was never reviewed under the Rivers Protection Act.

                        Mr. Socolow: The plan is to be amende.  We should take action to close the review of this and wait.  What more can we do on this tonight.

                        MOTION: Mr. Socolow: Move to close issue until formal amendment is received.

                        SECOND: Ms. Jackson: Second

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried

 

B.                 Rhonda Murray: 6 Stanwood Ave. Map 219, Lot 100

            Ms. Ryder: We reviewed this at the last meeting, it is a flat lot with a single-family home, all of the debris must be removed from behind the fence.

            Mr. Schenk: Did we receive a DEP number, are there any other issues regarding this?

            Ms. Ryder: All issues were addressed at last meeting.

            Mr. Febiger: Do we want to discuss the deck or are there other issues we want to discuss? If not then that concludes the discussion of this issue.

            MOTION: Mr. Schenk: Motion to approve project at 6 Stanwood Avenue, Map 219, Lot 100, plan dated November 12, 2004, noting all prior conditions.

            SECOND: Ms. Jackson: Second

            VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried

                                               

IV.       PUBLIC COMMENT

                        None.

 

V.        CORRESPONDENCE

                        Ms. Ryder: Read from the Correspondence section of Conservation Commission Agent Notes, dated December 15, 2004.

 

VI.       VIOLATIONS

A.                 Robert Beard: 104 Bass Avenue

                        Mr. Febiger: This issue is in regard to fill near the entrance of the Stop and Shop.

                        Ms. Ryder: It is in reference to a small pile of fill and debris that was located on top of the culvert outfall. When Stop and Shop reconstructed their road, they pulled the culvert back; there is no permit for that fill there. It is unknown what was once allowed by the DEP and what the full extent of the violation is. We are awaiting two missing pieces of information, a DEP site plan from 1969 and a second file, Determination of Applicability #5 for the City of Gloucester, this information is in either the City or the DEP archives, we need it to see what was permitted and what was not.

                        Mr. Febiger: There are also some more recent items to discuss, there was an enforcement order sent in 2000 by Thomas Keogh, and in July 2002 Enforcement Action from Greg Cadematori, there are some follow up responses by Mr. Beard who is present. Mr. Beard do you have any comments to start?

                        Mr. And Ms. Robert Beard of 104 Bass Ave. Present:

            Mr. Beard: I placed the fill there, probably in 1972, that was because it flooded out and I needed to put something there to slow it down.

                        Mr. Febiger: So you did some fill after 1969, you said in 1972?

                        Mr. Beard: I’ve put a lot of loam down there.

                        Mr. Febiger: And that is still there today?

                        Mr. Beard: Yes.

                        Mr. Febiger: So you understand that that is being addressed from the point of view that may not be consistent with the permit. Do you think it is consistent with a permit?

                        Mr. Beard: Sure, I went through a lot with the city government trying to get that thing filled in. They have given me a hard time ever since.

                        Ms. Ryder: You realize that permit in 1969 was valid for one year only? Anything since then is a violation, it is a salt marsh; there is salt marsh vegetation in there. It is a protected coastal resource.

                        Mr. Beard: Well, it wasn’t then.

                        Ms. Ryder: It was actually. For your reference, would you like copies of all the permits in reference? I’ll give you the sequence I have, in the minutes.

                        Ms. Beard: We originally went to fill in the whole area, but we could not afford to do that. So we went as far as we were able to. That was in 1969. The permit originally was to fill in the whole area.

                        Mr. Febiger: With what?

                        Ms. Beard: With clean fill, which is what was used there.

                        Mr. Febiger: Fill or loam?

                        Mr. Beard: Originally fill.

                        Mr. Febiger: When you say fill the area, you mean all the marsh on your property?

                        Ms. Beard: You are saying it is 104 Bass Ave.; it is actually 4 Thatcher Road, that lot is 4 Thatcher, the one from the road all the way up to where the road starts.

                        Mr. Febiger: The corner lot?

                        Ms. Beard: It is adjacent to the road entering the Stop and Shop, from Thatcher Road. It is that whole piece of property. It is shaped like a pie.

                        Mr. Febiger: I get the sense that there are two lots, one on Bass Avenue and one on Thatcher Road, right behind it.

                        Ms. Beard: The one on Bass Avenue is our home; this lot in question is behind it. We have probably been doing this because of flooding to our home and property; we’ve had some issues with the flood tides.

                        Ms. Ryder: You realize that this is a resource area. Just because the home is built on the front of the lot does not mean you can continuously fill the resource area on the rest of the lot. There are no permits out for 4 Thatcher Road, at any point in time for fills. If this is the case, then the entire back piece never had a permit. 104 is immediately adjacent to Bass Avenue, 104, 108, and 106 are the only site to have had permits.

                        Ms. Beard: We did have the permits for Thatcher Road. I think it’s listed as 104 because that is where we live, but the lot is a separate lot, it is actually Thatcher Road.

                        Ms. Ryder: The first issue here is the debris over the culvert pipe, that has to go. The pile of debris blocking the culvert has to be removed.

                        Ms. Beard: We have a lot of water now since they have re-done this road, over the last few days. It all comes back into the back lot.

                        Ms. Ryder: The salt marsh is restoring itself.

                        Mr. Febiger: Has there been an enforcement order saying that the debris needs removal?

                        Ms. Ryder: There were several. There was one letter sent December 9th, 2004.

                        Mr. Socolow: Is there a discrete and recognizable pile?

                        Ms. Ryder: Yes. This is a protected resource, a wetland and it is a tidal marsh. A limited amount of fill was permitted at one time, for one year. It has been before the commission at various points, over twenty years, because, except for 1969, none of the fill was legal.

                        Mr. Socolow: In terms of corrective action, do I understand that there is a recognizable pile that is agreed that it is the pile that should be removed?

                        Ms. Ryder: Yes.

                        Mr. Socolow: Is there any problem with removing that?

                        Ms. Beard: I don’t think so. It is not that big of a pile. The new culverts that the Stop and Shop put in with this road, are they relocated, are they higher or lower?

                        Ms. Ryder: It is in the same place, it has been shortened, and the end of the pipe is on Stop and Shop property. It has been shortened so it cannot be covered to block the flow, at the request of Wayne Lozzi of the DEP. It now ends on the Stop and Shop property. Your property is covered with a salt marsh grass that would not be there if it were not regularly inundated with salt water.

                        Mr. Febiger: So, there has been an order for Mr. Beard to remove the fill. Do you agree to remove the fill?

                        Mr. Beard: I agree to remove the fill. There are heavy rocks.

                        Mr. Febiger: We ask that the pile in question be removed to the extent that it can be done by hand and any heavy machinery to be used, be done from the road way, not bringing the machinery onto property, onto the salt marsh. It is up to you as the property owner to remove the pile.

                        Ms. Ryder: Also the back part of the property should not be mowed as it is a protected salt marsh area.

                        Ms. Steele: It is a government protected resource, protected by the laws of Massachusetts under the Wetlands Protection Act.

                        Ms. Beard: Well, tell us what to do and how to do it and we will do what we can to comply.

                        Ms. Ryder: I will send a follow up letter based on information discussed here at this meeting, informing of a time frame.

                        Mr. Socolow: What time frame should we issue, 30 or 60 days?

                        Mr. Febiger: I ask for a motion to confirm a 60-day time frame.

                        MOTION: Mr. Schenk: Motion to send a letter confirming the 60 day time frame for compliance with the request for removal.

                        SECOND: Ms. Jackson: Second.

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried

 

VII.     REQUESTS FOR DETERMINATION

A.     Cape Ann Sportsmen’s Club; 57 Cherry Street, Map 107A, Lot 1

            Mr. Febiger: The commission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection act and local Wetlands Ordinance to replace a porch. It there anyone here to speak on this?

            Steve McCarthy, General Contractor for project: There is currently a porch with a roof over it, Approximately six feet by ten feet, we would like to increase it to the length of half of the building, which is forty feet long. The porch is currently existing and the future porch would be over impervious surfaces, that’s the parking lot that is there now. All debris will be removed from the site.

            Mr. Febiger: What debris will there be?

            Mr. McCarthy: Just the debris from digging up to place the sona tubes. We are going to cut into the pavement.

            Mr. Febiger: What is the terrain and vegetation between the proposed work and the pond? It looks like woods, maybe some grasses. 

            Ms. Steele: What is the distance from the porch to the silt fence?

            Mr. McCarthy: Roughly twenty feet. We can do this any way that you request. The silt fence can be wherever you suggest.

            Ms. Ryder: The silt fence should be at the top of the bank.

            Mr. Febiger: Are there comments from the site visit.

            Ms. Ryder: The site had recently been paved; it was repaved as a maintenance project, not new construction. It appears that there was pre-existing pavement. Not adding any impact or new impervious surface.

            Mr. Febiger: Does the pavement extend more than fifty feet behind the building? To this extent is it outside of the buffer zone?

            Ms. Ryder: The majority of the pavement is outside the buffer to the pond, but there is a perennial stream on topographical maps that in the field does not exist. There is a clear gully, predating 1960. The stream flowed out of the pond.

            Mr. Schenk: Did we determine the distance on that stream?

            Ms. Ryder: The top of the bank was 100 feet from the pavement. It doesn’t really exist so I am not sure how to evaluate that; it clearly hasn’t existed for many years

            Mr. Febiger: Do the members of the commission have any concerns where they would want to have conditions to make a determination, or does this look all right?

            Mr. Schenk: As long as the pavement does not adversely effect the area.

            Ms. Ryder: It doesn’t appear to, there is a heavily vegetated bank, but no evidence of sedimentation or erosion.

            Mr. Febiger: Does the digging need to be done by hand?

            Ms. Ryder: Yes.

            Mr. Febiger: Any other issues or questions?

            Ms. Steele: Can we amend the plan to show the change in erosion control?

            Ms. Ryder: Yes, Mr. McCarthy will you address this change and sign off on it.

            MOTION: Mr. Socolow: Move to make a negative determination with conditions as stated

            SECOND: Ms. Jackson: Second.

            VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried

 

B. Anthony and Marcia Ciarametaro; 7 Atlantic Ave., Map 364, Lot 38

            Mr. Febiger: This is a request for the commission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection act and local Wetlands Ordinance to install a septic system at this property. Is there anyone here to speak on this issue?

            Mr. Randy Burly of Apple Associates: I will give you a brief overview on this issue. In 1998 a Title 5 Inspection was performed on the property finding the system in failure, the existing system is at the front of the house. We then proceeded to do soil testing on the property, we found inadequate soil for the septic system in the front, se we went to back of home to test and found good soil. There are no existing wells on the property; the home is on public water.  There is an unrecorded well on a neighboring property, the owners of the neighboring property have received an offer to tie into the water line but have chosen to remain on their well. This sent us back to redesign and do further soil testing in the front of the home. With the new design, we are looking to install an infiltrator system. In the installation process, there are wetlands across the street and a 200-foot onset to the coastal bank. From the coastal bank, back another 100 – 150 feet is the Jones River. Nancy suggested that if we had construction sequence, that maybe the commission would grant a negative determination.

            Ms. Ryder: I would recommend that the project be approved, but there are a few issues to discuss. It should be noted, there are two perennial streams, the Jones River and another perennial stream. This is an existing single family home and the system really needs to be installed either way. None of the delineations were confirmed as the septic system to be installed is as close to all of the outer buffer zones boundaries as it can be.  There are no other alternative locations on site; the system has been approved by BoH.  

            Mr. Febiger: So, it would be a negative determination, it wouldn’t say that the system is outside of all the buffer zones.

            Ms. Ryder: It would be a negative 3 if it won’t cause any impact or damage to resource areas.

            Ms. Steele: I’m not clear on the setbacks for a well, have the issues of the well been addressed and has this been approved by the Board of Health?

            Mr. Burley: Yes, they have signed off on it.

            Mr. Febiger: Are there further questions? Would this be covered with loam and seeded within 21 days, would the work be done during the winter?

            Mr. Burley: Yes, as weather permits.

            Ms. Ryder: noted a site plan with construction details was submitted to the commission with a 12/15/03 date.

            MOTION: Mr. Socolow: Motion to make a negative determination with details as noted based on the stated plan.    

            SECOND: Mr. Everett: Second.      

            VOTE:   7 – 0; motion carried

 

 

VIII.    CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

            A. Bernard Sova, 4 Stanwood Point Map 230, Lot 69

                        Mr. Febiger: Mr. Sova to reconstruct existing buildings, raise floors.

                        Michelle Harrison 63 Middle Street, Attorney for Mr. Sova: This is a continued public hearing for the original request to raise, lift up three existing buildings on the site. At the original hearing, the commission asked that Mr. Sova retain a structural engineer to look at the stability of the building, to see if they could withstand the proposed lifting and to look at the pilings on site and make sure that they would be adequate for what was proposed. All structural engineers contacted have requested that Mr. Sova do test borings before we can provide you with the information that is necessary. We are seeking some kind of letter permit, allowing Mr. Sova to do the two test borings that need to be done. Once the structural engineer gets the results of the test borings, and then we can give you the other information that you have requested. We are also going to provide a consolidated filing of all of the work that Mr. Sova needs to do that is already permitted under orders of condition, but has been completed. (Ms. Harrison submitted a sketch plan to the commission)

                        Mr. Sova: What we propose from the map, the three buildings in question, all we have to do is put two test boring holes in, on the inside of the “U”, nearest the end of the buildings. They propose to use a mini-excavator to get out there, it is a wide track, and contractor will lay down plywood to protect the marsh grasses. He will approach from the right, toward the building on the right, toward the center of the “U”. He proposes to turn an auger down to find out where refusal is. This is less invasive than driving pipe down into the ground.

                        Mr. Schenk: What is the size of the auger bit?

                        Mr. Sova: It varies, 14 to 18 inches.

                        Mr. Febiger: Does that lift the soil out?

                        Mr. Sova: It does not displace the soil. It would be done in one day; work would be done at low tide.

                        Mr. Febiger: Is it a track or wheeled vehicle? Would it go directly on the marsh?

                        Mr. Sova: It is tracked. Yes it would.

                        Mr. Socolow: So the only thing we are dealing with tonight, is whether to approve the test borings?

                        Mr. Sova: Correct.

                        Mr. Socolow: On the agenda, it says to reconstruct existing, residential building. Raise floors, etc.

                        Ms. Ryder: That is the original application; this work is needed to fulfill what was requested for the original application.

                        Mr. Febiger: Possibly an amendment.

                        Ms. Steele: I would like to see a written description of the work, which needs to be performed, time limits and protection measures.

                        Mr. Schenk: A narrative, I agree.

                        Ms. Harrison: We can prepare that. If we can obtain the permit, can we submit that to the agent so that we can contract through the company to do the work?

                        MOTION: Mr. Schenk: Motion to continue to the meeting on 01/19/05 at 8:00 PM for purposes of the auger test.        

                        SECOND: Mr. Socolow: Second.

                        VOTE: 7 – 0, motion carried

                        MOTION: Mr. Schenk: Motion to give letter of approval, upon conditions that a narrative of work to be performed is given to the agent, upon agent approval.   

                        SECOND: Ms. Steele: Second.

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried            

                        Ms. Ryder: Access on the high marsh will be limited to flat track vehicles, no wheels, over boards with a mini-excavator flat track vehicle. No soil displacement is to take place. Process is to take one day, and occur at low tide.

                        Mr. Febiger: This is to moved and seconded again with these conditions.

                        MOTION: Mr. Schenk: Moved.

                        SECOND: Mr. Everett: Second.

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried.

               

            B. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. Excavation and off-site disposal of impacted oil and sediment, followed by back fill and restoration of the wetlands and buffer zones at undeveloped lots; 63 Grove Street and 95 Maplewood Ave., Map 41, Lots 9 and 7

                        Ms. Ryder: This issue needs to be continued to a future meeting. The review of the draft OoC is in the applicants hands.  Based on mutual agreement, we are waiting for the applicants attorney to finish reviewing the document and call for an appointment with City Legal Department.

                        Mr. Febiger: There has been a request for continuance.

                        MOTION: Mr. Schenk: Motion to continue to the 01/19/05 meeting at 8:30 PM.

                        SECOND: Ms. Jackson: Second.     

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried

 

            C. Robert Zerbe to replace ramp and float at 633 Washington St., Map 113, Lot 30

                        Ms. Ryder: That will be held so that John Burlingham, the Assistant Shellfish constable could check the site. We have held this over three times for that reason. The float is already there; he is proposing to attach a ramp from hi existing deck. There are no pilings or piers. I recommend that the commission approve the project as presented with a slatted ramp, and the typical conditions that Stubby had used, with the approved signoff from the acting Shellfish Constable.

                        Mr. Febiger: Are there any question on this?

                        Ms. Steele: This is for the ramp and float?

                        Ms. Ryder: Yes, but the float already exists, the new float will be at the same site as the previous float and chained to the house.

                        Mr. Febiger: Would this be used year round?

                        Ms. Ryder: It could be removed in the winter, we could add conditions.

                        MOTION: Mr. Schenk: Motion to approve float with conditions; ramp be slatted, properly reviewed by a Shellfish Constable, and storage of float be on the upland side of property.

                        SECOND: Ms. Donnelly: Second.

                        VOTE: 6 – 0; motion carried. Ms. Steele abstained.     

 

            D. Myrtle Square LLC to construct two new buildings, parking, and drainage at 21 Myrtle Square, Map 24, Lot 57

                        Ms. Ryder: There has been a submittal by the city engineering department, a review of the stormwater aspect of the project and a third party review comments.

                        Mr. Mike Rademacher: The city has received comments showing that the project did not violate any of the NPDES permit requirements for the city stormwater system.                                          Mr. Febiger: Members of the commission will take time to read the letter.

            He questioned the MBTA review notes in the Myrtle Square review notes.

                        Ms. Ryder: The issue of the NPDES permit for Myrtle Square brought up the same concerns/issue with the MBTA train station parking area.   City Engineering had their third party review both sites at the same time.

                        Mr. Socolow: We have not yet previously approved any of these, including demolition, is that correct?

                        Mr. Rademacher: That is for a separate project, the MBTA project, the demolition.

                        Ms. Ryder: Engineering did a review of the MBTA stormwater management on their own.      

                        Mr. Febiger: One of the issues that the city looked at was if the NPDES permit would be effected?     

                        Ms. Ryder: Correct. I understand that it includes water quality parameters, but the only thing engineering asked for from Metcalf and Eddy was the hydrology study. They felt that the stormwater filtration system was adequate to filter the water prior to entering the system.                                Mr. Febiger: A portion of the runoff would be contained in the subsurface pond system. Is that the system that included the infiltration?

                        Mr. Rademacher: The system is not showing here, but it is between the existing warehouse building and the railroad tracks. The stormcepter units are units that will collect the stormwater from runoff from the roadway, the subsurface pond is a means to store the storm water on site and release it slowly. Infiltration is included, none of the water associated with infiltration would find its way directly into the storm water system.

                        Ms. Jackson: Where is the parking area drain? 

                        Mr. Rademacher: The parking area will drain to the stormceptor.

                        Mr. Febiger: What is the DEP comment about the infiltration system, into previous fill?

                        Mr. Rademacher: Fill material could be brought on site and placed around the infiltration and the DEP concern was that this fill material was not clean, that we would be infiltrating water through a potentially hazardous soil. It didn’t concern any existing fill, only new fill.

                        Ms. Ryder: That was requested in writing from Jill, she did send an e-mail saying the design of the infiltration system should be fine.

                        Ms. Steele: There was a question on change of use, potentially used as a drive through.

                        Mr. Rademacher: There was a drive through proposed, we would have to go seek out more special permits if that were to actually happen. We are not sure if there will be a drive through yet. If we do decide to, we will have to go before the planning board and city council. If any of the impervious areas were changed, we would have to come back to you.

                        Mr. Febiger: Do we want to take time to draft an Order of Conditions?

                        Ms. Ryder: I did at the request of the Commission at the last meeting, if engineering got their information in, we would get the draft OoC to start review.

                        Ms. Steele: Does it include the BMPs we received on November 17th and November 29th?

                        Ms. Ryder: Yes, the draft order of conditions includes all of the documentation as part of the record.

                        Mr. Febiger: Is applicant under time constraints?

                        Mr. Rademacher: What type of time constraints? We would like to get this going on a short of time delay as possible.

                        Ms. Jackson: We would need to fill in the end of condition #70, stating that the residential parking area along Myrtle Square shall be conducted prior to the next date, and we also need to decide whether or not the change in salt use and associated impact with vehicle usage concern to us.

                        Ms. Ryder: I believe it is in the BMPs, number 22, no pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, chemicals, vehicular fluids may be used within 100-foot buffer zone of any, etc., and we can add salt to that.

                        Mr. Febiger: Is sweeping any concern?

                        Ms. Ryder: Sweeping is part of the BMPs. BMPs are part of the permit.

                        Mr. Schenk: Paving should be conducted prior to when?

                        Mr. Rademacher: Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance and Certificate of Occupancy. We do need to get the project going, we will probably start construction prior to the complete approval for the shopping center permit.

                        Ms. Ryder: I believe removal of debris in the wetlands and paving near Myrtle Square are part of the remediation that offset the tremendous buildout on the “drive-through” portion of the property. I think that is what creates the positive environmental balance.  Any area of wetlands replication or restoration always comes first. There should be a specific deadline, I would recommend by the middle of next year, so the project is on-going.

Ms. Steele: Is June 30, 2005 sufficient time?

Ms. Ryder: I will add that date to conditions #64 and #70.

MOTION: Ms. Steele: Motion to approve the project at 21 Myrtle Square, with the plan date November 29, 2004, and the BMPs dated November 17, 2004, and the order of conditions as proposed.

SECOND: Mr. Schenk: Second

VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried  

           

IX.       CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

            A. Arunas Martinonis to amend the Order of Conditions #28-1149, 77 Eastern Point Blvd. Map 136, Lot 9

                        Mr. Febiger: The applicant is not here, is there any information to discuss on this project.

                        Ms. Ryder: The continuation is for submittal of  revised plans for the seawall.

                        MOTION: Mr. Schenk: Motion to continue hearing until the 01/05/05 meeting at 8:30 PM.

                        SECOND: Ms. Steele: Second.

                        VOTE: 5 – 0; motion carried. Mr. Socolow and Ms. Donnelly not present for vote.

 

            B. Manny Silva to amend the Order of Conditions #28-1603, 9 Fenley Rd., Map 242, Lot 29

                        Mr. Randy Burly: We submitted the drainage calculations last week, the engineer report was supposed to be delivered today.

                        Ms. Ryder: This was not received.

                        Mr. Burly: We request that this hearing be continued.

                        MOTION: Ms. Jackson: Motion to continue hearing until the 01/05/05 meeting at 8:00 PM for the purpose of receiving the engineer’s report.

                        SECOND: Mr. Socolow: Second.

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried. 

 

            C. Matthew and Nancy Parisi, Extension request, Lot 28 Squam Lane, File#28-1097.

                        Mr. Febiger: Is there anyone here to speak on this issue?

                        Ms. Ryder: (Read aloud from Agent Notes dated 12/15/04, Continued Public Hearings 8:30) I recommend further details be submitted before an extension is granted. The original permit is 6 years old.  Details should be confirmed.

                        Mr. Socolow: I recommend that certain, specific information be obtained, and should have been obtained, before an extension can be provided.

                        Ms. Ryder: This was a timely request; it is adjacent to an area that was purchased by Gloucester as a Recreation and Conservation area.

                        Mr. Febiger: The Conservation Commission approved a plan for this originally, but abutters opposed it.

                        Ms. Steele: I would like to see a new filing on this?

                        Ms. Jackson: I agree, a new filing would be preferable.

                        Ms. Ryder: The Commission could deny an extension; the applicant would then need to re-apply.  They could accomplish this by confirming the details of the project and resubmitting the application as an amendment.  Over the course of six years, a lot of information may have changed; it would require wetland delineation confirmation.

                        Ms. Schenk: That sound acceptable.

                        MOTION: Mr. Schenk: Motion to continue until 01/05/05 and have a letter sent considering refiling and the possibility of denying the extension.

                        SECOND: Mr. Everett: Second

                        VOTE: 6 – 1; motion carried. Mr. Socolow opposed.

 

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

                        Ms. Ryder: I spoke with Kathryn Glen with the CZM;  She confirmed Bill. Febigers concern regarding subsand impacts.  They oppose any sub-sand construction, as it will allow for only surface sand migrations but will impact actual dune migration. I expect to hear back from her in writing, but have not yet.

                        Ms. Donnelly: Is the slab that is being replaced a crawl space or an actual foundation.

                        Ms. Ryder: It is a foundation.

                        Mr. Joe Russo of 99 Wingaersheek Rd., Abutter: I co-own lot 101A and have the right of way over this lot. There is a 75-year family history on these lots. There has been no recent sand migration on this lot or on my lot. There is a high potential for flooding; there has been a real presence of surface water over the last week. Abutting homes had water in the cellars. Ten years ago the Planning Board agreed that there was no sand migration on these lots.

                        Mr. Febiger: This area is near a barrier beach, can we consider this?

                        Ms. Ryder: Regulations are changing. There are multiple overlapping resource areas on site.  Bill Manuel requested a continuation.   We also need to do a site visit.

                        MOTION: Mr. Socolow: Motion to continue for purpose of site visit with CZM, Agent, and commission members until 01/05/05 at 8:30 PM.

                        SECOND: Mr. Schenk: Second.

                        VOTE: 7 – 0, motion carried

 

                        Commission adjourned for a five minute recess at 9:11 PM. Reconvened at 9:16 PM.

 

X.        CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

            A. Carrigan Enterprises to confirm wetland delineation at 14 Tufts Lane, Map 115, Lot 30 and Map 125, Lots 22 and 71

                        Mr. Michael Seacamp, Mr. Carrigan, and Ms. Michelle Harrison present.

                        Mr. Seacamp: A site visit was conducted on this property and we went over the site, flag by flag. The resource areas are printed on the plan, a complete plan will be done when all wetland areas are reviewed. The site walk took place on Sunday, December 12, 2004. Off Hutchings Court, there is an intermittent stream, surrounded by vegetation, down to a steep slope leading to Langsford Pond. We made adjustments to plan to show border, Flag M4 was eliminated. We added M1A between M1 and M3. M2 was eliminated. Added O14A, eliminated O14, added O11A. We added wetland flags along Langsford Pond, it is at a historic high now, beavers have impounded the water, the beech trees are under water. There is isolated wetland along the driveway. We did not connect I19 and I19f, we added I20A.

                        Ms. Ryder: Detailed site visit notes will be available with the revised plan for the next meeting.  The site visit took place on Tuesday 12/7, Friday 12/10 and Sunday 12/12.  What I would like to impress on the commission is that for the Series A and B, we were out there on Friday when it rained.  We went out again on Sunday and the water level had risen a foot higher, in those two series. A foot difference in two days is a tremendous amount of water storage and indicates the possibility of poor absorption/infiltration. We did four soil samples from the flags A1 – A 2 to the property line; one came up borderline hydric in the  2 – 3 range, we did one that was determined to be upland and two that you could not determine due to rock and stone. You couldn’t determine if it was hydric of not. The soils are not clearly indicating wetland/hydric, but there is a great deal of water being held there and visual surface flow when it rains. The flag numbers still need to be added on to the plan. The wetland channel moving outward, looks like an old cart path ran through there.

                        Mr. Seacamp: Portions of it are sheet flow.

There is a large, isolated wetland that lies behind the garage area. The E and D wetlands had been attempted to be drained at one time. There is a lot of greenbriar below E1 and D26, it spreads out in several directions.

                        Ms. Ryder: It is 40 feet from the wall; there is a hydrologic connection down the steep slope from the stonewall. On Friday the waterflow could not be observed below the briar, on Sunday you could see water flowing to within 30 feet of the stone wall above Langsford Pond..

                        Mr. Seacamp: I do recall discussion of that.

                        Ms. Ryder: It is 15 feet wide, shallow water, down to 30 feet from the stone wall; it all meets together as flow into the pond below the stone wall.

The Series P, Q, M, and O. - The entire P and M side of the wetland is the slope of a large ledge outcrop. There are a tremendous number of boulders. I believe the stream is likely a perennial stream due to the quantity and amount of flow and the scouring/channelization.   However, the burden of proof is on the commission as the stream is not even shown on the USGS topographic maps. 

            Mr. Seacamp: I disagree, I believe this area is an intermittent stream. Noelle stated that she has seen the pond completely dry. They can’t do stream stats for it on the USGS. This would have to be delineated manually. This watershed in my estimation would be less than a quarter of an acre, and it would have to be at least an acre with a significant amount of stratified drip. Sorry, I mean square-mile, not acre.

                        Ms. Ryder: From M21 to M4 down low to Langsford Pond, it is worth the time to walk the wetland area. The rocky outcrop to the north side of that wetland and the slope are indicators there is very little that can be done in that area that would not create an adverse impact to this resource area. To the right of the stream, the rest of the BVW covers  a great deal of what would have been the buffer zone. When you get to the southern side, you have a tremendous amount of hummocks and hollows, boulder fields. Difficult area to delineate. We are going out Tuesday afternoon at 8 and Wednesday at noon. This is a small wetland area, but it has amazing hydrology, it is difficult to explain.  The flags on the P, Q, M, and O series are very conservative, the delineation is right on the line. 

The unnumbered section is at a higher level, probably 3 – 4 feet higher. It is one connected resource area with two different elevations.  The flagging is very conservative in favor of the wetland.  On two sections we pushed flags toward the wetland ranging from several inches to a foot.

                        Mr. Febiger: Is this likely to finalize by January 5th, 2005?

                        Ms. Ryder: That is what the applicant would like to see happen.

                        Mr. Schenk: Do we have a set of plans for the walk?

                        Mr. Seacamp: Yes, there will be at the site visit.

                        Ms. Ryder: With the C, B and A series flags, there is no way to identify if they are vernal pools. We will have to re-review it in the spring if there is question.               MOTION: Mr. Socolow: Move to continue for the purpose of a site visit to continue the review of the delineation.

                        SECOND: Mr. Schenk: Second

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried.

                                   

            B. Rowe Square Corporation to amend Order of Conditions file # 28-1170, 6 Rowe Square, Map 11, Lot 4

                        Mr. Bob Griffin: This is a modification of a previously issued order, for a revised building footprint in the middle of the site.

                        Ms. Ryder: For the record, a revised plan was submitted to the commission dated 12/06/04. Plan C1.

                        Mr. Griffin: During the presentation at the last meeting, there were two outstanding issues. One of them was that we had not heard from the city engineering department regarding the site plan. Second you had asked for an update regarding 21E actions that had been ongoing at this site. We were here previously, requesting permission to install borings and do clean up work. I pointed out that the 21 E actions were independent of Griffin Engineering, it was the responsibility of Gortons and Unilever, but we were able to get some information to update the commission regarding that. The 21 E status, an RAL response action statement was filed in May of 2004, it closed the MCP process and represents the LSP's opinion that there is no further significant risk at the site, and in his opinion no need for any activity or use limitations for them to issue that RAL. So the 21 E status is actually done, they believe that they have removed contamination at the site, sufficient so there is no significant risk. I think this considers the fact there there will be no agricultural uses at the site and there will be no daycare type facilities at the site. Consistent with the proposed uses, they believe there is no need for further clean up action.

                        Ms. Ryder: Do you have that in writing?

                        Mr. Griffin: I don’t have it in writing, but what I can refer you to is that the RAL has been filed with the DEP, it is in the DEP database. We confirmed that it is there. In regard to the engineering department’s review, Mr. Hale called me a few days ago and said he was fine with the plan, as revised. I will point out that the revision that was made was in response to one of the commission’s requests at the last meeting; We had shown a catch basin right at this location, you requested that we change that to a stormceptor, so that has been indicated in the 12/06/04 version of the plan. I think we have incorporated all of the city’s comments, the engineering department is satisfied. The engineering department had an opportunity to review the plan a couple of months ago when we took it to city council, that was received in September as well as recently.

                        Ms. Ryder: I received an e-mail from the DEP today saying that they were not allowing 450 I units to be installed in catch basins, it noted that it should be a full size stormceptor unit.

                        Mr. Febiger: Does that mean a 900.

                        Mr. Griffin: I believe that is the next size up. I didn’t get the e-mail and hadn’t heard that from Michael Hale, so I apologize for not being better prepared on that point.

                        Ms. Ryder: If that is one of few issues, that can be conditioned.

                        Mr. Febiger: Are there space considerations?

                        Mr. Griffin: It is such a small area, but that is fine, if it needs to be a 900, that is fine.

                        Ms. Ryder: Mike Hale said he was concerned with the lack of an Operation and Maintenance plan;  there is one in the file included with the original notice of intent, pages F7 and F8. It is a two-page item calling for weekly controlling of litter, sand from ice should be removed, catch basin maintenance, tank inspection.  This O&M plan would still apply to the amendment.

                        Mr. Griffin: There are some forms in there, but they don’t require reporting to the commission, but we can make that a condition.

                        Ms. Ryder: That should be a condition, there are quarterly inspections so there can be quarterly reports.

                        Mr. Griffin: Quarterly inspections for the first year, then frequency is adjusted based on how quickly things are filling up.

                        Ms. Ryder: It says they can be reduced, that would have to be approved by the commission. I would suggest we would want to see the first two years results as a baseline.

                        Mr. Febiger: Is there any public comment to me made on this item? I then close the comment period.

                        MOTION: Mr. Socolow: Move to accept the amendment to the order of conditions with the change annotated on the plan and with the condition of receipt of quarterly reports on maintenance.

                        SECOND: Mr. Schenk: Second.

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried. 

                                 

XI.       NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS

            A. William Pinksten to reestablish hydraulic conductivity through property and revegetate stream bank 359 Concord St., Map 239, Lot 35

                        Ms. Ryder: I received a call on this at 4:05 PM today, they did not notify abutters of the hearing.

                        Mr. Febiger: There is no wetland here.

                        Ms. Ryder: No, it was primarily a vegetated area.   It is proposed to be restored as  a stream.  Details of the review are in the notes submitted.

                        Ms. Steele: Do you think this is the best solution?

                        Ms. Ryder: I want the commission to look over the plan and give opinions on revegetation of the area.  The resource area is being changed.

                        Mr. Socolow: Is he aware that he can’t do anything until we review this.

                        Ms. Ryder: The septic system has already been installed, it was an emergency replacement.

                        Ms. Steele: I would like more narration of what is to be done. I need more information. We need to require them to give more information.

                        MOTION: Mr. Socolow: Motion to continue until 01/05/05 at 9:00 PM.

                        SECOND: Mr. Schenk: Second.

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried

 

XII.     CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE AND EXTENSION PERMITS

A.     Certificate of Compliance request for file #28-1312, 59 Coles Island Rd.

            Ms. Ryder: I conducted a site visit on 12/15/04, the site looks as it is shown on the plan. I could not confirm specific vegetation species at site due to the time and year. I noticed that the wetland delineation looked like it was about 70 feet, it is noted as 100 feet, I suspect that this is information missing from the original plan. I am not sure if the water levels have changed or if the wetland line was just stopped on the plan. The delineation is no longer valid as it has been more that three years, but the project is complete and the site stable.

            Mr. Schenk: Do they need to come before us to re-delineate?

            Ms. Ryder: I don’t think so, no new work is proposed.

            Mr. Febiger: Are we comfortable then with issuing this certificate?

            Ms. Ryder: The vegetation seemed well established and the area is well cared for.

            MOTION: Ms. Steele: Motion to issue Certificate of Compliance

            SECOND: Mr. Schenk: Second.

            VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried

B.     Extension request for file # 28-1431, 48 Whittemore Street

                        Ms. Ryder: Most of the current project is not completed. He wants to crush and spread granite boulders on site. The debris will be removed from the bank, the bank is currently eroding.   He would like to finish the retaining wall.

                        Mr. Febiger: The project is not moving forward?

                        Ms. Ryder: They originally wanted to draw water for cooling.  That part of the project was never started. The area is highly disturbed and should be stabilized.

                        Mr. Socolow: Was this request granted?

                        Ms. Ryder: Yes, to put in the retaining wall to stabilize the old site.

                        Mr. Febiger: So the plan is to go ahead with the retaining wall?

                        Ms. Ryder: I recommend a site visit by at least some of the Commission. It is easy to drive around to the back of lot and look at the site.

                        Mr. Febiger: Should this be a formal site visit?

                        Ms. Ryder: This can be done on an individual basis.

                        Mr. Febiger: Can we find our way around, what we are looking for, without plans? 

                        Ms. Ryder: I have two sets of plans for review, there are no details on the wall. This is something you will want to ask for. The site is highly disturbed.

                        Ms. Steele: Is there a possibility of contamination?

                        Ms. Ryder: There is really no vegetation on site and no ongoing work.  There is a large amount of asphalt and debris down the bank already.

                        MOTION: Mr. Schenk: Motion to continue Extension Request to the 01/05/05 meeting, pending a site visit.

                        SECOND: Ms. Steele: Second.

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried

 

            C. Certificate of Compliance request for file #28-1096, #6 Squam Lane

                        Ms. Ryder: There are no issues to discuss on this, this needs to be filed and issued by the DEP as it is their jurisdiction due to the SoC.  DEP can they remand it back to GCC if they wish..

                        Mr. Socolow: We will then send it to DEP.

                        MOTION: Ms. Jackson: So moved.

                        SECOND: Mr. Schenk: Second.

                        VOTE: 7 – 0; motion carried

           

ADJOURNMENT:  10:38 PM.

MOTION:       Mr. Schenk moved to adjourn the meeting.