Loading...
2006-01-31 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: January 31, 2006 Board: Conservation Commission Members Present David Lang (Chair), Tony Paluzzi (Vice-Chair), Ian Hayes Mayo Johnson, Gregg Cademartori, and Bill Squibb (arrives 7:10 p.m.) Members Absent: None Others Present: Amy Maxner – Environmental Planner Recorder: Eileen Sacco Chairman Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Discussion with Mayor William Scanlon – Former Vitale Site Mayor William Scanlon addresses the Conservation Commission on the status of the former Vitale site with regards to the Commission’s custody of the property. Mayor Scanlon reviews the history of the site and notes that NEPCO has done substantial work on the site, which is resulting in two additional athletic fields for the City of Beverly. He notes that this is a positive step forward in dealing with the fly ash situation. Mayor Scanlon explains that there had been talk about this parcel staying under the custody of the Conservation Commission, however he suggests two other possible sites, either of which could be turned over to the Commission to replace this site. Chairman Lang reviews the history of how the Commission acquired this property. Squibb arrives. Mayor Scanlon introduced City Planner Tina Cassidy who reviews the proposed parcels with the Commission on a plan. She notes that the first site is in the northern area of Beverly Farms on Boulder Lane and is 17 acres. She also notes that the land around this site is in the care and custody of the Conservation Commission presently. She notes that the other possible site is on Pole Swamp Lane and is 21 acres and also has land around it that is in the care and custody of the Commission. Johnson suggests that the Commission visit the sites before making a decision. Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14 Lang suggests that the Commission schedule as site inspection on Saturday, February 25, 2006 weather permitting. Johnson asks if the city would be willing to consider turning over both parcels to the Conservation Commission. Ms. Cassidy states that the city is always willing to cooperate. Cademartori recalled that the motion the Commission made approving the use of the property states that the use allowed active recreation already included a provision for compensation of a comparable piece of land. Hayes states that he is in agreement with the idea of exchanging the land and notes that he wants to make sure that several issues need to be clearly addresses prior to the Commission relinquishing control of the property and notes the following: ?? Any water supply issues are addressed and that the Salem Beverly Water Supply Board agrees with the decision. ?? He would like to see a solid definition of what “active recreation” is and notes that if the land is not used for active recreation it should revert back to the Conservation Commission. ?? He would be concerned about the replication on the site, and thinks that it should be fully functional prior to releasing the property. ?? The proposed access road, if approved by the Commission through the wetlands permitting process, should remain as an emergency access only and this should be memorialized in written form so that there is no confusion in the future. ?? Finally, he states that it should be clear that this is a very unusual property, and the Commission’s decision to release the property does not reflect it’s philosophy for protecting land. He states that the Commission should develop regulations for management of Conservation lands and make it clear to all that any land entrusted in its care is very safe and will be protected. Hayes also notes that he did not want to set a precedent for turning over Conservation Commission land but in this case it makes sense, and as long as his concerns are satisfactorily addresses he would be comfortable with that decision. Lang agrees, and states the Commission should take it one step further and make it a policy to never accept contaminated or compromised land of this nature in the future. Cassidy states that she has some ideas on the language for the deed and notes that one issue is that of the continued efforts of cleanup of the site, and all of Mr. Hayes’ concerns can easily be addresses. She also notes that the fields may be ready next summer and refers to Mike Lotti from National Grid about the replication monitoring. Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14 Lotti explains that there is a two-year window for monitoring the replication area with the City of Beverly under the Commission’s Order of Conditions and a five-year window for the Army Corp of Engineers permit, which requires that an additional five years be tacked on should any plantings need to be replaced. He states that National Grid will be involved with this property for some time to come. Lang asks Lotti if an LSP has been involved and if there will be an AUL assigned to the site. Lotti states DEP does not require LSP involvement as fly ash does not come under the hazardous waste regulations, but the nature of the remediation has eliminated any concern for public health and safety issues. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the matter to February 28, 2006, pending a site inspection scheduled for th Saturday, February 28 at 8:00 a.m. Seconded by Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. New - Enforcement Order & Modification to Order of Conditions- DEP File #5-873 Thompson Farm Subdivision – Thomas Carnevale Maxner informed the Commission that an Order of Conditions for this project was issued in April of 2005. She notes that at that time the Planning Board review of the project was still ongoing and the Board requested additional storm water measures which resulted in a change in the detention basin design and the applicant never came back to the Commission for a revision of the plans. Maxner notes that she visited the site and found a different layout for the detention basin as well as several violations to the Order of Conditions and issued an Enforcement Order requiring work to immediately cease and require that the applicant come before the Commission to address the violations and changes to the plan. Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Commission on behalf of his client, Thomas Carnevale. He explained that the Planning Board required that they enlarge the detention area in such a way as to result in a zero increase in volume. He further explained that subsequent to the permitting process the property was sold to Carnevale and there was a miscommunication as to what needed to be done. Alexander states that the change does encroach on the buffer zone and revised plan is in fact a much stricter plan from a stormwater perspective than the one approved by the Commission. Hayes asks if the planting plan that was approved for the site would be affected by the changes to the plan. Atty. Alexander states that the intention is to reproduce it as much as possible with the revised plans. Paluzzi asks how much larger the detention area is. Atty. Alexander states that it is 25% larger and the increased area is away from the resource area. Paluzzi notes that with the Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 increase in size the planting plan should be increased accordingly. Lang agrees and states that they have to increase the plantings. Atty. Alexander states that they would accept that as a condition. A discussion on plantings and Maxner reminded the Commission and Carnevale of the Special Conditions issued by the Commission and reviews them. She suggests that these conditions carry over to the revised plan. Atty. Alexander notes that the deed for Lot 6 would specify that the maintenance of the detention area would he their responsibility. Cademartori questions why the maintenance would be left to one owner and not the homeowners association. Atty. Alexander explains that the Planning Board felt that putting the responsibility on one owner would make enforcement of it easier from the City’s perspective. Johnson asks Maxner if the violations to the Order have been addresses. Maxner proceeds to catalogue the Conditions that were not adhered to and evidence of compliance provided by Carnevale as required in the Enforcement Order. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Paluzzi moves to accept the modification of the Order of Conditions for DEP File #5-873 Thompson Farm Subdivision to include the original Standard and Special Conditions and an additional Special Condition that the planting plan for the basin be expanded and prepared by a professional wetland scientist. Seconded by Johnson. Motion carries 6-0. Squibb requested that the revised plan reflect the new ownership of the property. Atty. Alexander states that the plan and the conditions will be part of the title on file at the Registry of Deeds and does not see the necessity of a new plan being drawn up. Paluzzi moves to lift the Enforcement Order for DEP File #5-873 Thompson Farm Subdivision. Seconded by Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Recess for Public Hearings Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Seconded by Hayes. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. New: 10-12 Congress Street – Abbreviated Notice of Wetlands Delineation – Beverly Office Development LLC Maxner reads the legal notice. Kenneth Knowles addresses the Commission and explains that the site consists of a Coastal Bank and associated Buffer Zones, Riverfront Area to the Danvers River and within a 100-Year Floodplain. He also notes that the site is disturbed and there are Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14 broken bits of concrete on the site. He reviews the resource area on the plan. He notes that this plan of the property is where they believe that the resource areas are and this is not a binding plan. He also notes that the applicant is holding a public informational meeting on February 15, 2006 for the public to discuss proposed development plans for the site. Knowles states the public is invited to attend that meeting which will be held at the First Baptist Church at 7:00 p.m. Cademartori asks how the MHW was determined and indicates that he wants to be sure that they are using the proper datum with regard to this. He states he believes the MHW should be 5.9 relative to MSL as on the NGVD 1929. Lang suggests that the Commission visit the site on Saturday, February 25, 2006. Maxner will make a schedule of site visits and contact the applicant with a time for the site visit. Lang asks if the public has any questions or comments. Guy Rossi of 29 Linden Avenue addresses the Commission and asks if there would be any objections by the Commission to extend a cantilever into the waterway. Lang states the Commission would need more information regarding that and notes that many agencies would review a project of this nature and grant permits for it. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to February 28, 2006, pending a site inspection scheduled for th Saturday, February 28, a time to be determined. Seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Notice of Intent Cont: 395 Hale Street – DEP File #5-898 Construct Addition and Site Work at Endicott College Joe Orzel of Gulf of Maine Research Inc. addresses the Commission and explains that at the last meeting the Commission requested the applicant to address the DEP comments and introduces Peter Williams of Vine Associates to present his report. Williams states he has performed technical reports of this nature for FEMA. He reviews his analysis addressing the DEP’s comments. He explains the analysis clarifies the extent of the FEMA flood zone on site. He states as a result of his review, the extent of the Velocity Zone and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage has been adjusted on site and the Coastal Bank outcropping in the middle of the site has been eliminated. He states that the extent of LSCF has been scaled back to elevation 19 and wave reflection and refraction will not be impacted at all by the proposed tent foundation. Lang notes that this report is fairly technical and should be submitted to DEP, noting that they would have the expertise to review it in proper detail. Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14 Maxner refers to the proposed nature walk and asks if there were any changes to that. Bernie Paquin addresses the Commission and explained that there are some minor revisions at the top and notes them on the plan. He also notes that they plan to plant native species along the walkway and additional plantings will also be added along the wooden walkway at the pool. Paquin also explains that the water and electricity will be brought to the tent platform. He also notes that the existing sewer line will be brought to the garage and the house and head out to Hale Street as shown on the plan. Paquin also notes that the utilities for the rest rooms are shown on the plan as well. He also notes that the edge of paving at the garage will remain the same. Paluzzi asks if there was a planting plan. Orzel states that no specific planting plan has been developed at this time. Maxner states an extensive planting list was submitted during the site inspection and briefly reviews some of the species on the list. Lang asks if the public has any questions or comments. Rene Mary of 274 Hale Street, addresses the Commission and expresses her concern about the timeliness of the plantings noting that the sooner they are planted the better. There being no further questions or comments regarding this project, Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing. Seconded by Squibb. Motion carries 6-0. Cademartori notes that there seems to be trees that will be removed that are not part of the walkway. Lang notes that there were several trees that were not native and some that were in distress and a plan depicting which trees will be removed was provided at the last meeting. Paluzzi moves to issue Standard Conditions as well as the following Special Conditions: 1. The Flood Zone/Wave Runup Analysis prepared by Peter Williams from Vine Associates dated January 24, 2006 shall be submitted to the DEP. 2. Rugosa Rose shall be eliminated from the Endicott College Coastal Landscaping list and shall not be included in any landscaping plans. 3. A landscaping plan for the property shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission as soon as it is available. Seconded by Johnson. Hayes and Cademartori abstain. Motion carries 4-0-2 (two abstentions). Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14 Cont: 47 Grover Street – DEP File #5-900 – Construction of a Single Family Home – John Hyland Hayes states he will be recusing himself from this discussion. Peter Ogren addresses the Commission and reviews the changes that have been made to the plan as a result of the site inspection this past Saturday. He notes the location of the trees that are six inches in diameter or larger to be removed have been added to the plan. He also notes that an abutter list has been included on the plan. He also notes that the setbacks have been identified on the plan and explained that the front setback is 15 feet, the side setback is 30 feet, and the rear setback is 25 feet. Ogren notes that Maxner inquired as to whether the property was within a flood hazard area and reviews the plans. He explained that the area is not in a hazard zone and no flooding has been determined in any event. Lang notes there is concern about the access of heavy equipment within the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone. Ogren states that they could get the heavy equipment to backfill the foundation and replace the hay bales when that part of the project is complete. He states that they would like to leave the location of the house where it is but they could slide is a couple of feet if the Commission requested that. Johnson states that he thought that would be fine and notes that they have to restore the disturbed area upon completion. Maxner reviews the protocol for the Order of Conditions with the applicant and explains there is a appeal period and that a pre-construction must be held with her prior to any work commencing. She notes the Commission should require that the 25’ NDZ be demarcated. Lang asks if the public has any questions or comments. There were none. There being no further questions or comments regarding this hearing, Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing. Seconded by Johnson. Hayes and Cademartori abstain. Motion carries 4-0-2 (two abstensions). Cademartori notes that the driveway is entirely pitched toward the resource area and suggests that a restriction be placed on the use of chemical treatment for deicing of the driveway, he also expresses concern that there is nothing to intercept runoff to the resource are. Maxner notes that prohibition of deicing chemicals within 100 feet of a resource area is a Standard Condition, and that at the last public hearing a stone drainage trench was discussed. Paluzzi moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14 1. The entire limit of the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone shall be demarcated with 2- foot boulders placed at an interval of every 20 feet. 2. The trees slated for removal shall be marked or flagged conspicuously in time for the pre-construction meeting with the Conservation Administrator. 3. The southern limit of the hay bale erosion control line shall only be moved to allow for construction vehicles to access that side of the house for foundation back fill purposes only, and once the back filling of the foundation is complete, the hay bales shall be returned to their original position at the limit of the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone. 4. If during back fill activities the area within the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone is disturbed, said area shall be returned to its original condition. 5. Along the southern edge of the driveway, there shall be a 2’ x 2’ clean crushed stone drainage trench to allow for runoff infiltration. Seconded by Johnson. Hayes and Cademartori abstain. Motion carries 4-0-2 (two abstentions). Cont: off LP Henderson Road and Cabot Street – DEP File # 5-897 – Request to Leave Constructed Culvert Crossing – Cailin, LLC – c/o Stanley Bialek Maxner reads a letter from the applicant requesting that the public hearing be continued to the February 28, 2006 meeting. Maxner states the wetland consultant inquired as to whether the Commission wanted to schedule a site inspection prior to the next meeting to observe the replication area. Members agree that a site inspection will not be scheduled until after a formal presentation of the replication plan. th Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to the February 28 meeting. Seconded by Hayes. Motion carries 6-0. New: 89 Boyles Street – DEP File #5-902 – Expand Electrical Substation – New England Power Company Maxner reads the legal notice. Paul Richards addresses the Commission and explains the plans for the expansion of the electrical substation in east Beverly. He explains that the station needs upgrading for more capacity, and they are therefore proposing to construct an expansion to its electrical substation to include two additional circuit bays and associated equipment. Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 Richards notes that all work proposed is outside of the 100 year flood zone and they will be installing hay bales and a silt fence to establish the limit of work line. He notes that there will be a five foot corridor outside of the fence and will have grounding wire installed below grade. Dana McIntire addresses the Commission and explains the design of the facility. He explains that it would not be cost effective to take down what is there now and rebuild, noting that they want to avoid power outages during the construction. He introduces Andrea Desilets with ENSR Environmental to further review the resource areas. Desilets explains the property contains Centerville Creek and Bank, assocated 200-Foot Riverfront Area, Bordering Vegetated Wetland, associated 100-Foot Buffer Zone and 100-Year Floodplain. She notes the resource areas were flagged in August of 2005 and notes that the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone and floodplain are being respected. She explains the work is estimated to last about three months. She states the project will encumber 2.4% of the total Riverfront Area on the site, and the existing footprint of the substation is grand-fathered from the Riverfront Area regulations. Cademartori asks why the proposed expansion could not be shifted to the northeast to stay out of the inner riparian zone. Richards explains an alternatives analysis was done and explained in the Notice of Intent. He states that the nature of the substation requires that the expansion be located to the south, and other alternatives would require an exorbitant expense and or a total shutdown of the station thus interrupting power for a very large part of the Cape Ann service area. Squibb suggests that the Commission visit the site. Members agree to add this site to the list of site visits scheduled for February 25, 2006. Hayes asks if future expansion of the site would be in the direction of the Riverfront Area. McIntire states that they had no plans for that at this time and the site would be built to its capacity and they would have to search out a new location for a new facility. Lang asks if there are any questions or comments from the public. Rene Mary of 274 Hale Street addresses the Commission and expresses her concern about flooding and the problems that exist in her yard as well as the removal of trees. Maxner states the Open Space & Recreation Committee has submitted a letter of inquiry as to whether NEPCO would consider granting a trail and parking easement on that property in order for a trail connection to be established. She explains the Committee felt that this was a good opportunity to initiate a discussion on this, but realizes that the Commission may not have jurisdiction to require this as part of the Order. Richards states their legal counsel has responded to this letter and has requested a sketch of the proposed trail for review. Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to February 28, 2006 meeting pending a site inspection scheduled th for Saturday, February 25. Seconded by Johnson. Motion carries 6-0. New: 1010 & 1012 Hale Street – Connect to City Sewer System – Brookwood School Inc. Maxner reads the legal notice. Greg Hochmuth with Neve-Morin Associates, addresses the Commission and explains that the proposal is to abandon an existing subsurface septic system per Title 5 and connect to the existing City sewer within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. He also notes that the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone is being respected and no portion of the work falls within the Riverfront area to Chubbs Brook. He notes that erosion control measures are proposed as well. He also notes that no trees would be removed as a result of this project. Maxner states that she conducted a site inspection and took some photos, which she passed around to the Commission. She notes that she found no issues and thinks this is a straightforward project. Lang asks a clarifying question about the trench excavation. Hochmuth states the trench will be about 70 feet in length and there will be a 30 inch diameter pump and the grinder pump will have an exposed lid at ground level and go about 73 inches below grade. Cademartori asks what the existing systems consist of. Hochmuth notes that they suspect they may be cess pools and are unsure if both properties have tanks, but they would remove the tanks from the rear yard of 1012 Hale Street and the tank will be abandoned per Title 5 at the house at 1010 Hale Street as well. Lang states there are concerns about dewatering and states that he would like to see a plan as a condition of approval. Hochmuth states he can prepare a detailed plan if that is necessary. Lang asks if there are any comments or questions from the public. There are none. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Squibb moves to close the public hearing. Seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 6-0. Johnson moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: 1. If any tanks are found during abandonment of sub-surface systems, they shall be removed. Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 2. Prior to any work commencing, a detailed dewatering plan employing methods that are more protective than basic hay bale design shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission or its Administrator for review and approval. Seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 6-0. New: - 14 Arbella Drive – Construct Addition – DEP File #5-904 - Cathy Harrison Maxner reads the legal notice. John Dick of Hancock Environmental addresses the Commission and explains that the applicant proposes to construct a large garage addition with associated decks within the Buffer Zone to a BVW and within the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone. He notes that the site is located at the end of Arbella Street off of Hull Street. He also notes that the footing posts for the proposed garage are in the NDZ and the entire property is in the buffer zone. Dick notes that the size of the existing house is small and the garage is large in proportion to the house. He also notes that 8 mature trees will be removed and they are proposing mitigations plantings of shrubs, noting that there is no place to plants trees on the site. He also notes that they are not proposing any impervious surface for the NDZ. Maxner notes that she visited the site on Friday and showed some photographs of the area. She recommended that the Commission hold a site visit to view the property. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Ed Harrison, applicant and owner, addresses the Commission and states that he would be doing all of the work himself, noting that it is a challenging site but he feels that he can do all of the work himself. He also notes that all of the work will be done from the house side of the property and the driveway and no heavy equipment will be in the resource area. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to the February 28, 2006 meeting, pending a site th inspection scheduled for Saturday, February 25. Seconded by Squibb. Motion carries 6-0. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Cont: 7 Margaret Avenue – DEP File #5-861 Enforcement Order Update/ Site Visit Discussion Lang recuses himself from this discussion and leaves the room. Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 Maxner reminded the Commission that they issued an Enforcement Order for 7 Margaret Avenue for a discrepancy between the approved plan and the seawall that was constructed. She notes that this was discussed at the last meeting with the applicant and his consultant and contractor. Paluzzi asks for comments from the Commission. Johnson states that he feels that the wall should have be built according to the approved plans and the extra height of the seawall should be removed. Hayes agrees and states that he felt that the seawall should at least be brought down to the level of the neighbor’s adjoining seawall. Cademartori states that what was built is not close to what was permitted and he is more inclined to have them bring the height of the seawall down and does not view this as a minor change. Squibb agrees that the height of the seawall should be brought down to the existing height of the neighbor’s. Johnson states that if the seawall were to match the height of the neighbor to the west that would make perfect sense. Dick also notes that Mr. Britton’s house sits considerably higher that his neighbors and notes that yesterday there was a spring tide and showed photographs of the area. Dick explains the plans and notes that bringing it down to the height of the neighbor’s wall would affect the wave action and would endanger the integrity of the deck and eroding bank. He notes that these were Mr. Britton’s plans all along and the mistake was on the part of Hancock Environmental. He also notes that the wall meets code and the Building Inspector issued a building permit for the project. Maxner asks Dick to explain the performance standards for Coastal Bank. Mr. Dick explained that the top of the wall elevation is 14.5 and states that Coastal Banks function to provide sediment or to protect the landward landscape from erosion or in some cases the Bank can function to do both. Hayes states that he is concerned about setting a precedent for this wall, noting that he is afraid that if the Commission lets this go, people will start building whatever they want. Maxner notes that if there had been a cross section on the plan from the start it would have made the situation much more clear. Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 Johnson agrees and asks if the Commission would need a revised plan to approve this. Members agree that a revised plan will be necessary. Dick states that he would file a formal application for a modification to the Order of Conditions. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by Dr. Johnson to table this matter in anticipation of a formal application for the change. Seconded by Squibb. Motion carries 5-0. Lang returns to the meeting. Cont: 18&20 Longmeadow Road – Enforcement Update Maxner updates the Commission on the enforcement order issued to 18 & 20 Longmeadow Road. Mr. Barcelar was present at the meeting and states that he received an estimate from a wetlands specialist that he could not afford. Lang advises Mr. Barcelar to pursue this further and get some more quotes for the work that needs to be done. He notes that he needs this information and should get at least two or three written estimates to present to the Commission to show that he is making a good faith effort in trying to comply with the Enforcement Order. Maxner suggests that Mr. Barcelar encourage the consultants to contact her as she is familiar with most of them and she can further explain what the Commission is looking for. Barcelar agrees. Johnson moves to continue this matter to the next meeting on February 28, 2006. Seconded by Hayes. Motion carries 6-0. Approval of Minutes Johnson moves to approve the September 13, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 6-0. Johnson moves to approve the October 4, 2005 meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Paluzzi. Lang abstains. Motion carries 5-0-1 (one abstention). Site Visits Maxner will arrange the site visit schedule and email it to the members of the Commission. Meeting Schedule Maxner reviews the upcoming meeting schedule for the Conservation Commission and notes that the next two meetings will be held at GAR Hall. Beverly Conservation Commission January 31, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 Invoice Update for Manor Homes at Whitehall Appeal Maxner informs the Commission that the latest invoice from the Commission’s independent legal counsel, George Hall of Anderson & Kreiger, for the Chapman’s Corner/ Manor Homes as Whitehall appeal is in the amount of $1,752.00. Adjournment Johnson moves to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 6-0. The meeting is adjourned at 10:00 p.m.