MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Whaley, Chairman, Iora Alexander, Kevin Avery, Michael Greene and David Holscher.
ABSENT: Thomas Hughes
ALSO PRESENT: Conservation
Agent Michelle Rowden
Rick
Whaley opened
the meeting at
MINUTES
KA
motioned to continue the minutes from
the
General
Don Levesque, DPW director, addressed the Commission requesting permission for the DPW to cut and clear a path 500’ long and 30’ wide for access to install a sampling well and a permanent well at the end of Lena Mae’s Way. RL stated that the DEP issued approval to a design of the prolonged pumping test. DL showed pictures of the area. RW asked if Geosphere determined where the aqua spheres exist. RL replied yes. RW asked whom to notify if there are water problems. RL said to contact him. IA asked if there was a problem with Seabrook and if the proximity of the well would be closer to Seabrook. RL stated the new well would be 500 feet from the exiting well #5 but not nearer Seabrook. KA motioned to allow the town to perform this test project. IA seconded. In discussion, RW asked what would be involved. RL stated the removal of stumps, the testing, the infrastructure- electrical, etc., and gravel. IA asked when. RL stated November. The motion passed unanimously.
BUILDING PERMITS
No
building permits were presented.
Minutes January 18, 2006 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public
Hearings were opened.7:37 p.m.
1) NOI:
George Hughes,
Ron
Laffely of Fulcrum Architects and Brian
Knowles of Apple Associates represented the applicant. RL reviewed the existing
site, six buildings – five residences and a utility building. They presented
graphics. RW asked those interested to move up to see better. RL stated they decided not to increase the
canal. They will cleanup the edge and phragmites. They will install piles without
drilling using tapping. IA asked if
there would be a ramp for parking. RL said yes. IA asked if they had looked at
Joe Serwatka’s January 17th letter and comments that that some
information was inadequate. BK said they responded. IA asked about the
professional Engineering stamp. BK said his boss stamped new plans and he
presented the revised plans to RW. IA
asked about the detail for slope and grading. BK proposes a trench. IA as asked
about snow storage. BK said they will use snow blowers between the units. IA asked for confirmation that the snow will
be cleared by snow blowers. BK and RL said snow blowers. IA asked will the snow
be deposited near the marsh. BK and RL said the snow would not be deposited
near the marsh. IA asked if they responded
to JS’s questioning if the grade 5.3
feet was adequate. BN stated that the 3 to 1 slop meets criteria. RW asked if
they were at an impasse. BK stated if JS
has issues we can sit down and iron them out with him. IA asked what have you provided for
maintenance plan. BN said they
have a provided a maintenance plan. IA
asked what else they could do to satisfy JS concerns. RL stated they could put
a small culvert but that it would take planning
board approval. IA stated that
when she reviewed the property she has seen water under the present houses
and roadway. RL said the DEP would like
to see a split rail fence at the end. RW said he would prefer a post and chain. RL asked for
permission to use steel piles in place of wood. IA said she did not see a
problem. KA motioned to allow permission for steel piles
and the other previous changes discussed for PVC pipe and a granite split rail
fence at the end. IA seconds. In discussion, RW stated that the need for a narrative still
applies. RW said it would be OK to move
forward if JS is comfortable and all the
issues from his letter are addressed to JS’
satisfaction. The motion was unanimously
approved
2)
NOI: Northpointe Builders LLC, Off
Brian
Knowles of Apple Associates represented the applicant. BK provided new plans to
the Commission and stated that the plan is reduced from 58 to 48 units,
increasing the set backs and increasing the no-cut area. RW asked for
confirmation that the units are not within 25 feet of the wetland. BK stated most units have treatment, most
flow-back providing the required DEP treatment. RW asked if they are building
detention ponds with pipes/holes. RW
asked how big the holes are. BK said 1
inch to 1½ inches. IA
asked who is responsible for the maintenance. BK stated condo association. RW
asked if there were concrete pipes. RW
asked where else around here was this process used. He asked have you seen this
done in this area. BK said this is done in Boxford. KA asked if this is
practical stormwater management. KA
asked Chris Perkins of Weston and Sampson, who has been providing peer review, is
this your recommendation. Is this practical? CP said it is on the cusp of not
meeting guidelines. If anything gets into the basin then this will not work. KA asked if this was better
than the original plan. Is the issue maintenance? CP said he did not know how
this will work over time. KA asked if he
was talking about blockage from outside. BK said this has been designed for a
100 year storm. KA asked if CP has maintenance concerns. CP said it has to be able to handle a two year
storm. DH asked if the design has the capability to simulate surface areas and what is the
best method. CP said the ideal insurance is that nothing gets in outlet. That
if there is any change to basins then the model is off.
Minutes January 18, 2006 Page
3
2)
NOI: Northpointe Builders LLC, Seabrook
continued
KA
voiced his concern that we are going around and around on this project. They
have made changes and want a resolution. He asked CP what the other issues are.
CP said drainage, stormwater management,
the responsibility of maintenance and the DEP to weigh in. RW stated that this is a 40B. They have
structures closer to the wetlands than other projects. This may not be approved
in other towns from what he has heard form wetlands scientists. IA stated that
Mary Rimmer has concerns that this project may damage the wetlands. KA stated that there is a current that this
project should not go through. RW, said no, that there are other issues and asked what the
usage is. Are there 48 units on
seventeen acres of wetlands? KA stated
it should not take this long. CP said his role is to review and make sure it
meets DEP guidelines. Iteration are not our control. RW reviewed concerns from
Mary Rimmer’s letter on this project
such as concern over the habitat and migration, and the 10 food no-cut
concern in the second paragraph of her
letter. He asked if they were responding
to MR’s concerns. BK said they have
maintenance on their plans. KA asked about the responsibility of maintenance
and asked who will ensure that there is
no more encroachment onto the wetlands. BK said it is the responsibility of the
condo association. IA asked if there
will be garages. BK said no garages and no pools and that this will be in the
condo rules. RW asked if they had responded to Mary Rimmer’s
concern that the limit of work be firmly established on plans. BK said yes. RW
asked about the four points at the end of
paragraph one of MR’s letter and asked if the responses to these
concerns will be made on the narrative. BK said yes. RW asked if they will
follow her suggestion to change the flow by 90%. BK said yes. RW asked CP if he saw any unresolved issues
that we need to address. CP replied that
he has provided comments and that Mary Rimmer has concerns for more detail and
sequencing. RW voiced a concern over the dip in the driveway and that during a
2 or 5 year storm that they will be going through water to get out of their
driveway. BK said the culvert too deep. KA
motioned to approve this project with the caveat that all issues discussed here
this evening will be set forth in the Order of Conditions and that the two
reviewing consultants (Mary and Chris) are satisfied according to their final
comment letters. IA seconded.
3)
NOI: Thomas O’Hara,
Jim
Babbin from Millennium Engineering
appeared with owners Tom O’Hara and Elizabeth O’Hara. RW said to consider this as a
first hearing. JB reviewed the plans showing two lots and one dwelling on each of the two lots. Each house would be on pilings. RW asked
about the concrete floor? They will take
out the phragmites and replace and reseed to replicate wetlands. IA voiced a
concern over closeness to wetlands and asked if they were out of the no-build
zone. JB said they were between the 25 and 40 feet zone. RW asked when the lots
were created. TH said 2003. RW said the commission is holding everyone to the
40 foot bylaw. He explained that we are
in litigation over this issue. IA said
the DEP has to weigh in. JB said Mike Abel reviewed the plans. RW explained the
history that new lots and new sub-divisions
have to respect the 40 feet no build zone and the 25 foot no disturb
zone by laws. It would be different if these were existing lots. DH said he had
comments from TH via e-mail today. RW read that TH made a site visit and does
not recommend giving in on the setback rules for this project. KA stated that
these owners gave sixty-six acres away to the town. IA said we are in a difficult
position but does not see how we can justify this project. KA said that if we stick to our guns on the 40 foot no build zone then these folks
may not build. DH asked if there was any other place to build on the property. TH said they moved the house as parcel A has
phragmites. RW asked if parcel A was buildable. JB said no due to the salt
marsh. RW mentioned an alternative to bring the proposal to one house. KA said
it may still be in the 40 foot zone. RW asked if they are willing to wait while
he talks to town counsel on this issue.
The applicants will wait. KA motioned to
continue this to the
Minutes January 18, 2006 Page 4
4) NOI: Robert Jacobs,
Applicant
requested to continue to the next meeting.
KA
motioned to continue this to the February 1, 2006 meeting at 7:15 p.m. DH seconds.
Motion
was unanimously approved.
9) NOI: Joan Stevens, 14A-C Friedenfels Rd.
Applicant
requested to continue to the next meeting.
KA
motioned to take out of order and continue to the
10) Amended NOI: Kathy Orben, 12 Ferry
Applicant
requested to continue to the next mtg.
KA
motioned to take out of order and continue to the
NOI:
DH motioned to place on Agenda, take out of order,
and continue to the
5) NOI: Michael O’Neill,
Carol
Ann and Michael O’Neil reviewed the revised plans with the Commission. IA
noticed they pointed out the posts. KA said that seeing how the applicants made
revisions to the plans as requested he moved to accept the plans as presented.
IA seconds. The motion was unanimously
approved. In response to applicant’s questions, KA advised the applicants that
they have to wait for the ten day appeal period. That subsequent to the appeal
period, the Order of Conditions will be mailed to them. It is their responsibility
to have the OoC recorded at court and come back with the receipt. It is up to
them to obtain the building permit and then come back.
6) ANRAD: Cardillo Development
Kevin
Avery abstains. Scott from Apple Associates
represented the applicant. RW asked if he filed with Fish and Wildlife? IA
stated project review will be required by the Natural Heritage and Endangered
Species group. RW asked if a filing with the Fish and
Wildlife necessary for ConCom to approve. MR , Conservation Agent, said no. DH motioned
to approve the project subject that they
do not have to file with Fish and Wildlife. MG seconds.
7) NOI: Chris Auto Body,
Applicant requested a continuance to next
mtg.
DH
motioned to continue this to the February 1, 2006 meeting at 7:15PM. IA seconds.
Motion
was unanimously approved.
Minutes January 18, 2006 Page 5
8) NOI: Toler LLC,
No
discussion as this was inadvertently placed on Agenda. This will be on the
11) NOI: Dianne Fasoli,
Sean C. from Oak Engineers represented the
applicant. Sean stated that this project
is an addition to a single family home in the Beach resource area. He is
proposing a frost wall foundation. RW asked on a
12) NOI: Ron Poulin,
Scott
from Apple Associates appeared with Ron Poulin. Scott presented an overview of the project including
pictures. IA saw a house in the pictures and asked if the house was being
removed. Scott said no. RW asked how long have you owned the property and if he
was aware that the Commission issued an Enforcement Order on that property. RW advised that some Con Com members saw fill
being placed and asked where do wetlands really begin? Where is the fill and
where the wetlands would be if the fill was not there. MR, Conservation Agent, advised that they need to clear up the
Enforcement Order. RW asked what part was recently filled. Scott stated that a
shed was knocked down and asked if that was the area. KA and IA asked how one
enters the property. MR said they filled
much of the property. KA showed them
where delineation was on the plans. RW said that Lisa Pearson is knowledgeable
about this issue. KA said that considering there is outstanding Enforcement
Order he moved to continue this to the
13) NOI: Salvatore Ferrandi,
Michael
Greene abstains. Scott from Apple Associates represents the applicant. MR
states that there is no comment from the DEP. Scott states that the proposed plan is for a
three story industrial building. The existing buildings are within the 40 feet of
the no building zone. There is a swale on the south westerly side for water
quality. RW asked what he meant water quality. KA asked what will you do with the
roof run-off and the plans should show the roof run-off. KA asked what is going to be done with the
parking lot drainage. IA asked where the parking is. Scott said in front. RW
says that the NOI says industrial and if so Scott must advise the Commission of
the industrial use. Scott said it should be commercial. RW asked if there would be concrete floors.
Minutes January 18, 2006 Page 6
13) NOI: Salvatore Ferrandi,
KA said the drawings are very
incomplete. Tim Lamprey, an abutter and Zoning Board member, asked several questions.
Will the existing building stay and Scott said they will come down. TL asked
about the percentage of lot coverage and asked if this will be more than 25%
square footage. Scott answered 11,000 sf. Tim questioned if this project needs to come
before the Zoning Board and the Building Inspector. TL asked if the roof was
flat, and will water go into the town creek/wetland. He asked how this building
will affect neighbors up the street. KA stated that an engineer needs to be
involved with the plans and that what was before the board was only a sketch. Bernie Case, an abutter advised the ConCom of
several issues. He has replicated for wetlands. He advised the state that a portion of
OLD BUSINESS
1) Request for CoC, Pearson 148
MR,
Conservation Agent, advises the commission that the
applicant has refused to post the bond. KA motions to deny the request for a
CoC. IA seconds. Motion was unanimously
approved.
2) Request for CoC, Gorman Realty
RW
will do a site visit when he has the plans.
3) Request for CoC, 133, 135 & 137 Beach Rd.
No
appearance. This will stay on the agenda.
4) CoC issues, 13 CCC Rd.
Lynn McGoff
Lynn McGoff appeared before the
Commission. LMcG stated that the decks are on the front side of her house. RW
advised LMcG of Mary Rimmer’s concerns regarding the wetland replication area
as stated in Mary’s letter. RW said that MaryR stated
a concern over location.
NEW BUSINESS
1) Release of OoC,
Jim Babbin from Millennium
Engineering represented the applicant. JB
advised the ConCom that Mr. Able has concerns regarding erosion/rocks. There
was a DEP site visit where the DEP
requested a soft engineering solution (no rocks). The soft engineering solution is a coconut
fiber product. A sample of this product was provided to the Committee for
review. This material is guaranteed for two years. RW asked about installation.
JB provided new plans. MR asked if Mike Abell (DEP) has
the plans. JB asking the NOI to reference the new set of plans and release the Order of Conditions referencing
the new plans revised
Minutes January 18, 2006 Page 7
2) Request for CoC, 13 Palis Dr., Mark Kaufer and Silke Braun
Jim Babbin from Millennium Engineering represented the applicant. JB advised the ConCom that this property was sold and that the outstanding CoC was not caught. He stated that the property is in compliance with the plans except for the retaining wall. JB stated that a deck was constructed by a prior owner. MR, Conservation Agent, advised that the Order of conditions has expired and that it doesn’t appear to require a new filing, but she will have to double check the rules since the work has already been completed. KA asked MR if there was any other alternatives. IA asked MR to check this out with Lisa Pearson.
3) Review of wetland rules and regs
-IA asked to set up a time to discuss the wetland rules and regulations.
-Hot top replacement - RW advised that if the Attorney General approves the Town Meeting change on hot top replacement then the Town Meeting change becomes the new regulation. However, if you are going to replace hot top you will still need to file an Abbreviated Notice of Intent (ABNOI) or a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA).
ENFORCEMENT ORDERS:
There were none present to discuss the Enforcement orders.
SITE INSPECTION REPORTS:
No site inspection reports
were presented.
Executive Session
IA moved to allow RW to sign the DECM settlement. DH seconds. Motion was unanimously approved.
Adjournment
RW motions to adjourn. IA seconds. Motion was unanimously approved.
The meeting adjourns at 11:15 p.m.
Approved: April 5, 2006