DRAFT CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
KYROUZ AUDITORIUM, CITY HALL
MAX SCHENK, CHAIRMAN
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT Max Schenk, Chairman Elizabeth Steele Charlie Anderson Arthur Socolow |
MEMBERS
ABSENT Ann
Jo Jackson Bill Febiger Robert Gulla
|
STAFF
PRESENT Nancy Ryder, Conservation Agent Carol Gray, Recording Clerk |
I.
NOMINATION/VOTE
ON COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
As there will only be 4 Commissioners in attendance this item has a request to table it until October 18, 2006.
After a brief discussion between Commission members and the Agent in an effort to resolve this matter the nomination/vote has been scheduled for an upcoming Conservation Commission meeting when the majority of all members are present.
II.
CLOSURE OF HEARINGS REVIEW OF FINAL INFORMATION, AMENDMENT
AND
SIGNING PERMITS/DECISIONS:
W. Manuell present along with the applicant and property
owner Jill Ruge.
Mr. Manuell submitted a revised plan on 9/27/06. At present, there was nothing to add.
Eight copies of the revised plan were submitted for the
Commission to review.
The modified plan includes 25 sq. ft. from the vegetative
buffer and 30 sq. ft. at other points.
Ms. Ryder stated she was opposed as it was too near and noted the 50 sq.
ft. to Wetland. This is not supported by
regulation but is her opinion as the Agent.
It was made clear that there be no adverse impact to the
property.
Ms. Ryder suggested a 20 sq. ft. vegetative buffer from the
street line back beyond the house.
Create a physical barrier. This
would be up to the Commission to discuss and come to a decision. Mr. Manuell noted a 10 sq. ft. clearing with
a 15 sq. ft. vegetative buffer.
Ms. Ryder stated that would not be a problem.
Mr. Socolow stated he prefers the 20 ft. buffer but can
live with it.
Ms. Ryder stated this would be modified and an amendment to
the plan along with low growing vegetation not trees or shrubs. Conditions: 15 sq. ft. dense vegetation
submitted prior to start of work and 28 trees transplanted on site.
MOTION: Mr. Anderson moved to approve the plan with
noted conditions.
SECOND: Mr. Steele VOTE: 4-0 all in favor, signed by all members
present.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Stephen Golden spoke in regards to the Planning Board and the
Conservations Commissions information and recommendations regarding the
Annisquam subdivision.
He felt the issues in relation to the project were of
enormous importance. He stated the area
is a natural habitat and wants thorough studies done and that residents on
record had asked for discussions back in July.
He felt the Commission was not giving the residents the proper
opportunity to discuss the matter.
Ms. Ryder noted a letter from G. Sargeant and noted that
the matter was on the Planning Board agenda for 10/20/06, as well as noting a
letter from Councilor Hardy.
This matter is listed to be brought up for specific
discussions at the end of the meeting under Agents notes for Commission
business. The discussion would relate to
whether or not to have an open discussion.
An email Ms. Ryder noted regarding this issue was sent
after the agenda was typed.
AGENTS
REPORT ON VIOLATIONS:
465R
There is a disturbance to the stream on the property.
Submission of Notice of Intent as existing right of way.
Temporary stabilization.
Work finished.
Letter Permit for patio 180 sq. ft. to 220 sq. ft. from mean high water,
terribly wrong. Enforcement Order
issued. Site visit for Wednesday
10/11/06.
Excavation of trenches, building home within 20 ft. of the
river as well as stockpiling and re-grading within 50 ft. of the river.
The applicant hired Fred Giesel to do the work.
4
STANWOOD POINT
Notice of Intent regarding all 4 issues associated with
this property.
A letter was submitted stating they could not get the
submission in time for tonight’s meeting.
Enforcement Order and Cease and Desist until the 4 permits
are filed.
Ms. Steele stated it was the 4th time this
project has not met the deadline.
Ms. Steele also inquired as to what the options with a
project working on 4 filed permits as well as the continued violations and
possibly fines to be issued.
Fines re: any previous work not mitigated and/or any
further violations.
Ms. Steele suggested $1000.00 fine per day.
Mr. Schenk agreed with $1000.00 fine per day.
Mr. Socolow stated it can be up to $25,000.00 but will go
with $100.00 per day.
Mr. Anderson suggested we can state that there be a revisit
in 30 days and if compliance is not met we can then levy the fines.
It was agreed by the Commission to revisit at the 1st
meeting in November.
All signed by members present.
Request for continuance.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None
Ms. Ryder stated that this is
one site where they have more room than what they are asking for. The Engineering Dept has not gotten back to
the Agent regarding the design of more use area.
MOTION: Mr.
Anderson moves to continue the matter.
SECOND: Ms.
Steele VOTE: 4-0
David
The project was reviewed on
9/20/06.
There is a DEP number but no
comments. The Engineering Dept review is
not completed as of yet.
DEP is reviewing the infiltration
system and questioning a possible creation of a break out at the coastal bank.
There are 5 different
infiltrations throughout the site. The
driveway is gravel.
The Commission would like to
review the project and entertain any further questions amongst the Commission.
Mr. Hale did a review of the
project and had no outstanding issues but it still needs further review.
Ms. Ryder stated that with
vegetative planting it should be O.K but advised the Commission as to a 4 stage
review of the project.
Ms. Steele inquired as to
whether or not there was a definitive response from the Eng. Dept.
Ms. Rimmer stated another
change re: no disturbance zone: delineated with stone which has been noted on
the plan.
Regarding the eastern side of
the property: Property owners request no stone as it is so close to the
abutters.
It was noted that Order of
Condition in 1996 was a little different regarding the house and the
configuration. It was redesigned to fit
the contour of the land. There is not basement,
slab on ledge in the back. The lot
itself was created prior to riverfront regulations. There is a driveway and utilities on site
already. The applicant would like a
gravel driveway.
31,000 sq. ft. upland,
riverfront resource just not wet.
18,000 sq. ft. no disturbance
area.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
none
Mr. Schenk addressed the
Commission asking the members as to there comfort level regarding all 4
standards being met.
In review conditions before
voting: All Engineering review be
complete.
No disturbance zone noted
with stone.
MOTION: Ms.
Steele moved to approve with the listed conditions.
SECOND: Mr.
Socolow VOTE: 4-0 all in favor.
Signed by all members present.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION PERMIT
A site visit is planned for Wednesday
10/11/06.
Engineering Dept to view and
review.
The Commission agreed to
continue the matter until the next meeting 10/18/06.
MOTION: Ms.
Steele moves to continue the matter
SECOND: Mr.
Socolow VOTE: 4-0 all in favor
Applicant asking for an
extension for a two week session for revised plan which was never submitted. Applied for home and pool which is near
to coastal bank.
Mr. Schenk asked to hear from
the Agent on this matter and Ms. Ryder commented on the Notice of Intent.
MOTION: Ms.
Steele moves to deny the extension permit
SECOND: Mr.
Anderson VOTE: 4-0 all in favor
Certificate of Compliance
Done and off the agenda
141R
To be continued as Mr. Gulla
will be taking a site visit along with Ms. Ryder.
Request for continuation.
MOTION: Ms.
Steele moves to continue the matter until
SECOND: Mr.
Anderson VOTE:
4-0 all in favor
Development for housing
Changes made will be a Notice
of Intent.
The Agent informed the
Commission that there are (2) two vernal pools on the site.
She also noted to the
Commission that there is a lot of reading associated with the issues at hand
with this project. Copies of the
environmental section are available for any Commission member.
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Ms. Ryder reports that inception of
summer environmental programs through the
Summer Recreation Program.
Mr. Schenk stated that he was
impressed with Karen, the new Recreation Director.
Ms. Ryder stated that several
ideas for the program have been listed and it was to
be free and/or fee based.
STATE REVISIONS
Draft of Report
STORMWATER CENTER WORKSHOP
UNH
The Agent reports as of yet no one is registered
for the workshop but it is being worked on.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MAGAZINE
The Agent reports to the Commission that there
are several interesting articles in the current EH Magazine.
Correspondence Pk. Re: Annisquam
Mathison
*missing info*
Ms. Ryder stated she doesn’t usually have any
issues with Mathison.
She futher stated that vandals had pulled up the
plantings and left them there. There is
spring flooding and the land that was flooded did not drain properly.
VI.
A.
Lauren and Ted Suchecki to demolish and rebuild home. (Map 219
This is a modified
plan/plantings as per previous discussion between the Agent and
Ms. Suchecki.
The applicants will not be
excavating the lower property so as not to disturb the
river. The planting plan previously mentioned should
be adequate.
The plan which is completed but
not submitted will be submitted the Wednesday
before the next meeting which
is scheduled for 10/18/06.
Ms. Steele made a site visit
and submitted photos for the record and viewed by all
Commission members present. The
pictures depict a tight lot as well as showing the
characteristics of the property. The cottage needs serious work
There are retaining walls on the street side and water
side.
*missing info* above flood
zone and mean high water. Vegetative
buffer near
coastal bank.
DEP requests the riverfront be shown on the plan as this needs
to be identified
clearly. Ms. Steele noted there are (2) two
basements. Ms. Ryder noted there is no
erosion control on the plan. The applicant stated that the erosion control
is listed
on the plan with the Eng.
Dept. Ms. Ryder stated that it should be
noted on all the
plans.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
A set of small photos were given to the applicant.
The Commission will take a vote
at the next meeting scheduled for 10/18/06.
MOTION: Mr. Anderson moves to continue the matter to
the above date at
VI.
B.
89 EASTERN POINT BOULEVARD (Map 136
Mr. W. Manuell present w/plan.
Previous discussion regarding this
matter was held two weeks ago. At that
time there
was no DEP number.
Mr. Schenk noted that he is
affiliated with the Gloucester Board of Health but this
issue is unrelated and he will be
recusing himself.
Mr. Manuell noted that regarding a
survey there is no access to the abutter’s property.
A letter dated 10/2/06 was noted
by the Board of Health.
A DEP file number is available but
no comments.
Mr. Socolow inquired as to the
landscape of the property. Mr. Manuell
stated that
he will add plantings and a low
boulder wall re: the septic system.
Ms. Ryder noted that the septic
system is 10 ft. from the Wetland.
This would be a replacement and
repair. The Agent is not in favor of it
but what are
the alternatives. A suggestion of a barrier and dense plantings
on the eastern side.
Mr. Manuell noted that some
landscaping is noted on the plan as well as the water line
being marked. Ms. Ryder asked if the water line shifted.
Mr. Manuell stated he would have
to defer to the Design Engineer. There
will be a
pre construction meeting and it
will be discussed at that time.
Ms. Steele noted that there is a
potential for contamination on this lot.
Could be
moved then sleeved. Mr. Manuell noted erosion control where the
water line ties into
the street. Pump changer/ opposite side of the
house. Plantings shown and erosion
control up along the street line,
with additional plantings.
Two sections with additional
plantings are noted on the plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
Mr. Schenk asking the Commission to vote, a modified plan
with more definition of
the modifications on the plan with
the Agent. Erosion control annotated on
the plan
No stockpiling and removal of
soils as needed. Mr. Manuell discussed
the existing
driveway and the Agent was OK with
that. Ms. Ryder suggested a double silt
fence
as a single has a tendency to
collapse. Mr. Manuell agreed.
MOTION: Mr. Socolow moves to *missing info*
SECOND:
Mr. Anderson VOTE: 4-0
B.
Eastern Point Association to
install drop inlet structures and resurfacing of roadway.
Mr. Manuell present with
plan. This matter was discussed at the
previous meeting. A memo dated 10/3 by
the City Engineer to the Agent was noted.
This was for a review and is
compliant.
Order of Conditions: The contractor is to coordinate with the City
of
Ms. Ryder noted the culverts,
to be offset by 2 to 1 planting. Mr.
Manuell mentioned rip rap in one area.
Mr. Socolow inquired as to the drop inlet structure. Mr. Manuell stated this is in relation to
divert and flow as opposed to over the street.
Mr. Socolow inquired as to the substance used to resurface the
roadway. Mr. Manuell stated it would be
bituminous.
Ms. Steele noted in the Order
of Condition to include measurements and basic photos re: elevations, a full
series of photos of both sides of the roadway before and after
construction. Regarding the resurfacing
Mr. Socolow inquired as to what will happen to the existing surface and Mr.
Manuell noted that there would be a layer over the existing surface and repave.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
none
MOTION: Ms.
Steele moves to approve with conditions:
Photos listed previously, Construction
coordination with the
Mitigation.
See above listed conditions as well.
SECOND: Mr.
Socolow VOTE:
4-0 all in favor and signed by all members present.
Mr. Schenk asked for a 4 minute break in the
meeting.
MOTION:
Mr. Socolow moves for the break
SECOND: Mr.
Anderson VOTE: 4-0 all in favor
VII.
A.
City of
Regarding the rain event in
May, part of the roadway was washed away.
He spoke further regarding a
poured concrete retaining wall to reclaim the roadway, a guardrail and repair
of the retaining wall.
Ms. Ryder read from a letter
from an abutter stating this project to be essential.
It was also noted: cut outs
recommended for water to flow and a mulch sock to be used. A further recommendation is the use of a wire
box/cage on the inlet pipes.
Mr. Socolow inquired as to
the retaining wall and Frank V. stated that it had been washed away and is to
be replaced.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
MOTION: Mr.
Socolow moves to approve with conditions presented by the Agent
SECOND: Mr.
Anderson VOTE: 4-0 all in favor
B./
City of
Management
Practices.
Request for a continuation. Site visit set for
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
MOTION:
Ms. Steele moves to continue the matter until
SECOND:
Mr. Anderson VOTE:
4-0 all in favor
June Sutherland to construct a single
family home. At present the applicant
lives at
Mr.
Manuell present with the applicant.
Application *missing info*
New
modular style home. 10,000 sq. ft. lot
The lot
is encumbered by riverfront,
City of
200 sq. ft. riverfront area
encompasses the entire parcel.
Proposed single family home with a
driveway for (2) two cars. The sewer
connection
would be from
parcel. The property is currently used as an open area
for the family.
The lot was created prior to 1996. It was stated that the home and proposed deck
are pushed as far back as can be. The stairs coming off the back deck would be
the
primary entrance. It was further stated that this would be as
away from the river-
front as possible. There would be 4000 sq. ft. of
construction. We have met the
alternative
analysis and impact threshold. Mr.
Socolow inquired as to the excavation to be done on the
property as well as mentioning a shed on a foundation. Mr. Manuell
stated there would be a bit of grading in the front and as for the shed,
it is to be moved and placed
on blocks, no foundation.
Ms. Steele inquired as to the
sewer connection and Mr. Manuell stated he assumed it would be where the stub
was left but he would confirm that and get back to the Commission.
Ms. Ryder stated that there
was a question of common ownership of the property and that was on out review
with the Legal Dept. The answer will
impact the alternative analysis. If the
property is common ownership then the property would be considered one
lot. DEP has not completed there
review. Ms. Ryder also recommended a
hefty vegetative buffer on the
Mr. Anderson stated it’s a
matter of dealing with coastal bank, buffer zone issues, the
PUBLIC COMMENT:
none
Mr. Schenk suggested markers be placed where the
foundation is to be placed.
Mr. Manuell stated the stakes are listed on the
plan and with that Mr. Schenk said referencing it was fine.
MOTION: Mr.
Socolow moves to continue the matter until
SECOND: Ms.
Steele VOTE: 4-0 all in favor
Joseph Amicone requests the
Commission to determine the applicability after the fact of the Wetlands
Protection Act and the local Wetlands Ord. to replace failed septic system. Request for continuation.
MOTION: Mr.
Anderson moves to continue the matter until
SECOND: Ms.
Steele VOTE: 4-0 all in favor
11R
Request
for Letter Permit
Plan
Shown. Under wetlands Permit only with
no issues by the Commission
The landowner would like to
re open and confirm the delineation.
To be re opened with legal
add posted.
CITY OF
Re: environmental bucket. The idea is to go back to the traditional
bucket.
Ms. Ryder agrees and Ms.
Steele made mention of asking for modification from EPA.
Carrigan Enterprises requests
the Commission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act
and the local Wetlands Ordinance to make improvements to
Michelle Harrison, Esq.
present
Carrigan Enterprises.
Annisquam Woods Cluster Development Plan
Mr. Schenk stated that given
the amount of public interest we will have a public comment but may have to
continue as well for further public comment.
Presented to the Commission: Annisquam Woods Definitive Topography Plan
Ms. Harrison stated she is
aware of the City of
The Board of Health supported
elimination of detention ponds.
Flow will be treated before
going into the Wetlands. All homes are
outside the buffer area. An amended
resource order re: delineation to be aware of buffer zone. This would be a low impact development.
DEP has not yet formulated
the storm water calculations.
The RDA Board and the Agent
are aware of the fact that abutters need not be notified but all abutters have
been notified as if it were a Notice of Intent.
Mr. *missing info* Rep. for
Carrigan Enterprises
This was filed as a Notice of
Intent July 2006.
He went on to state that this
project would incorporate low impact techniques and away from a hard
engineering design/approach. He stated
they have made an effort to get away from buffer zone. This would be a Low Impact Development (LID)
Design.
Presentation:
Page 1
HYBRID DESIGN
Grassy swales and woods,
runoff where possible
Catch basin system where
drive and house warrant
Grassed
Perforated Piping,
Infiltration with all pipes after Deep Sump
Catch basins with Gas Traps
Reduced Pavement widths
Increased drainage paths
where practical
Flow dissipation w/level
spreaders
Individual rain gardens at
each unit
Page 2
(Photos presented to the Commission at this
time)
1. Roadway w/grass swales
2. Rain garden infiltration bed
3. Rain garden infiltration bed
4. Grassed turnaround, water quality basins
Page 3
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) STORM WATER BMP'S
StormCeptor 1200
Water quality device
Rain garden infiltration bed
Level Spreaders
Explanation of Storm water
BMP's
Page 4
SIDEWALK DESIGN SOLUTIONS
Conventional Cross Section
shown
Super elevated Cross Section
shown
Super elevated Cross Section
at retaining wall shown
All three sections shown on
the plan presentation explained by Mr.
Mr. refers to the Topography Plan describing the
flow and discharge of water.
The meeting went on with
Mr. stating that the plan had two small
areas of impact in the buffer zone: water quality and dispersion, storm ceptor
to be in place. The construction of the
roadway will be a bypass of
Ms. Ryder stated that there
are two portions for review, only for those areas, only within the jurisdictional
buffer.
There should be no comments
made other than what is in our jurisdiction.
It was further stated that
the amount of impact would be small with no issues and no concerns.
Mr. went on to state that
there is a change of pipe in the roadway which was done after a water
study. Pipe: replacement of existing 6 inch water line at
Mr. Socolow asked if blasting
would be present.
Mr. stated yes, in the area of the roadway but
not near the storm septor.
Ms. Steele inquired as to any
other Carrigan projects on the
Ms. Ryder notes that this is
about the roadway and the level spreader.
Mr. Schenk agreed,
appreciates the update and would like to move on.
Ms. Steele inquired with the
Agent as the relevance of the DEP comments and Ms. Ryder stated they were not
relevant to the issue on hand this evening.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Fred Giesel,
Mr. Giesel stated he strongly
opposes the negative determination re the proposed work. He went on to state that two different
designs at the same time are contrary to DEP findings. The RDA should be withdrawn and incorporate
all into the plan.
20 ft wide road, 2 ft of
curbing on either side. He stated this
project was a blatant attempt to segment the project itself. He felt the project was being looked at in
little bits and pieces and not the project as a whole.
13,500sq. ft. of work within
the buffer zone, 10,000 sq. ft. within 100 ft of buffer zone of vernal
pool. He felt the amount of work to be
done be a filing of an N of I on its own.
Mr. Chick
Mr. Chick spoke in regards to
the sewer line and culvert stating that 2 six inch pieces of plastic pipe were
installed. Every year this overflows
because the culvert was never replaced and the swamp stays full of water
because of that.
Mr. Golden stated
he felt it was not fair that the applicant spoke at length and he is
limited. In regards to the site plan Mr.
Golden stated that wildlife migrates through the roadway which will have 30 new
homes which he felt was too much impact for the area. He also stated spotted turtles have been seen
in the area.
He went on to say that during
the Carrigan presentation there were no interruptions
then he is told of
jurisdictional areas of discussion when he is speaking and that it was not
fair. He feels that residents are being
ignored by the Commission.
Mr. Schenk conveyed his
admiration for the passion Mr. Golden has regarding this issue but would like
him to tone it down a bit. Mr. Golden
went on to say that he felt requests for impact studies are being ignored. He also stated that as well as the spotted turtles,
dragonflies have been seen in the area.
He feels that to call this project low impact is an insult.
Noel Mann 12
Mr. Mann states that with
this project going forward not a tree would be standing and vernal pools
affected as well. He requests a
positive determination.
Mr. Schenk reminded the
public that comments can be made in writing and submitted to the Agent for
review.
Mr. (Carrigan
Ent.) re: the multiple filings, if this is approved the N of I will be
dropped. Mr. Ryder stated this would
have to be done in writing and submitted.
The applicant states under
RDA 21 days from the filing, agrees to continue and asks that the N of I be
continued as it has not been opened yet.
MOTION:
Mr. Socolow moves to continue the matter until
SECOND:
Ms. Steele VOTE:
4-0 all in favor
IX. A.
KEYSTONE
To be continued
MOTION: Mr.
Anderson moves to continue the matter until
SECOND: Ms.
Steele VOTE: 4-0 all in
favor
B.
James McKenna present rep.
the owners who have been
Ms. Ryder asked the atty to
come re these unusual mitigating circumstances.
Mr. McKenna stated that No 2
Fuel Oil would be stored and distributed from the site. The neighborhood is
zoned as residential.
Gloucester City Council, *missing
info*. retail
Mr. McKenna did state that he
spoke with the Agent regarding the plan.
He further stated there would
be an installation of a cement pad and berm where the diesel is being
distributed, which is not in place at this time. They are never going to pursue
gasoline sales but by permit would like to provide for the existing use. They want to bring the property more into
zoning compliance, as it should be. The
good news re: fuels, is that there is a Spill Prevention Plan with an annual
review by the State which information he will share with the Agent.
Ms. Ryder stated that this
was built in 1970 with no permit and no approval.
The entire site is in violation. The Agent further stated that the Letter Permit for the pad is not the only