CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES

FINAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2005

GLOUCESTER HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE HALL

WILLIAM FEBIGER, CHAIRMAN

MEMBERS PRESENT

Ann Jo Jackson, Vice Chair

William Febiger

Richard Everett

Elizabeth Steele

Members Absent

Max Schenk, Chair

Arthur Socolow

Amy Donnelly

STAFF PRESENT

Nancy Ryder, Conservation Agent

Cindy Perry, Recording Clerk

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

January 5, 2005

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

A. CLOSURE: 8 Gee Avenue, 359 Concord, 101 Wingaersheek.

B. 9 Fenley Road

MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved to accept the Order of Conditions for 9 Fenley Road with the added conditions that the lower swale at the 46 foot contour extend south to the 44 foot contour as shown on plan, and that the TSS removal will be modified to achieve a minimum of 85% removal, or post construction monitoring to be conducted to demonstrate that there is not high sediment distribution to the wetland.

SECOND: Mr. Everett.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

IV. VIOLATIONS

Ms. Ryder stated that Engineering ~~did not receive a response to issues pertaining~~ responded to the Route 133 bridge near Walker Creek; the city has a bond ~~held out against~~ out on the Albanese project which will not be released until stream is cleaned up.

There is a list of other properties, which are in non-compliance in a database to track issues more efficiently and note when action needs to be taken. ~~note will automatically be sent out when issues related to enforcement can be tracked more efficiently.~~

V. CORRESPONDENCE/NEW COMMISSION BUSINESS

The Commission discussed a request from the engineering department for a valve replacement/repair project relating to the recent water main breaks on Western Ave. See Agents meeting notes for additional details.

MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved to issue an emergency permit for the installation of a valve at Western Avenue.

SECOND: Mr. Everett

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

V. REQUESTS FOR DETERMINATION

A. Robert and Margaret Crandall request the Commission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act and the local Wetlands Ordinance to remove fence and construct wall at 3 Aileen Terrace (Map 137, Lot 2).

Attorney John Cunningham, 59 Main Street , stated that the Crandalls wish to extend an existing stone wall where presently there is a wooden fence; Zoning Board of Appeals has approved construction of a wall on the property line and neighbors are in agreement; contractor says work would take three weeks and will involve an excavator to dig one bucket width trench for footing. He stated that it will be as deep as four feet except where they may hit ledge; twelve inch masonry blocks will be used; there will be no change to existing grade, no blasting, and he proposed a double staked haybale at edge of existing lawn.

Ms. Ryder asked how stockpiling will be handled.

Mr. Cunningham replied that the contractor stated he does not expect much stockpiling of material; what there is will be at a location already approved, outside of the buffer zone on the abutting property. He stated that it is relatively flat and a wall presents a barrier that material couldn’t get through to get to nearby quarry.

Ms. Ryder stated that the quarry needs to be shown on plan with erosion control. She noted the quarry is adjacent to the work and erosion control should be extended along the quarry.

Mr. Cunningham annotated Agents request on plan.

Ms. Ryder suggested erosion control along the wall for work, not stockpiling.

Ms. Steele asked if there will be grout or fill.

Mr. Cunningham replied that the blocks will be cemented together and a stucco finish will be put over it.

Ms. Steele asked what is distance from edge of concrete deck to water.

Mr. Cunningham replied about 15-18 feet.

Ms. Jackson suggested 72 hour notice prior to start of work.

Ms. Ryder suggested holding a conference with contractor just prior to start of work, shrubs to be replanted, and a one-year mortality check take place.

MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved for a negative determination subject to the following conditions:

1. Erosion control added between quarry and wall on north side.

2. Shrubs to be preserved with a one-year mortality check.

3. No blasting.

4. A conference take place between the contractor and the Agent 72 hours prior to start of work.

5. Stockpiling in location already approved.

6. Erosion control by shore to be ~~brought up further~~. Extended as annotated on the plan.

SECOND: Ms. Steele

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

B. Sam Park & Company, LLC request the Commission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act and the local Wetlands Ordinance to land behind Fuller School at Map 262, Lot 13 and to perform grading at that site.

(Two new submittals since original filing: supplemental information on non-jurisdictional areas 4 and 5, 1, 2, and 3).

Attorney Michelle Harrison, 63 Middle Street, representing Sam Park & Co., stated that the property is under agreement. She introduced Mr. Popeau of Sam Park & Co., Randy Burley of Apple Associates and her new associate, Peggy Ament. She stated that on December 21, the company filed a Request for Determination for five specific areas on plans presented and although there are larger wetlands on site, the applicant only wishes the Commission to look at five specific depressions; another plan was filed that highlighted these five areas, leaving out the large area of wetlands A and B. She stated that these significant wetlands will be of high quality when project is complete, but that at this time they are in a degraded condition. She requested that the Commission focus only on the five depressions along the edge of Route 128. She stated that this has been site of a comprehensive permit for Chapter 40B permit of residential housing, which was denied, Mr. Cahill appealed, it was allowed it to go forward, the city then appealed it and is now in superior court. Mr. Clark negotiated with Cahill to purchase property, these five areas need a determination of jurisdiction. She stated that will lead to working with the school department and the city to achieve better access to the property, and to work with state highway department to get access from site 128 to the site. She stated that they are in the feasibility portion of the project because if not jurisdictional, it can move forward. She stated that Mr. Clark has had meetings with the state and there is support for access onto 128, but before that can be pursued those five areas need to be reviewed; if that access can be obtained, then there will be no access through the dense neighborhoods in area; this project goes forward, it will not just be good for the Commission with protection of wetlands, but safer passage will be provided for the children going to Fuller School. Ms. Harrison then showed the Commission a conceptual plan of the proposal; she acknowledged that the wetlands on the site will be later reviewed under an ANRAD and Notice of Intent as the project goes forward. She stated that there are two buffer areas, which will stay in their natural vegetative state; the applicant is not asking for a determination on this conceptual plan, but has provided it so Commissioners can see what will be proposed for the property. She then introduced Randy Burley of Apple Associates to demonstrate to Commission why these are non-jurisdictional.

Randy Burley, Apple Associates, referred to an updated plan in which volume calculations have been provided on the determination of the first three areas; other areas being culverted so that volume calculations are not possible. He stated that he has a plan from Mass Highway showing catch basins and drainage system, but not these culverts.

Mr. Febiger asked if they calculated based on highest water level.

Mr. Burley replied that they used the flags surrounding the area; Area 2 came out to be 491 cubic feet;Area 3 to be 222 cubic feet. He added that Area 2 is the deepest, holding the most water; it is a disturbed site and that in calculations the volume of the boulders was not accounted for which would make it significantly less.

Ms. Steele asked for more information on culverted areas 4 and 5.

Mr. Burley stated that state plans show a drainage system in this area and believes that it is a ground water interceptor to take ground water into these man made depressions, which is why the calculations can’t be done and why we believe it’s not jurisdictional.

Ms. Steele asked if there wetlands on the other side of the culvert?

Ms. Ryder replied that city wetlands maps show that wetlands on the other side of 128.

Mr. Burley stated that the watershed district is shown clearly on the other side and any connectivity would be visible. He referenced plans with culverts.

Ms. Ryder stated that the revised plans were just submitted and that her only objection at this point is that the filings are being labeled as non-jurisdictional and agreed that the site is tremendously disturbed and littered with garbage, there is potential for improvement, but resource areas still need to be evaluated; the wetlands need to be clearly identified.

Ms. Jackson asked if one of the areas is a vernal pool.

Ms. Ryder replied that there is potential for habitat in these areas.

Mr. Everett asked if grading is included in this proposal.

Ms. Harrison replied that ultimately that will happen, but that at this point the Commission is being requested to address jurisdictional areas. She clarified that this is not the Cahill project and is to be reviewed separately; any determinations made will not be for Cahill.

Ms. Steele stated that she would like to see site.

Ms. Jackson suggested a third party review.

Mr. Febiger asked if there was an issue that one and two might be connected.

Ms. Ryder replied yes, but the larger issue is whether or not hydric soils exist.

Mr. Burley stated that regarding one and two being connected, the cart path comes between them and he has witnessed overflowing in this area, which comes down the cart path and down a hill. He stated that even if they were connected, the two volumes combined would not make them jurisdictional.

Mr. Febiger asked when hydric soils can be looked for.

Mr. Burley replied that hydrology, soils and vegetation will be tested.

Mr. Febiger stated his confusion with the flags and areas identified as smaller.

Mr. Burley replied that those are areas where there are ponded conditions and other areas are saturated, as the site has a lot of gravel.

Mr. Febiger asked if those are resource areas.

Mr. Burley stated they do not believe so, there is nothing in the guidelines or definitions that this falls under.

Ms. Ryder stated that she believes they may be isolated wetlands, which would be locally jurisdictional.

Ms. Jackson stated that more information is needed and suggested either a site visit or that the applicant hire third party review.

Ms. Harrison stated that given the amount of snow, it would be to the applicants advantage to hire a third party to do the analysis and that they are open to any recommendations the Commission has.

Ms. Jackson added that she would like to see the roads and paths mapped out for better orientation.

?? asked if habitat would also be evaluated

Ms. Ryder stated that habitat should be dealt with if it is determined that they are wetlands.

Ms. Harrison added that as this goes forward, habitat will be looked at under the NoI.

MOTION: Ms. Steele moved to continue Sam Park & Company, LLC request of the Commission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act and the local Wetlands Ordinance to land behind Fuller School at Map 262, Lot 13 and to perform grading at that site for purpose of a third party analysis and further information, to February 16 at 7:30 PM.

SECOND: Mr. Everett.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

C. Joseph and Kathleen Lumia request the Commission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act and the local Wetlands Ordinance to replace septic system at 5 St. Peters Lane (Map 174, Lot 31).

John Judd, Gateway Consultants, representing the Lumia’s, stated that this is an existing house on a quarter acre lot and applicant would like to replace septic system with a plan that has been approved by the Board of Health; soils testing has been done; design shows advanced treatment and leaching field; resource areas are delineated; the entire back yard is lawn. He stated that the existing system is proposed to be in same location, they propose staked erosion control. He stated that a sequence and narrative has been submitted, very little fill would be required bringing up the back yard by a foot at most.

Mr. Febiger asked if anything is to be removed.

Mr. Judd replied existing components only; the project is proposed with loam and seed to be established as soon as possible.

MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved to approve Joseph and Kathleen Lumia’s project and for a negative determination to replace septic system at 5 St. Peters Lane with the condition that the Board of Health approval information be submitted for the file, that it be loamed and seeded within 21 days of completion, resource area is not confirmed, and that agent be notified 72 hours prior to commencement of work.

SECOND: Mr. Everett.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

D. to replace septic system at 146 Magnolia Avenue (Map 198, Lot 17).

John Judd, Gateway Consultants, stated that this is a similar situation and design in terms of advanced treatment; wetlands extend onto this site, but there is an existing structure with a small lot; the plan has been approved by Board of Health; a raised system is proposed because the ground water is shallow to the surface necessitating a retaining wall.

Mr. Febiger asked what is the purpose of a retaining wall.

Mr. Judd replied there are limitations on lateral extent of fill, that earth has to be retained as necessitated by the installation of the leach field; top elevation is 103; ground elevation is about 99 , so there is a four foot wall.

Ms. Ryder added the site is surrounded by water.

Mr. Judd stated that finished grade will be slightly higher than front portion of house and there will be a slight dip.

Ms. Steele asked if this project includes relocation of driveway.

Mr. Judd replied that the gravel driveway is wider in area of leach field and would be relocated.

Ms. Steele asked if there are any details on this.

Mr. Judd replied that the drive is essentially a disturbed area as is, but that further details can be provided.

Ms. Steele requested further details on the water service and that the Agent review construction details prior to start of work.

MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved for a negative determination on the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act and the local Wetlands Ordinance to replace septic system at 146 Magnolia Avenue with the understanding that resource delineation is not confirmed, and subject to the following conditions:

1. There will be a pre-construction meeting on site.

2. Ay disturbed areas will be loamed and seeded within 21 days of any cessation of work.

3. Additional construction and water details to be provided to Agent prior to start of work.

SECOND: Ms. Steele.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

Michael Seacamp, of Seacamp Environmental, stated that wetland lines on the property at Tufts Lane, bordering vegetative wetlands and isolated vegetative wetlands have been presented to the Commission; several site walks to confirm lines have taken place, many insignificant changes have requested by the Commission, agreed to by applicant and incorporated into plan, language details have been amended upon the Commissions request, and applicant is looking for acceptance as presented.

Ms. Steele asked Ms. Ryder if there will be a problem voting due to attendance.

Ms. Ryder replied that if all data is covered again, all Commissioner’s present are brought up to speed, and there is no new information, it is ok to vote.

Mr. Seacamp stated that he believes an agreement has been made as to the boundaries of resource areas and that Mr. Carrigan agreed that in the event that any work is to be done within 100 feet of those areas, it would be re evaluated.

Ms. Ryder stated that all data has been presented and any action is at the discretion of the Commission. She stated her concern was the vernal pools, but that NHESP and Mass Audubon raised further issues.

Mr. Febiger stated that there appeared to be some flow along the steep slope.

Mr. Seacamp replied that the flow can be heard, but that it is difficult to discern a channel.

Mr. Febiger stated that if it is chanelized back to the east then it is a stream.

Mr. Seacamp stated that the line has been extended and acknowledged there is flow in that direction.

Ms. Ryder stated that she would like to see 20 scale plans as previously requested because topo lines are missing.

Ms. Jackson stated that it seems the Commissioners don’t have enough information regarding the types of resource areas on site.

Ms. Harrison suggested going over resource areas one by one, aiming towards a conclusion.

Mr. Seacamp stated that starting from the northwesterly side of property there is extensive BVW with intermittent stream; connected to upgradient resource making this channel jurisdictional; it connects to Langsford Pond rendering all this BVW. He stated that they’ve reviewed several of these areas more than once and do not see any disagreement as to that resource area.

Ms. Ryder replied no, that she agreed to the flags, but that at this scale she can’t confirm the movement of the flags and stated that for the final plan she would like to see it in 20 scale, but that she is not in disagreement.

Mr. Seacamp showed a small isolated vegetative wetland in the western area and stated that a potential vernal pool and the borders are clear; the by-law says vernal pools are those that are certified and none of these are certified.

Ms. Ryder referred to point one in her notes.

Mr. Seacamp replied that the by-law clearly states under what conditions vernal pools are to be identified and that the Wetland Protection Act does not protect vernal pools unless they are within a resource area.

Ms. Ryder suggested that this is a good project for third party review.

Ms. Harrison stated that applicant is showing a buffer zone for it and is willing to agree, even though a resource area delineation can’t be conditioned, that if he is to do any work within 100 feet of this possible vernal pool, he will have it evaluated, gaining some protection since it is acknowledge that they are resource areas. She stated however that it can’t be called a vernal pool because under the by laws, it has to be certified as such. She added that filing was in November and that the applicant requests of the Commission an Order of Resource area delineation.

Ms. Jackson stated that would postpone any work within 100 feet of that area.

Mr. Seacamp showed area of BVW at edge of standing water and isolated vegetative wetlands along drive in the I series wetland as delineated on map.

Ms. Jackson asked if there is any discussion on the I or double N series flagging.

Ms. Steele asked if the I series is one that would hold more storage than the flags would imply.

Mr. Seacamp replied that the water rate is beyond what it’s been in past twenty to thirty years.

Ms. Ryder stated that Langsford Pond does extend in close proximity to that vernal pool.

Mr. Seacamp showed the ED series of flags labeled as isolated and subject to flooding within the boundaries of the IVW based on soils and vegetation.

Mr. Febiger suggested applicant use the stream designation.

Mr. Seacamp acknowledged that there is flow in this wetland; this area looked like it had been excavated many years ago, possibly to drain when it was agricultural; a natural impoundment was relieved and flow in that area was seen and we agreed it flowed within forty feet of stone wall.

Mr. Febiger asked if it could be revised on plan to show it’s a stream as in M series and asked that stream be located.

Mr. Seacamp replied, correct and stated that there is an IVW and possible vernal pool, as well as an area subject to flooding which does not have characteristics of wetland other than the fact that it floods; soils have been looked at and not found to be hydric; it is an isolated area subject to flooding according to by-law.

Ms. Ryder stated that she noticed an overflow channel that goes nowhere and noted the resource should be rechecked in spring for vernal pool status.

Mr. Febiger stated that the water flows six feet and becomes an undefined channel.

Mr. Seacamp replied that there is BVW in the eastern corner of the property that goes off site, there is a stone wall and we agreed to move line up to stone wall pushing the buffer zone to edge of property - a bit beyond the actual wetland boundary.

Ms. Ryder stated that she will be able to confirm that on a twenty-scale plan.

Mr. Seacamp stated that there are two other potential vernal pools apparently used as tanning pits and they’ve been identified as IVW and potential vernal pools.

Ms. Jackson requested that Ms. Ryder delineate the areas on which she is in agreement with applicant.

Ms. Ryder replied that they are not in agreement on some of the possible vernal pool delineations. She added that based on a turtle siting, she feels applicant should submit a request for site review to NHESP, and stated that correct labeling of resource areas is important.

Mr. Seacamp stated that there is no delineation of a vernal pool unless it is within another resource area. He stated that the Commission’s by-law specifically states that vernal pools are to be identified in this process, the ANRAD process, if they are certified and these are not. He added that the applicant is willing to evaluate them if going to work within any buffer zone.

Ms. Ryder stated that she disagreed based on prior case law.

Mr. Seacamp agreed that would apply if the discussion was regarding endangered species.

Mr. Febiger stated he is not sure if applicant is concerned about expense or if applicant wants to avoid having that designation established and suggested that a middle ground would be that if construction isn’t proposed, why evaluate it, and added that if construction not proposed, why not be a permanent no disturb area.

Ms. Ryder stated that Dan Nein of NHESP, stated, that this is the time the Commission has to conduct a full evaluation.

Mr. Seacamp stated that this process is about the determination of the resource area.

Ms. Jackson replied that if applicant is asking for a delineation, we need to identify area.

Laura Evans, an abutter, asked if applicant went ahead and something happened, then would not members of the Commission be personally liable for any of that.

Ms. Ryder replied no.

Ms. Evans asked if it wouldn’t be irresponsible for the Commission to approve something not properly evaluated.

Mr. Seacamp replied that areas as potential vernal pools have been identified, and if any work is to be done in those areas, then they will be evaluated as to whether or not they are in fact vernal pools and they will be protected. He stated those areas do not need to be evaluated if they are not in jurisdiction and that at this point just the boundaries are being determined.

Ms. Evans asked who will make the determination of when it’s necessary to review.

Mr. Seacamp stated that the client is advised to have the evaluation done for sake of having knowledge, this may not ever be a project.

Ms. Jackson stated that the basic disagreement is that you refer to the delineation as resource boundaries and I feel it should be determined of resource areas.

Ms. Steele agreed with the Agent’s evaluation of the Wetlands Protection Act and suggested that the ANRAD was created to facilitate applicant and cover all of the act and that the Commission has complete jurisdiction as with any other filing. She stated that she would apply all of the Act to this ANRAD, meaning that she wants full jurisdiction and full delineation.

Mr. Everett stated that this is a major problem with lots of detail and stated that he is not sure “we’ve reached the end”.

Mr. Febiger supported Ms. Steele’s suggestion that the vernal pool status should be determined.

Ms. Ryder referred to the two letters from Rimmer Environmental and Mass Audubon.

Ms. Jackson stated that the Commission would like to wait and identify types of resources more clearly.

Mr. Seacamp asked if this could be narrowed down to minimum areas of disagreement.

Ms. Ryder stated that because of the complicated nature of project and based on recommendations from other agencies, third party review is appropriate, to take place in the spring. She added that her specific concern is vernal pools.

Mr. Seacamp stated that applicant would like to know what will be stated on our areas of disagreement.

Ms. Ryder suggested that the Commissioners go back through all notes in their files as it is premature to try to summarize several months of hearings into one quick decision.

Mr. Seacamp asked if there are any wetland boundaries in dispute as there have been several site walks and if third party review was to be expected, applicant would have done that in the beginning. He stated that it seems that only the status of the vernal pools are the areas of disagreement at this point.

Ms. Jackson suggested he refer to the notes.

Mr. Seacamp asked if the boundaries are correct.

Ms. Ryder suggested Mr. Seacamp refer to other experts who have provided information.

Mr. Febiger stated that he understands the vernal pool issue, but does not necessarily

agree with the Agent.

Ms. Steele asked about possible connection from FB series to N series and if there is an enlargement of that area in the spring.

Ms. Ryder replied that the B series shows sheet flow.

Ms. Steele stated that area B8 to B10 might be enlarged in spring.

Ms. Ryder agreed.

Ms. Steele stated that hydrology needs to be evaluated.

Mr. Seacamp stated that the mean high water was accommodated during delineation.

Ms. Ryder stated that if you are going to look at seasonal high water levels, it should be done in spring.

Mr. Seacamp replied that this has been delineated as vegetative wetland and that is what has been flagged; it is beyond where the standing water is at this time; that is the wetland resource area we have identified.

Mr. Febiger stated that he is not convinced that third party review of the flag locations is necessary.

Mr. Everett asked if there is a list of the difficult areas.

Ms. Jackson suggested listing the broad areas: the habitat issue; she suggested third party review to determine if this is habitat for endangered species, or have natural heritage review site, habitat and vernal pool on the c series.

Ms. Ryder suggested there has been lots of data submitted and Commissioners should review it. She stated that she does not have a strong feeling either way.

Mr. Everett asked if Ms. Ryder is suggesting the material be carefully read and that there be a third party evaluation of several items.

Mr. Seacamp stated that he would like to be sure what those items are.

Ms. Ryder stated, naming of resource areas in question, areas, which are called BVW, providing a 100-foot buffer, clarification of the C series vernal pools, and she added that she would also like to see a 20 scale plan to determine actual slopes.

Mr. Seacamp stated that it is regretful that this is being brought up three months after originally bringing this before the Commission.

Ms. Harrison stated that the applicant would like a vote.

MOTION: Mr. Everett moved to close the public hearing on Carrigan Enterprises to confirm the wetland delineation at 14 Tufts Lane (Map 115, Lot 30; Map 125, Lots 22 and 71).

SECOND: Mr. Febiger.

VOTE: 3-1-0; motion undetermined; legal clarification needed on quorum. Ms. Steele opposed.

Ms. Harrison stated that she believes a majority of quorum can close a public hearing.

Ms. Jackson stated it is her understanding that it is a majority of the members.

Mr. Febiger stated that on deliberation, it is unclear if all members are in support of re-visitation of vernal pool issue in spring.

Ms. Jackson stated that unless there is a unanimous vote, it is left hanging for a continuation until more members present. She stated that there could be a motion and the vote would decide the next step; either it resolves to move forward or is continued until there are enough members to vote.

MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved to approve the delineation on the ANRAD on plan dated January 31, 2005 subject to the condition that the stream would be delineated on D and E series, and the BVW delineation showing the ed series as BVW, and subject to the condition that the designation of resources identified as potential vernal pools would be verified in the vernal pool season; the status of the c series and the double n series would be verified during the highest water season (spring), and that the delineation would be finalized based on the above.

SECOND: Mr. Everett.

DISCUSSION:

Ms. Ryder stated that she is opposed to approval, the Commissions review has been limited and she believes that if approved the process is being short-circuited. She stated she is strongly opposed to this.

Mr. Seacamp stated that if you disagree with all wetland boundaries, we’re going to start over.

Ms. Steele stated she is opposed to phraseology of motion.

Ms. Ryder stated that the time to get data is during the hearing process, evidence should be submitted prior to a decision being made. She recommend denial based on lack of sufficient information.

VOTE: 1-3; motion defeated.

MOTION: Ms. Steele moved to continue to the next meeting for purposes of obtaining additional information, preparation of documents by Agent for consideration by Commission, and additional information from the City Solicitor.

Mr. Seacamp stated that applicant does not want to continue.

Ms. Steele asked if applicant wishes to withdraw.

Mr. Seacamp stated no, that applicant requests the Commission to make a decision.

MOTION: Ms. Jackson moved to deny the ANRAD for Carrigan Enterprises to confirm the wetland delineation at 14 Tufts Lane (Map 115, Lot 30; Map 125, Lots 22 and 71) for appropriate naming of resources and concerns raised in terms of habitat and vernal pool designation, c series and that the Commission requires a twenty scale map with accurate topography .

SECOND: Mr. Everett.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Febiger stated that since the applicant is not in favor of a continuation, it is not necessary to make a requirement of the twenty-scale map.

Ms. Ryder stated that there were several flags moved in the field and it can’t be determined whether those were measured out accurately; there is a question of confirming that the flags were moved as agreed to in field.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

B. Annisquam Boat Livery to repair existing deck on and over tidal flats at 25 and 27 River Road (Map 118, Lots 10 and 11).

Ms. Ryder stated that work as proposed will present minimal potential for impact. See additional agents notes.

MOTION: Ms. Steele moved to approve the project by Annisquam Boat Livery to repair existing deck on and over tidal flats at 25 and 27 River Road with the condition that scaffolding remain through tidal cycle and be secured.

SECOND: Mr. Febiger.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

C. Peter Fortune to construct addition at 24 River Road (Map 118, Lot 51).

Ms. Steele requested more information on landscaping.

Mr. Jonathan Poore stated that there is no new information on design; all hardscape areas would be prepared with a crushed stone base, so that it would function as an opportunity for infiltration and drainage; additionally all new hardscape will be native stone, boulder, no concrete, no mortar, all loose boulder so crushed stone substrate allows for a natural infiltration process.

See additional information in agents notes.

MOTION: Ms. Steele moved to approve the project by Peter Fortune to construct an addition at 24 River Road.

SECOND: Mr. Everett.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

VII. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Matheson Tri-Gas, discussion of the Order of Conditions permit requested to be continued to February 16, 2005 at 9:00 PM.

MOTION: Mr. Everett moved to continue discussion of the Order of Conditions permit to February 16, 2005 at 9:00 PM.

SECOND: Mr. Febiger.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

B. Chris McCarthy to construct 3 Single family homes at 187-191 Essex Ave.

Chris McCarthy, 90 Dennison Street, Gloucester, presented plan to build two houses within buffer zone; lower portion (Lepages redevelopment) known as west parcel;

Mr. Febiger asked if these are multi families.

Mr. McCarthy replied that they are single-family residences; there will be a deed restriction of no more than three units on the entire property.

Mr. Febiger suggested having garages in the buildings.

Mr. McCarthy replied that garages could be in the footprint.

Mr. Febiger stated that there are concerns about the amount of fill contemplated in the original Cahill proposal.

Mr. McCarthy stated that proposal came approximately 10 feet to BVW.

Mr. Febiger asked if there would be a way to reduce the depth of the fill if access could be from one end of the parking area rather than in the middle. Thinking of the design as done on barn lane and eastern avenue.

Mr. McCarthy replied that a contract on curb cut with state shows this location.

Mr. Febiger stated that it might be a better design environmentally to come in from one end.

Ms. Ryder there was a TAG meeting on this and Planning was opposed to that angle due to the location of the opposing roadway and for safety and access reasons.

Mr. McCarthy stated that they could try to minimize fill, perhaps pull the road further away from the BVW, but it’s been designed to meet the standards required by the Planning Board.

John Judd stated that the pump station access needs separation and that is the reason for the curb cut location; in terms of elevation there is a consistent grade at curb cut, slightly higher; there is a 5% leveling area coming into the site opposite Gibbs Hill.

Mr. McCarthy stated that there are three drainage pipes at this site coming off Essex Avenue, the Board of Health had concerns originally that we were moving closer to BVW, so we ended up putting a treatment device to take the runoff and treat it.

Mr. Judd stated that the three pipes currently collect rainfall runoff; he proposes, as recommended by Board of Health, to treat this runoff with a 1500 gallon oil and grit separator, have a rip rap dissipater, additional 100 feet of treatment before it gets in to the BVW; and also have that in two other locations. He added that there is also staked erosion control with permanent no disturb zone in perpetuity; other BMP’s are deep sump catch basins, all roof drains proposed to be connected into the system on site; not only treatment of off site runoff, but also for proposed impervious areas, most of which is outside buffer.

Ms. Jackson asked what are TSS removal rates.

Mr. Judd replied 80%.

Mr. Steele stated that this is a much larger project than previously proposed.

Ms. Ryder stated that 12 units previously were proposed, now three considerably smaller units are proposed.

Mr. McCarthy stated that the footprints are 30x60 and to get three lots he had to set up this configuration from a zoning standpoint without having to get variances.

Ms. Jackson asked if he is requesting the Commission to approve bldg envelopes.

Mr. McCarthy replied yes, two partially in the buffer, one outside.

Mr. Jackson stated that the Commission is in receipt of two letters from abutters, Grace Simpson and Louise Frontiero, including a petition.

Ms. Ryder stated that there was a construction schedule submitted and that she would like to see more specific detail related to the project sequence and details; from the back working forward including erosion control; this is a critical area and a good outline has been submitted, but needs to be more detailed. She added that Mr. Sanborn’s only issue was perimeter drains.

Ms. Jackson asked if the Commission needs a report from engineering.

Ms. Ryder stated that Dave Knowlton does have a copy, but that she has not received a report.

Mr. Judd asked if there were concerns on the structural aspects of wall.

Ms. Ryder replied yes, there is potential for high impact to the resource below, she is looking for engineering’s review and approval on the wall detail, otherwise all issues have been addressed.

Ms. Jackson opened the discussion to the public.

James Frontiero, 178 Essex Avenue, stated that his major concern is that the plan doesn’t seem to do enough to protect wetlands; two of the three proposed houses are on buffer zone; the retaining wall is 8-10 ft and all that parking area will have to be filled. He requested that the Commission not allow storm drains which bring runoff closer to wetland and not allow backfill needed for parking; he would like the Commission to address points made in a November report. He restated that he is requesting the Commission do all it can to protect pond, buffer and wildlife.

Mr. Jackson stated that the buffer is not designed to be devoid of construction, but to fall under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission for prior review and approval.

Mr. Frontiero stated that he and other petitioners are asking for as many restrictions as can possibly be provided.

Marietta Mafay stated that she is asking the Commission not to approve this project; the west parcel provides benefit of open space, keeping vegetation. She stated that in this neighborhood on the east there is a Cahill project with 118 units and on the west end there are up to seven lots available to be built on, which will abut the west parcel and the pond. She stated that this neighborhood is growing by the minute. She added that she believes this project will destroy vegetation and no matter what the applicant says, it will not be replaced; since we are losing vegetation, it’s important the parcels are maintained to help in averting pollution and carbon dioxide. She stated that these three houses will not be of any benefit to the city and that environmentally this project should not be approved.

Stevan Goldin, 22 Atlantic Street, stated that he thinks the Commission needs to look at the forest as well as the trees and address what our local ordinance says about cumulative impact, which ties into a state regulation under CMR 1007 stating that it has to be coordinated with MEPA. He stated that it needs to be addressed as the impact of three houses in connection with hundreds of houses in connection with the sewer; the sewer is changing West Gloucester environmentally; this project (Essex Sewer Connection) did not go through an environmental impact report and only when that report is done then these questions can be addressed. He requested the Commission demand mitigation for what is already going on and requested that this be continued so that the Agent can consider MEPA regulations and require environmental impact report.

Mr. McCarthy stated that he could provide more information on the retaining wall, a copy of the monitoring plan, any changes that would take place in pulling houses away from buffer.

Mr. Febiger asked if there is any way to consider a garage in the left hand dwelling.

Mr. McCarthy replied that it was being considered for all three.

Mr. Judd stated that Chief McKay wanted the area designated as common driveway not to be used for guest parking as he doesn’t want people parking where emergency vehicles might need to turn around.

Mr. Febiger stated that the plan shows parking for eight cars and asked if any of that could be reduced.

Mr. McCarthy stated that the parking area could be made completely pervious.

Mr. Judd stated that they could revisit some of these concerns and come back.

MOTION: Ms. Steele moved to continue the public hearing for purposes of obtaining additional information to March 2, 2005 at 8:00 PM.

SECOND: Mr. Everett.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

VIII. PUBLIC MEETINGS

A. John Buckner to construct addition at 84 Magnolia Avenue (Map 194, Lot 22).

John Buckner, presented a revised site plan and stated he is seeking to build a two story addition to his home; the project has been before ZBA and they have determined that the only direction he can go is towards an intermittent stream on his land; he is now before the Commission to find out what we can do to move forward.

Henry Barbaro, Wetlands Scientist, described the site and project stating that this is an addition to a single family home and the most notable feature is the intermittent stream running southerly; anything resembling a wetland is a strip 5 feet wide by 15 feet long and a patch of sensitive ferns closer to the house. He stated that he dug soil pits at the wettest spots and the area by stream did have mucky soils he called BVW, but the location of an isolated patch of showed no indicators of hydric soils; they are fill soils not supporting wetlands and are not considered hydric.

Ms. Ryder stated that a more detailed map should be submitted for all commissioners and suggested a continuation until Commissioners have had time to look at this.

Mr. Barbaro asked if what is shown is clear enough or if the Commission would prefer exact boundaries.

Ms. Ryder requested that the hearing be continued as this information presented had not been available prior to the start of the meeting. status.

Mr. Febiger asked if a drywell is proposed.

Mr. Buckner replied yes.

Ms. Ryder stated that the plan reviewed was not submitted as part of formal hearing and that only one copy was submitted. A formal filing needs to be made and a public hearing posted prior to any decision making.

MOTION: Ms. Steele moved to continue the meeting to the February 16, 2004 meeting as a hearing at 9:30 PM.

IX. NEW REQUESTS FOR DETERMINATION

A. Gloucester Little League for field lighting.

Mr. Marques stated that they propose to install seven light poles with electric trenches and chain link fence erosion control and restoration and mitigation with grass seed and mulching. He stated that they would like to begin while the ground is frozen to minimize rutting of the field.

Mr. Febiger asked if lights would only be on during events.

Mr. Marques replied yes, during baseball games; the season runs from late April to mid August; there is a 10:30 pm curfew on the lights. He stated that they intend to mulch with hay and as soon as weather permits; Wolf Hill will take care of mitigation with loam and seed.

Mr. Jackson asked if any consideration of alternatives was discussed.

Mr. Marques replied that there was a pole adjacent to river which needs to stay there for proper illumination to field; all of the poles are currently on the field on grass turf, they are on the inboard side of roadway separating it from tidal water and there is a 100 foot distance in the westerly direction to the tidal waters as well to the nearest pole. He added that the field is flat, they don’t expect any runoff and construction will take approximately one week.

Ms. Ryder asked if it will be one day cut and fill.

Mr. Marques replied yes per pole, a total of three days would be used to complete all hole foundations.

Ms. Jackson asked what types of lights these are and if they generate heat.

Mr. Marques replied that they are manufactured by Musco corp.; funding for this project is by donations; after reviewing the footprint it was determined that there will be only about 7 sq. ft. disturbance for all poles.

Ms. Ryder stated that the problem is that the foundation of poles is impervious and there are lots of alternatives for example shrubbery that provides shelter and food; based on the square footage of these foundations, applicant should consider 2:1 shrubbery to provide food for wildlife, or bank plantings for bank stability and water quality.

Ms. Steele suggested that perhaps the applicant can get people to donate shrubbery and stated that she prefers clumps of two or three bushes together.

Ms. Ryder noted that they should be as close to riverbank as possible. She further suggested the applicant go to the field to determine appropriate and useful placement of shrubbery.

MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved for a negative determination subject to the condition that landscaping planting be provided in consultation with agent.

SECOND: Ms. Steele.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

B. Russell Morris requests the Conservation Commission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act and the local Wetlands Ordinance to fill, grade, loam, seed and plant at 570 Essex Avenue (Map 236, Lot 107).

Peter Ross, representing Mr. Morris, stated that none of construction is within jurisdictional area, but applicant would like to grade, loam and seed area that is in the buffer zone.

Ms. Ryder stated that this site was heavily disturbed; the applicant proposes to restore damaged buffer zone; this project would be an improvement to previously impacted resource.

MOTION: Mr. Everett moved that the Wetlands Protection Act is applicable, but that there is no negative impact, subject to the condition that where material or fill has accumulated along the treed bank, it is be cleared and brought back to original condition and that final grade be approved on site by the agent.

SECOND: Mr. Everett.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

C. David and Morgan Pike to repair septic system at 614 Western Avenue.

David Pike stated that he is looking to upgrade sewerage disposal system as it is in need of replacement; it is within 100 ft of wetland; the location of the proposed system would maintain the driveway and not require cutting down any trees.

Ms. Ryder stated that typically she would like a prestart of work site visit; she does not see any problems with additional impact as this is a repair to meet Title 5. She requested that limits of disturbance be staked and that she be notified prior to start of work; stockpiling needs to be addressed.

MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved to approve the request by David and Morgan Pike to repair septic system at 614 Western Avenue with the condition that stockpiling is to be outside of buffer and evaluated on site, and that site is to be loamed and seeded or temporarily mulched after cessation of work.

SECOND: Ms. Steele.

VOTE: 4-0; motion carried.

D. Sharon and Joel Swan plans to construct an addition at 648 Essex Avenue (Map 238, Lot 4).

Joel Swan stated that he is requesting that a previous Order of Conditions be re-opened; there are no changes, essentially same plan; he would like to go forward with it. He requested that the fees calculated from worksheet be waived because they just want to re-open a file previously granted and also out of 8 conditions listed, none were noted as applicable on the previous consent.

Ms. Ryder stated that the applicant is refiling a formal re-application of original request; She stated that the project needs to be reviewed under current regulations. Keeping the same DEP number simplifies tracking. She stated that she needs to look at the site and resources when some of the snow has melted. At this point nothing is visible. Wetland maps show BVW and pond connected by streams and culvert.

Ms. Jackson asked if this should be continued.

MOTION: Ms. Steele moved to continue for purposes of a site visit by agent to the next meeting on February 16, 2004 at 9:30 PM.

SECOND: Mr. Everett

X. ADJOURNMENT.

Meeting adjourned 12:39 PM.