CITY OF GLOUCESTER
FINAL CONSERVATION
COMMISSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2005
GLOUCESTER HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE HALL, 2nd
Floor
MAX SCHENK, CHAIRMAN
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT Max Schenk, Chair Ann Jo Jackson, Vice Chair William Febiger Amy Donnelley Richard Everett Elizabeth Steele |
MEMBERS ABSENT Arthur Socolow |
STAFF
PRESENT Nancy Ryder, Conservation Agent Kelli Eckroth, Recording Clerk |
I. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
A.
MOTION: Ms. Jackson moved to accept minutes if
December 15, 2004 as amended.
SECOND: Mr. Febiger seconded motion.
VOTE:
6 – 0, motion carried
Ms. Ryder submitted
the agents meeting notes to the Commission
II. SIGNING OF APPROVED
PERMITS None
III. PUBLIC
COMMENT
Susanna
Altenburger 66 Atlantic Street: Submitted letter to Commission; Referring to the 46 Atlantic
Street exercise, we have a few issues to ask you and would like a written
response from the commission. From our understanding, it is not a common
practice in the state of Massachusetts for a city attorney to take an active
role against appeals from Massachusetts citizen groups pending before the
Department of Environmental Protection. This is in reference to Linda Lowe’s
intervention of #12-1804 against our citizen group, in support of the
developers position. The question we have for you is did the Gloucester
Conservation Commission request that Linda Lowe get involved with the appeals
process by filing a motion to dismiss the matter of DEP file #28-1653; If so,
what would make this particular case different from past practices. Also,
should the city’s attorney use public assets in the intervention against
citizen group appeals, especially when supporting a developers position. We do
request a written response to our letter.
Mr. Febiger stated that L.
Lowe is the Commission’s legal counsel, as such she would represent the
commission at any appeal hearings.
Mr. Schenk thanked Ms.
Altenburger for her letter and noted the Commission would discuss it at a
future meeting.
Alisha
Padre 38 Cherry Street: Were the minutes approved tonight from December 15, 2004?
Ms.
Ryder: Yes
Ms.
Padre: The date was not mentioned so I wanted to clarify that. In the paper
it stated that Myrtle Square was granted a permits on December 22, 2004 and
that happened to be a Wednesday, was that just the writing of the permit, or
was there a meeting that day?
Ms.
Ryder: No that was the date it went out from the office.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE
Ms.
Ryder referred
commission to agent notes to read notes on recent correspondence.
V. VIOLATIONS No violations need
discussion at public meeting at this time.
VI. REQUESTS
FOR DETERMINATION
A.
Bruce Amero requests the commission to determine the applicability of the
Wetlands Protection Act and local Wetlands Ordinance to construct an addition
at 19 Holly St., Map 123, Lot 51
Bruce
Amero: (narration provided to commission) This project is to add 9x12 addition to an
addition built 1990. It will extend out 9 ft in that room, put a second
bathroom in the house. I will extend footings, cement will be just one pour, no
new footings, continue out. A permit was granted in 1990, I was not aware that
this needed to come before the Conservation Commission. I have tried to provide
distances as best I could on the on narration of the project.
Mr. Febiger: The approval in 1990 was from the
Conservation Commission?
Mr. Amero: It was checked off, it did not
actually go before the commission.
Ms. Ryder: It was signed by Marian Linden as
not within jurisdictional buffer.
Ms. Ryder: This is a pond, it may have been
dry in the summer. It was shallow. A pond would be 100 x 100 or 10,000 square
feet, surface area.
Mr. Febiger: So this is bigger than that, I
see.
Mr. Schenk: How steep is the slope, around the
pond?
Ms. Ryder: It is a fairly steep slope, nearly
a vertical drop.
Ms. Steele: Are there any nearby storm
drains?
Ms. Ryder: The project is entirely to the
back of the house, except for the pipes. I don’t know where the street drains
are in that area, I am in the process of locating all catchbasins and mapping
them.
Ms. Steele: What if something migrates from
the back to the front and runs into the pond? Are there storm drains off Holly
Street.
Mr. Amero: No, there are none off Holly
Street.
Ms. Febiger: So it is 80 - 90 ft from the pond?
Ms. Ryder: It is 30 to BVW, 40 ft to ponded
water, at the time of site visit.
Ms. Steele: Describe the hot tub area.
Mr. Amero: It is a 17 x 12 ft addition. It is
an enclosure with sliding doors. I want to turn the room into livable, heated
area.
Ms. Steele: You are not relocating this?
Mr. Schenk: So you are finishing the room,
changing it from a hot tub room and adding a bathroom.
Mr. Amero: Yes
Mr. Amero: Can someone tell me how to do
that, or can I have someone do it for me?
Ms. Steele: Should we extend the erosion
barrier farther across?
Ms. Ryder: Yes, I would extend it to where it
says existing, and there is a little corner sticking out to the side, to the
left of house, I would wrap the erosion control up to that point.
Mr. Schenk: It has a slab?
Mr. Amero: Yes, it has a four-inch slab.
Mr. Amero: Yes, I would also install a 3 foot
high blocks around the edge.
Ms. Steele: The agent suggests that nothing
any other than hand tools be used in this project, they would have to come back
and amend the order of conditions. Also, 72 hr notification is requested so
that agent can check the erosion control, this is according to agent notes.
Ms. Ryder: Also, no vehicles or heavy
equipments be used adjacent to the wetlands or pond, the project as is poses
little likelhood of impact, using vehicles that close to the slope would
increase the potential for adverse impact and should be reviewed as an
amendment.
MOTION: Ms. Jackson moved for a negative determination
for the project at 19 Holly St., Map 123, Lot 51 with the following conditions:
all work be done by hand, no stockpiling between the house and pond, all debris
be removed from site by truck or by dumpster, hot tub is to be removed an
rebuilt by hand. Will the deck be disturbed?
Mr. Amero: We need to disassemble it, then
replace it.
Ms. Jackson: Also, the erosion control will
wrap around the corner of the house where the hot tub is, it will be extended
and will be either mulch bags or silt fence, and there will be a 72 hr
notification of the agent prior to construction to inspect the silt fence.
SECOND: Mr. Everett seconded motion.
B.
Ann Olsen requests the commission to determine the applicability of the
Wetlands Protection Act and local Wetlands Ordinance to install a septic system
at 25 Shore Rd. Map 167, Lot 2
Dan Ottenheimer-
Mill River Consulting, 2 Blackburn Center: I am here regarding applicability for a
request for determination on a septic system upgrade at 25 Shore Rd., Magnolia,
neighborhood of Gloucester. This is an existing house. The wastewater system
did not meet Title 5 Inspection criteria, located in the front of house. We
have designed an upgrade onsite system. We have maximized the setback area from
the coastal resource area across the street, with the placement of the soil
absorption system, in the far back area of the yard, so we are approximately
186 feet away from the top of the coastal bank to the soil absorption system,
which is the area that accepts the waste water. We do have the existing
plumbing exiting the front of the house, and there is no way to modify that, so
we do have to place our replacement tank in the front yard. In addition, we are
pre-treating the water with an advanced treatment unit, so we will have
high-quality waste water going into the ground in the soil absorption system,
that would be a second tank that is placed adjacent to the septic tank in the
front yard. We do have approximately two days of excavation, placement of
tanks, and piping within the buffer zone of the resource area and that would be
contained with erosion control, siltation fence or straw bales, and
re-vegetated at the conclusion of construction.
Ms.
Steele: It is 55
feet to the closest point.
Mr.
Ottenheimer: Yes it is.
Ms.
Ryder: You may want to consider something in the driveway if the vehicles
track mud or dirt, you do have adjacent catch basins in the road and most
discharge directly into the harbor.
Mr.
Ottenheimer: If the commission would like to do something along those
lines, we are not averse to that. We want everything done correctly throughout
the process.
Ms.
Ryder: The recommendation is any measure that would prevent sediments or
erosion from truck tires from being washed into the catch basins, we don’t want
to add to the problems. I do have the letter from the Board of Health approving
the system, I defer any Title 5 decisions or plans to Board of Health.
Ms.
Steele: Do we have a copy of the specifications for the Bio-filter?
Mr.
Ottenheimer: As opposed to flowing from the septic system into the ground,
in this instance it will flow from the septic system into the treatment until
which is an additional, underground, watertight, concrete box, the wastewater
is sprayed onto the top of it, and inside the box is the treatment medium, a
series of foam cubes, it flows down through the foam cubes, by gravity, as it
makes its way, there is a lot of bacterial activity that degrades the
wastewater, the sponge and foam trap some of the solids. There is a pump at the
bottom that pumps it out into the soil absorption system.
Ms.
Steele: What is the size? What is the maintenance?
Mr. Ottenheimer:
Each is about 12 x 7 ft. It will be visited 4 times a year to make sure
it is functioning properly.
Ms. Steele: I would like a copy of the Board
of Health file, with the maintenance information, submitted and on file with the commission.
Mr. Ottenheimer: We can submit it.
Ms. Ryder: There is virtually no impact to
the coast or bank due to the stone wall that is in place, the only migration
into the coast would be through the catch basins.
Ms. Jackson: The agent has requested a 72
hour, pre-work site inspection as well.
MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved for a negative
determination for the septic system installation with the conditions that hay
bales or other sediment control be placed around the catch basins, that the
effluent water treatment reports submitted to the Board of Health also be
submitted to the conservation commission, also a copy of the Board of Health
filing, and finally that there will be 72 hour notice given to the agent prior
to start of project.
SECOND: Ms. Steele seconded motion.
VII. CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
Castleview Homeowners Association to repair and repave the existing road at Map
257, Lot 248, known as Massachusetts Ave.
B. Castleview Homeowners Association to repair
and repave the existing road at Map 258, known as Massachusetts Ave.
Documents Submitted
for Commission Review:
Letter from Thomas Mooney dated 12/30/04, received 01/03/05
Letter from Apple Associates, Chris Gajeski dated 12/22/04, received
12/28/04
Letter and packet from Mark Gallant dated 12/17/04, received 12/20/04
Letter and petition dated 10/20/04
Ms. Kimberly
McGovern of 30 Castleview Dr.: I am on the board of
directors for the Castleview Homeowners Association. The Association is the
applicant on this matter, tonight we have our Attorney Mark Gallant to speak
with you on a legal issue, and I would like to address that Mr. Gallant did
submit a letter to the commission. I want to make sure that got to you.
Mr. Schenk: Yes, we received it. It has not
yet been reviewed by the legal department.
Mr. Schenk stated to those attending the hearing that the Commission
would not entertain discussion relating to civil issues outside the Commission’s
jurisdiction. In addition, discussion
relating to the legal aspects of the project would be held at a subsequent
hearing as legal counsel had not had the opportunity to review the 50 page
submission by the applicants attorney.
Ms. McGovern:
If you have any questions for Mr. Gallant he is here this evening. We
also have Apple Associates here addressing any wetland issues that you have.
There are also several other Castleview owners here. Also, Mr. Dave Rimmer from
the Essex County Greenbelt Association is here, they own the property that
encompasses Mass Ave.
Mr. Mark Gallant,
Attorney, 462 Boston St., Topsfield, MA: This application is strictly under state
regulations because as I read the local ordinance, this is an exempt project as
it is a private way. I will direct the
board attention to the official section 12-13 exemption, article shall not be
required when maintaining or repairing and not substantially changing of
enlarging a private or public way. This private way has existed for over 100
years. This pre-dates and the project is not seeking to expand the wetland
private way.
Ms. Ryder: This is under jurisdiction of
both the Wetlands Protection Act and the Local Ordinances. It is not exempt,
while it is on an existing way and they do have rights to maintenance, the
plan, in my best professional judgment, exceeds basic maintenance of the
specifically existing pathway. If evidence is presented that this is strictly
maintenance of existing pavement, then they are granted maintenance by right,
but as that is not what is proposed, a review under the local ordinance is in
order.
Mr. Schenk: We need to hear about the project
itself to make a determination as to the extent of the projects potential
impacts on resource areas from that presentation.
Apple Associates,
Mr. Randy Burley and Mr. Chris Gajeski:
Mr. Burley: Different areas of the roadway are
in differing levels of disrepair. We have illustrated three different
cross-sections of what we would like to do in the repair process. I will
clarify that the right of way width is 40 feet, what we have measured in the
field is 12 feet. That is what we would like to repair, the 12 feet of pavement
in width. The upper third area on the plan is not in as bad condition as the
other two thirds of the road. The second sheet there are details of how we
would like to repair; Patching, filling cracks, spraying adhesive, apply new
binder coat, and repaving. The mid section gets worse, here we would like to
reuse the asphalt, regrind it, and put it back down, with a new binder and top
coat. This is the area that we feel will need a lot of attention. Sections of
this area are broken up, washed away, and need total repair. Here we recommend
putting in a marabi fabric, this will help disperse the weight of the vehicles
and pavement on top of it. In these details, there may be a misconception,
looking at the existing grade, and then seeing our grate rate on the side. If
you do the topography over 1800 feet of this roadway, and say that this is
exactly what the cross-section looks like is impossible. Our intention was not
to raise this road, just replace it where it is. We intend to slope it toward
the marsh. We intend to have the cross-section 3 meet the existing grade, then
have a slope over it. It is not our intention to either raise the road or widen
it.
Ms. Steele: What about other structures, the
culverts, anything else? She noted
that a binder and topcoat to the road and a slope over the repaired surface
would expand the current paved roadway.
Mr. Burley: There is a culvert that we
located, at the commission’s response, we can leave it alone, clean it out, it
is not our intention to do anything with it. We don’t want to disrupt the flow,
all we want to do is replace the roadway.
Mr. Febiger: Is there a parking area at the beach
end?
Mr. Burley: They have rights to drive down
and drop off belongings, coolers and such, and drive back and park. There is
not parking, but a turn-around from what I understand.
Mr. Febiger: How much traffic is anticipated
there?
Mr. Burley: At best, 10 vehicles a day. Not
used in winter, it is not plowed.
Mr. Febiger: Exactly how wide is the pavement?
Mr. Burley: 12 feet.
Ms. Jackson: Is that uniform over the 1800
foot length?
Mr. Burley: Some areas have washed away, some
is overgrown. Most of the overgrown areas have shown that the pavement is
there, but it had overgrowth.
Mr. Febiger: Why would it wash away, isn’t the
roadway the highest point?
Mr. Burley: It dips in the middle, on either
side, in some spots it kind of drains through. In one area there is a dune that
washes down.
Ms. Ryder: Have you evaluated whether the
re-pavement will compact the soils additionally? You are saying a lot of it is
sunk in and a lot of it washes away, how is the project going to impact the
groundwater flow, below that roadway?
Mr. Burley: What we witnessed, on the roadway
is that it is all self-impacting, it is compacted where the vehicle tires
travel, that is what we want to repave. If the commission would like to see a
couple of culverts, part way down the road, I’m sure that would not be a great
additional cost. I don’t see additional impairment of groundwater flow, over
what has been already driven over for 100 years or so.
Ms. Ryder: Have you done any studies on what
exists now along the roadway in terms of soils, hydrology and vegetation, and
want may happen to these as a result of the project?
Mr. Burley: I am not sure how you could, I
don’t see any further compaction than what is already compacted, and how that
would affect the groundwater. We just want to make a uniform surface again.
Mr. Schenk: When was this proposal first
submitted?
Ms. Ryder: In July 2004.
Mr. Febiger: Is there currently fencing along
the water bound sites? Are there problems with vehicles leaving the roadway?
Mr. Burley: No. One side is marsh, the other
side is some upland banks, it is a very defined roadway, you really can’t leave
it.
Ms. Ryder:
At the entrance on Stella Maris Lane and over on Wingaersheek, towards
the gate, there is evidence of vehicles on the dunes on that gate side and
evidence of vehicles in salt marsh. The dune issue will be site visited with
DEP, for the entire Wingaersheek, Coffin’s Beach, and this area, it was brought
to the city’s attention by DEP, a notice of negligence was issued to the city
for vehicles being in the dunes at Wingaersheek Beach. This has been considered
a violation of the wetlands protection act. Cars backing in and turning around
in the sand is considered a violation. You may want to take this into account,
contact DEP, I can notify you of the date of the site visit if you wish.
Mr. Burley: Maybe we can open up the gate so
that they can turn around on Wingarsheek Rd.
Mr. Schenk: For the record and for the
applicants benefit, the agent has supplied us with a long list of notes in her
report, in regard to the project, these are available to the public. For those
of you who are going to comment on this during public comment, I will ask that
you keep the comments specifically to the wetland issues and impact and that
legal concerns and question be avoided as they are not specific to this
particular meeting. If you are sitting and someone else makes a statement that
is similar to what you want to say,
please hold off as we need to keep things as to the point as possible.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Bill O’Neil of
51 Wingaersheek Rd.:
I live at the other side of Wingaersheek Rd., I have a house and property
there, Castleview owners have a right to go over my land, to the beach. I am
familiar with activity there. In the summertime, Sundays and Holidays, are peak
time. The parking lot holds about 30 cars and it will be filled. A normal
weekend, there will be 10 – 20 families, the use is not tremendous, but it has
this kind of use. A turn-around has been created, gravel has been placed
creating the turn around area, about two years ago. We have requested that
Greenbelt put boulders in there so that you can’t go off into the dunes. They
put them on the outside. In the walkway, there is a drop-off area, where two
cars can come in at a time, drive out and then park. There is not a need to
bring cars across here. It is not unusual for one or two cars to park here,
people don’t want to walk, not during traffic time. Marsh lands are on both
sides of the road. Between 4 and 6 days a year there will be water on the road
at high tide. Whatever is on this road, gets washed back out to the wetlands.
Any contaminants from use of the road will wash back out. Maintenance has been
putting gravel into pits in the road, and periodic cutback of overgrowth. The
road went in to serve the Camp Stella Maris, so they could walk down to the
beach, it was never intended to be used as a road. They had 5 restrictions when
the land was passed over in the 60s.
Mr. Schenk: I need to ask you to refrain from
referencing legal issues with the road. If anyone would like additional copies
of the Agent Report notes, there will be additional copies at the office.
Mr. Tom Mooney of 10
Schooner Ridge:
The road in question is a mess, I think that the group has come forward to try
and repair it, take a bad situation and turn it into an acceptable situation. I
hope this board can see a way to make that happen.
Mr. Michael McMahon
of 9 Digby Lane:
I imagine that the agent has looked at this road, as I hope all of you will,
and you will find that the width is as low as 9 feet at some points, it does
vary, regarding the vegetation in the area and how it was built. I would like
to point out, it has resource areas on both sides, you have heard from the
Apple Engineer’s comment of washouts, and I heard that at least 6 times, there
is in fact water on the road, it is obviously tidal water, but also created by
retention from the wetland areas, with tidal waters as well as ground and
surface waters. When you talk about regrading, when you repave on top of
something else, it raises the elevation. The plan presented, after all the
research, they still don’t have an exact plan as to what will be raise and to
what extent the grade will be raised, and how that will be done. The plan has
never shown that they are going to make the situation worse or better. There
are over 70 homes in the Castleview area, they make use of the road, drop off,
and go back to their homes to park. It has been my concern that the dunes have
eroded on the Wingaersheek Rd. side, we have had boulders put there, Greenbelt
was asked to remove them because Castleview sent a letter stating that they
were obstructing a right of way. As a board you have a responsibility to make
sure that nothing new is put in there that will increase the erosion. There
have been no statistics submitted as to the water levels and hydrology in that
area.
Ms. Susan Mooney of
10 Schooner Ridge: In
Mr. O’Neil’s testimony, he based a lot of his testimony on what he termed “as
he would guess”, I would like to correct, from personal observation. Since
1993, the parking lot does not hold anywhere near 30 cars, the most I have seen
there would be approximately 15. The camp road, he indicated that it was never
intended for vehicles. When I was a camper at Camp Stella Maris 1962, the road
was paved and was the only vehicle access to the camp. Parents would deliver
children to the camp using this road. This was always a vehicle road, as far
back as 1962. He stated that we don’t need to use the road, but this is a given
property right and is on the deeds of several property owners, approximately
75, in Castleview. I just wanted to correct the record as to those facts. I
have never seen vehicles parked at the end of the roadway at the drop off, for
extended periods of time.
Mr. Jeff Maloney of
67 Wingaersheek Rd.: My family has been there since 1932, I have been clamming for quite a
while, I can attest to the fact that when you are down in Farm Creek, that this
drains into, well 20 years ago, Farm
Creek didn’t have to be closed when there was an inch of rain, today it has to
close because of the effluent that comes down from the road and from
Castleview. Down in the creeks, you can see the effluent coming down, to the
extent that there are more paving, more chemicals, lawn chemicals, anything
going into Farm Creek, and the clams will not do as well.
Ms. Ryder: (to Mr. Burley) Early on in the
hearing, you had outlined a great deal of construction detail and sequence, she
requested that it be submitted in written form to the commission for review of
the details.
Mr. Burley: It is on the plan.
Ms. Ryder: In very brief form only. I am looking for substantially more detail,
evaluation of resource areas and how the construction will not impact the
resources adjacent to the roadway.
Ms. McGovern: One point that has been made, but
seems to have been lost is that we are not proposing any expansion of this
road. We are proposing to maintain what exists. The current width and the
current height. If you need more information to realize that is what we are
doing, please let us know. All this talk about the facts and wear and tear is
irrelevant, we are proposing to maintain what already exists. I live on what
was going to be Stella Maris Ln., see one end of each road four times a day, I
have never seen more than 8 cars parked and that was on July 4 weekend. Day
after day there are no cars parked there. We have remarked how few cars there
are and how little the Castleview residents use the road. So statements about impact
and passing are irrelevant, this road is rarely used.
Ms. Jackson: If you paved it and made the road
flat, don’t you think that would increase the usage?
Ms. McGovern: I don’t, I walk, I don’t need to
drive and a lot of us are the same. A lot of people walk the road. Some do want
to bring down beach gear, this will continue. In terms of water on the road, I
am not an engineer, I have not studied it, but given that, I don’t think it’s a
tidal water. That is from rain.
Ms. Steele: Given that city is under a notice
of non-compliance, I would be interested to see if Castleview has any interest
in making improvements or changes that would increase protection to resources,
maybe some signage that would help the residents toward coming into compliance
in regards to the sand dunes.
Ms. McGovern: Absolutely, we really want to do
the right thing. We want to be up front and make them aware of what we are
doing.
Mr. Gallant: I have been discussing with the
president of the association some issues that you have raised. Also the concern
that we were not provided with the notes from the agent prior to this evening.
Ms. Ryder: Those notes were just submitted.
Mr. Gallant: I think at this point, the
association would like to request a further continuance of this issue so we can
address those notes, and issues raised about the plan. I ask to keep the public
hearing open and continue it to another date.
Mr. Schenk: Commissioners, are we looking at
a continuance?
Ms. Jackson: I thought one of the agent
comments was such a delay had taken place that we should ask for renewed
notification to abutters.
Ms. Ryder: Yes, a tremendous amount of
people have called in looking for information on the continuation, a lot of
people have not had time to evaluate. It would be a consideration, not a legal
obligation.
Mr. Gallant: Although legally not required to,
we will do this.
Ms. Steele: Will we need to draft a letter to
accompany this information that we submit.
Ms. Ryder: I will be meeting with Linda Lowe
next week on this. I recommend that you draft a letter, that is better than
sending a document over with no explanation. Also, MS. McGovern, you had
mentioned that you were going to send out applications to NHESP, CZM, and Mass
Audubon.
Ms. McGovern: You told me I needed to do that,
I am wondering whether I am really obligated to do that.
Ms. Ryder: I ask that the commission make a
formal request to the applicants to submit the proposal to CZM, Mass Audubon,
NHESP, based on the fact that the portion on the road proposed for repaving
lies within NHESP identified priority habitat. The applicant does not have the
authority to determine that they are not within a jurisdiction, that is NHESP’s
obligation and right only. We have barrier beaches and salt marshes, that is
CZM’s expertise. In terms of habitat, I ask that this project be submitted to
Mass Audubon for habitat species assessment. I suggest that they would all
conduct a site visit to determine the current condition of the road and the
surrounding area.
Ms. McGovern: I ask that you give us the legal
basis for requiring these submittals. Given the local wetlands ordinance, it
says that you don’t even need a permit to maintain or repair an existing
private way.
Ms. Ryder: You are claiming that you are
doing nothing other than normal maintenance, my best professional judgment
shows that that is not the case. It is an allowance and a right in the
ordinance and the wetlands protection act to request and ask for additional
reviews by agencies and other local city branches.
Ms. Steele: It is our normal practice to ask
that these agencies to review the documents.
Ms. McGovern: Is there a time deadline in which
they have to respond?
Ms. Ryder: NHESP has 30 days, I don’t think
that CZM has a deadline, nor does Mass Audubon, but the commission could
consider that.
Ms. McGovern: One of my concerns is that we
could wait months or years for someone to respond, so I request 30 days.
Mr. Schenk: I think that 30 days is
agreeable. I recommend that we have a site visit.
Ms. Ryder: This should be a commission
quorum site visit. The vegetation is substantially different now than from the
growth season, but branches should be evident.
MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved to continue for purposes of
a site visit on January 15, 2005 at 9:00 AM and to allow time for fulfillment
of the request that applicant file with NHESP, CZM, Mass Audubon, and the
Gloucester Shellfish Constable or alternate, continued until February 16, 2005
at 8:00 PM for Map 257, 258, Lot 248 known as Massachusetts Ave.
SECOND: Mr. Everett seconded motion.
VOTE: 6 – 0, motion carried.
C.
Bernard Sova to reconstruct existing residential buildings, raise floors above
the 100 year flood zone and add cantilevered decks at 4 Stanwood Point, Map
230, Lot 69
Ms.
Michelle Harrison Attorney for Mr. Sova: We request a continuance on this public
hearing until the test borings can be completed. We have submitted a narration
of work to be performed. It was requested that all equipment be removed
immediately after use. The work will be done using a small, rubber track,
excavator, bigger than a Bobcat, but much smaller than a backhoe. . We
previously asked that a letter permit be issued so we can conduct the test. We
would like this continued until the end of February for the sake of the tests.
Ms.
Jackson: It has been suggested that you use foresting mats as opposed to
plywood.
Ms.
Ryder: This would decrease the
impact.
Ms.
Harrison: Mr. Sova already has the plywood, this is what we would prefer to
use.
Mr.
Schenk: We can make it a stipulation that the plywood used must be thick
enough to bear the weight of the machinery. The work is being allowed with the
following conditions, that the conservation agent must be on site at the start
of work, if work is not completed at low tide, equipment and plywood must be
removed before tide returns, size and weight of the vehicle to be used must be
submitted for approval by the commission.
MOTION: Ms. Jackson moved to continue this hearing
until the February 16, 2005 meeting at 8:30 PM for the purpose of test boring,
as well conditions for a letter permit are that plywood to be used must be
thick enough to bear the weight of the machinery, that the conservation agent
must be on site at the start of work, if work is not completed at low tide, equipment
and plywood must be removed before tide returns, size and weight of the vehicle
to be used must be submitted for approval.
SECOND:
Mr. Everett seconded motion.
VOTE:
6 – 0, motion carried
D.
Manny Silva to amend the Order of Conditions #28-1603 for project at 9 Fenley
Rd. Map 242, Lot 29
Letter submitted dated 12/28/04,
received 01/05/05
Randy Burley Apple
Associates: We
received today, the approval from the engineering department, one month ago you
requested that we provide the drainage calculations, that you should have in
your possession. We are going to take this drainage situation and make it
better for the homeowner. Now water comes down the ledge, and into the
neighbor’s backyard. We have to take that water and divert it down into a trench,
to the wetlands. In the drainage summary, there a slight increase of .29 CFS
from the water getting from point A to point B in the wetlands. Reducing the
runoff, keeping the drainage characteristics, eliminating the burden of the
water running into the neighboring backyards. We have had Board of Health
approval on plan for some time, now we have approval from engineering, and we
need it from you. The initial plan, the buffer zone prevented construction of a
driveway, the commission got the impression that it was a temporary driveway,
it was always our intent to construct the driveway. DEP has been on site, they
verified our wetland line, the order of conditions has been issued for the
driveway. We used the drive way to get down and do soil testing, the utilities
were put there, it was approved, but when construction began he was stopped an
told that it was supposed to be temporary. This is almost a 9 acre site, he is
looking to convert just one structure, we really are here to get approval
tonight.
Ms. Ryder: The project was called in was
because with all of the tree cutting, clearing, and grading, rate of stormflow
increased dramatically down the slope, flooding the neighbor’s septic systems,
causing direct effluent leaks into wetlands. It was an after the fact impact
that brought it back to us. It wasn’t the roadway itself.
Mr. Schenk: Did you recommend any temporary
measures?
Mr. Burley: They did, the applicant came out
with hay bales, the Board of Health verified this.
Ms. Ryder: How wide is the french drain? It
is on a downward slope, if the storm water is running slowly, it will catch in,
if there is a heavy down pour, it will jump the trench. Are there secondary
control measures?
Mr. Burley: It is 4 feet wide.
Ms. Ryder: On the collection trench, instead
of having a flat 1 – 2 inch crushed stone, I recommend something larger and
more jetted like trap rock, or something like dragon’s teeth, chunks of actual
stone that stick up randomly, any flow that tries to jump the trench, is
prevented by these dragon’s teeth barriers. This would not effect the actual
plan, it would be a surface addition.
Mr. Burley: It would slightly effect the flow
of our trench, but I don’t think that would be a problem with the engineering
department.
Mr. Schenk: Do we want some sort of
verification after construction on the sediment that is going in? Pre and
post-construction?
Ms. Ryder: It is highly disturbed so I
don’t think we can get pre, but yes, post-construction to make sure you are not
getting soils into the wetland would be recommended at the proposed rip rap
area. It would have to be done during a certain type of storm.
Mr. Burley: Would you require this testing
as ongoing?
Ms. Steele: It depends upon what the data
shows.
Ms. Ryder: You will probably want to do it
post-stabilization of the site to see what the actual flow and long-term
velocity is going to do.
Mr. Schenk: So after stabilization of site,
during a rainstorm event, 10 year event, during later stages of storm.
Mr. Burley: This is being required to be
done by who?
Ms. Ryder: You may need to hire a lab to
come take the sample at the appropriate time.
Mr. Burley: I don’t think that is feasible
with this project, we will send in the calculations. We will do the trap rock,
that is fine. This project was stopped mid-construction, we just want approval.
It’s in construction now, of course there is sediments and erosion. When the project is done there won’t
be. We want to finish the project and
then we can take measures to protect the wetland if necessary.
Ms. Ryder: There is already a tremendous
impact at this site, prior review and the permitting process is how the
wetlands Protection Act works to protect resources. The point is not to do the project, create impact, and then see
if the impact remains at the end of construction.
Ms. Steele: We can let him submit the
calculations and see what they say. We can go from there. Revise the plan for
the trap rock, do the calculations, then if there are other issues to be
resolved we will deal with them.
Ms. Ryder: The actual storm water
calculations were excellent, but they addressed only volume, no velocity or
movement of sediments.
Chris Gajeski Apple Associates: First, there are no sediments
running into the wetlands, there are no impacts to the resource areas
themselves. The silt fence is up, the hay bales are up, all are installed
properly. Septic getting to the resource area, that has not been done. The
wetland line was approved with the OoC, I don’t know why DEP was at the site,
it was approved at the OoC. Also, are we talking about storm water regulations,
meeting the criteria for Mass storm water, or TSS, what criteria are we reading
and what policy?
Ms. Ryder: Impact to the wetlands, sediments
down stream and septic system flooding was observed by myself, and Board of
Health agents. We observed evidence of septic system effluent was rising and
crossing the driveway during a rain storm. These are construction impacts.
There is documented adverse impact in terms of leach filed effluent, and
sedimentation, largely due to velocity of water running through. Stormwater is an existing requirement. You are not allowed to increase impacts off
site or into resource areas.
Mr. Dan Warner 19
Fenway Rd.: About
12 years ago I had to raise my backyard
about 4 feet and re-did my septic system. Since this all started, my back yard
is flooded. My concern is blasting, this was not supposed to be done. What they
are doing is bedrock fracturing, what will happen when all of the rock is
broken up underneath, where will all that water go. We have taken direction to
stop that over the past years, now we will be looking at it again. Can someone
come in and tell what that water will do under ground after this all goes in.
Ms. Jackson The applicant has stated in the application
that there will be no blasting, so there will be no blasting.
Mr. Burley: We will take the requirements and
incorporate them.
Mr. Schenk: So far we are looking at an
additional swale at the bottom.
Ms. Ryder: Alternatives would be low, dense
vegetation. The goal is controlling rate of flow to neighbors septic systems, a
swale with vegetation or stone, a berm (mound) with vegetation, or low growing
dense vegetation would all serve the same purpose.
Mr. Schenk: We are looking at TSS
calculations, we are looking at a low vegetation buffer strip on the downward
side of slope, we have had concerns using bedrock fracturing for installing
basement.
Ms. Ryder: If you are fracturing the rock,
it may create additional fissures underneath and it may drain better than it is
doing now. That is my guess.
MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved to continue until 01/19/05
at 7:05 PM for closure for the purpose of submittal of calculations of TSS
removal, additional measures to mitigate runoff across site through vegetation
or a swail, located between house and neighbors on Fenway Rd., the trap
rock/dragon’s teeth to be included in the trench design.
SECOND: Ms. Jackson seconded.
VOTE: 6 – 0, motion
carried.
E.
Matthew and Nancy Parisi, Extension request for project at Lot 28 Squam Lane,
file #28-1097.
Ms.
Ryder: Recommend
that this be continued until April or May as the applicant sent an e-mail dated
12/27/04 requesting continuance.
MOTION: Ms. Jackson moved to continue,
SECOND:
Mr. Febiger seconded.
VOTE:
6 – 0, motion carried
VIII. CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
Matheson Tri Gas, Inc. for excavation and off-site disposal of impacted oil and
sediment, followed by back fill and restoration of wetland and buffer zones at
63 Grove St. And 95 Maplewood Ave. Map 41, Lots 9 & 7
MOTION:
Ms. Jackson moved
to continue until 02/16/05 at 9:00 PM
SECOND:
Mr. Febiger seconded.
VOTE:
6 – 0, motion carried.
B.
Arunas Martinonis to amend the Order of Conditions #28-1149 for project at 77
Eastern Point Blvd. Map 136, Lot 9
Ms.
Ryder: Party has
requested a continuance until the 03/02/05 meeting.
MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved to continue until 03/02/05
at 8:00 PM.
SECOND:
Ms. Jackson seconded.
VOTE:
6 – 0, motion carried.
C.
Mari Shiel to tear down existing house and build new dwelling at 101
Wingaersheek Rd. Map 261, Lot 37
Existing Conditions Plan submitted
dated 06/28/04, received 12/28/04
Letter submitted from Kathryn Glenn
dated 01/04/04
William
Manuell: The most significant change is that, after consultation with DEP
on out proposed subterranean room, we have take that off of the plan. We now
plan to raze the dwelling, rebuild it in the same footprint, it will now be
supported above the dune surface with piles. The diagram shows the pile
configuration, 22 piles and the separation between the bottom of the joists and
dune surface will be 2 feet. The subterranean room is being eliminated.
Mr.
Schenk: How will the demolition materials be handled on site?
Mr.
Manuell: They will be placed in a dumpster and taken off-site. The
demolition will take less than a week.
Joe
Russo 99 Wingaersheek Rd.: I co-own 1 A, abutter. The foundation will be 2
feet off ground? The proposed footprint extends beyond original in one area.
Where is the parking area? How large is the area.
Mr.
Manuell: It is large enough to fit two cars.
Mr.
Russo: Are you aware that 1 A has easement rights to using that parking
area.
Mr.
Manuell: I am not aware of that.
Mr.
Russo: The square footage should be 40 feet wide, by 20 feet deep.
Mr.
Schenk: We need to stick to issues on the plan, geared toward conservation
issues, we cannot speak about legal issues at this time.
Ms.
Steele: We received correspondence stating something about CCH piles,
usually that that is just for water inundated piles, is there a reason we need
CCH piles in this area?
Mr.
Manuell: They are to be driven down 12 feet, possibly to ground water.
Mr.
Schenk: That raises concerns with contamination, driving those kinds of
piles into groundwater.
Ms.
Ryder: Would steel be an alternative?
Mr.
Schenk: Yes.
Mr.
Manuell: We will use non-CCH product.
MOTION:
Ms. Jackson moved to accept project with conditions that the subterranean
room previously on the plans is now gone, piles not have potential for
contamination of groundwater, beach grass be incorporated into the dunes.
SECOND:
Mr. Febiger seconded.
VOTE:
6 – 0, motion carried.
D.
Carrigan Enterprises to confirm the wetland delineation at 14 Tufts Lane, Map
115, Lot 30, and Map 125, Lot 22 & 71
Mike Seacamp, Michael Carrigan, Michelle
Harrison present
Plans
submitted dated 11/15/04, revised 12/23/04, received 01/05/05
Mr. Seacamp: We have delineated wetland
areas, we have had 5 site walks. Representatives of abutters have attended at
least three of the site walks. We have made many changes to wetland lines. We
have incorporated all changes recommended on this plan. I will review that with
you. We have a drainage area under Hutchins Court, a fairly extensive system on
the north end of the site that continues on to Langsford Pond. We have a small
isolated wetland near the big, rock face wall, the north west section. We have
the edge of Langsford Pond, with beaver activity, the water in up to the extent
of the bordering vegetative wetlands. The beech trees around Langsford Pond are
probably doomed unless something happens with the beaver. There is an isolated
vegetative wetland in area adjacent to driveway into site. There is a possible
vernal pool along side the interior stone wall.
Ms. Ryder: Stream to west of pond, disagree
with current statement, but would not be opposed to it saying “intermittent
stream not evaluated in this area”, change “defined” to “evaluated”.
Mr. Seacamp: At the last meeting we discussed
that we could not actually see water flowing, but could hear it in this area.
It was negotiated that we would extend this BVW at the end of E1 and D26,
within 40 feet of stone wall. Sheet two shows more of the extent of Langsford
Pond. Last site visit we discovered an area with standing water, I flagged the
edge of water to see if it was jurisdictional as an isolated land subject to
flooding, and it just makes it, according to the Wetlands Ordinance. In the far
eastern corner, there is vegetative wetland that continues off the site. We
have two areas isolated vegetative wetlands, potential vernal pools, the field
notes contain information of salamander morphs, in one of the two isolated
areas. We criss-crossed the site extensively, and this is all of what we found.
Ms. Steele: Off of A1 there is potential
sheet flow.
Mr. Seacamp: That is right, there is potential
sheet flow in that area.
Ms. Ryder: We evaluated it twice, I looked
for a channel, but it was not there. It rained on Friday, the small potential
vernal pools, from the storm there was an entire flowing area, not a stream,
but flow all the way across the path, no channelization, it did not meet
criteria for a stream. Between the B series and Langsford Pond there is clearly
hydrology, and between the A series and some unknown wetland to the south,
there is clearly a hydrological connection.
Mr. Febiger: You are talking about using the
buffer zone criteria to maintain that interest.
Ms. Ryder: Exactly, to ensure that that
hydrological system is not segmented or impeded.
Noelle Mann 12 Dorsett Dr.: The water is higher and continues
to get higher due to the beaver activity. I brought in photos. I was not
present for the site visit. There is a set up of stones that seem to be used as
a dam.
Mr. Seacamp: That is isolated vegetative
wetland, therefore we looked at the long-term hydrology and if there is
additional flooding beyond our boundary, that would not indicate that that is
consistent with that resource definition.
Ms. Ryder: The remaining issue, is the
status of the vernal pools. There are
changes coming to the Wetlands Protection Act that may change our local
ordinance, I won’t know until I speak with legals. Short of a guarantee to
study the vernal pools, I would ask for a continuance to verify with a third
party. I think the same achievement could be made with a minimum undisturbed
100 foot buffer, to be maintained for vernal pool evaluation purposes. Local
ordinance has a 100 foot buffer. Under
the incoming proposed WPA regualations if an applicant has an approved resource
area delineation, the applicant has the right to bypass formal review outside
of 50 feet, as long as certain conditions are being met. As the ordinance refers back to WPA in
several sections I’m not sure yet how or if the ordinance will be impacted
Mr. Seacamp: I point out that these regulations
have not yet been approved or implemented.
Ms. Ryder: They have been reviewed in
detail, they are to be approved in February. It is up to you if you want to
wait until after that.
Mr. Seacamp: We would be comfortable with a
condition that we evaluate potential vernal pools for any areas where we come
under your jurisdiction.
Mr. Schenk: I heard you say you would
review, but we haven’t stipulated that you would provide a 100 foot buffer for
those areas.
Mr. Seacamp: Like a setback?
Mr. Schenk: Yes.
Mr. Seacamp: I don’t think we propose to do
that. Protecting the first 100 feet is well intentioned, but that doesn’t
protect the upland habitat, you need to accommodate migration patterns, it is
clear from the scientific evidence that the vernal pool species can migrate up
to .25 mile or more. I don’t think my client is in a position to say carte
blanche that he could stay 100 feet from any areas that we may find to be
vernal pools.
Ms. Ryder: At that point in time, it would
be up to NHESP to evaluate potential impact from projects. The upland habitat
varies by species, unless you can confirm the vernal pool, you have no idea of
habitat and therefor no idea of actual protected buffer. I think the request to
verify or negate vernal pool certifiability is an important part of the
evaluation.
Mr. Seacamp: We will evaluate if there are
vernal pools, but to stay away 100 feet.
Ms. Ryder: Only until review can be
completed.
Mr. Seacamp: I think that is reasonable if
the applicant is doing the review.
Mr. Schenk: I question if we will accept you
evaluation or if we would require a third party evaluation to be on the safe
side.
Mr. Seacamp: We would expect that our
evaluation would be reviewed.
Mr. Schenk: Yes, it will be reviewed by the
agent, the evaluation and she will actually go on site.
Mr. Seacamp: I think this should be done when
the land use is confirmed and a project proposed, I am not completely sure that
my client will ultimately use the land. If it is within your jurisdiction, at
the time the land is used you could require then to evaluate whether or not
these are vernal pools.
Ms. Ryder: Confirming resources includes
confirming the delineation as well as the nature and function. Different resources have different
buffers. If you don’t know the function
and value of a resource you can’t know the correct buffer.
Mr. Febiger: I agree with the applicant in
suggesting that the determination be reserved until a notice of intent is
filed.
Mr. Seacamp: Correct.
Mr. Febiger: Is it agreeable to do the review
in April if the notice of intent is filing is expected.
Mr. Carrigan: I just want to make sure, that
if there is a condition of the 100 foot buffer zone if I am close to one area
of possible vernal pool, that I only have to recognize that area, not all other
areas of potential.
Ms. Ryder: You must understand if you
disturb the entire area, and you have decimated upland habitat for a rare and
endangered species at the noted vernal pool areas, you are liable for damages
under the NHESP program. There is precedent
on that issue.
Ms. Steele: I feel that is true for all
potential vernal pools.
Ms. Ryder: Correct. I have some serious
concerns on this that I would like to discuss with the legal department for
wording and possible evaluation of this issue.
Ms. Jackson: I think we need to determine all
of the wetlands.
Public Comment:
Kathy Lahey of 67
Perkins Street: Submitted
letter to commission from Mass Audubon dated 01/05/05. (Read letter aloud). The letter is available on request.
Mary Rimmer of
Rimmer Environmental Consulting retained by abutters: If there is a continuation, I will
hold comments. On the plan, I did not completely understand the delineation of
the resource areas. The large wetland system E has a stream exiting, I didn’t
understand why that wasn’t bordering vegetative wetland. I know it doesn’t
connect, I don’t know if this is an issue already discussed, but it would
effect the buffer zone information.
Ms. Ryder: That appears to not be a stream,
it was a dug out channel, man made, it looks like an overflow, you can see
water flow, but there is no channel. It appears to have been dug out to try and
drain the wetland at some point.
Ashley
Rehner 20 Hutchins Ct.: Questioned plan for clarification.
End of public comment;
Mr.
Seacamp: I am under the impression that we could close this tonight, with
the understanding that our attorney would consult with the city’s attorney and
Nancy as to the wording of how we would evaluate if we actually have a vernal
pool, if we brought a project before the commission. We have identified the
borders of the resource areas and these areas are probably vernal pools.
Ms.
Ryder: We don’t know hat the resource area is , we don’t know how to
protect it. I have concerns. I think the flags are correct, in favor of the
wetlands. If we close now, any new
information from legals or regarding the vernal pools would not be
submittable.
Mr.
Schenk: The review would have to take place in the spring.
Ms.
Ryder: It should take place with any area on site, not just in proposed
work areas.
SECOND:
Ms. Jackson seconded.
IX. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.