2006-05-23
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Date:
May 23, 2006
Board:
Conservation Commission
Members Present
Vice Chair, Tony Paluzzi (Vice-Chair), Dr. Mayo Johnson,
Gregg Cademartori, Ian Hayes, Mary Reilly, and Bill
Squibb
Members Absent:
David Lang
Others Present:
Amy Maxner – Environmental Planner
Recorder:
Eileen Sacco
Vice Chair Paluzzi called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at G.A.R. Hall, 8 Dane Street,
Beverly, MA.
Discussion with Mayor William Scanlon – Former Vitale Site
Maxner informs the Commission that the Article 97 Subcommittee has met and has
drafted a procedural outline for the disposition process as well as a short term action plan
to help expedite the use of the Vitale Site for ball fields. She turns meeting over to Hayes
who reports on behalf of the subcommittee.
Hayes explains that the Subcommittee looked at the options and the next steps that the
Commission should take. He notes that there must be a 100% unanimous vote of the
Commission in order for action to be taken. He suggests a check point in the process half
way through so the Commission can see if the support is there for disposition.
Hayes notes that the Commission is looking for net gain for the public at the end of the
process. He also notes that the Commission can get a stronger protection for this
property by turning it over rather than keeping it.
Cademartori states that he thinks that the Commission is going in the right direction with
this noting that looking at other communities, no one has defined a process for this. He
also notes that the short timeline might be aggressive and recommended incorporating it
into the Ordinance or Regulations to make it as comprehensive as possible.
Squibb recommends asking the Salem/Beverly Water Supply Board for comment and
should include the City of Salem since they share the water supply. He also suggests
using MACC for legal advice on legal issues.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 15
Maxner questions the role of third party legal advice as to whether it is for the process or
to review the options they are considering. Members agree all material should be
reviewed.
Maxner suggests that the Commission amend the timeline for the process. Hayes
suggests that Commission members get their comments and suggests in by June 5, 2006
for a vote on June 13, 2006 on the procedures. He also suggests that the Commission get
comments from MACC.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Cademartori moves
to continue the matter to June 13, 2006, seconded by Johnson. The motion carries 6-0.
Certificate of Compliance
8A Beaver Pond Road – DEP File #5-795 – Michel Reichert
Maxner explains that an Order of Conditions was issued for the construction of a single
family home, driveway, and septic system with the buffer zone to a BVW and IVW. She
notes that she requested amended as built plans for the site and she conducted a site
inspection and took photos. She passes the photos to the members for their review.
Maxner states that the site is stable, and built in substantial compliance with the Order of
Conditions and approved plans. She explains that the changes to the plan include a catch
basin and rip rap drain outlet within the driveway, a gravel trench for runoff control
immediately adjacent to the driveway, an area of gravel for parking cars, and a small
turning area toward the top of the driveway.
Cademartori questions whether the Board of Health is aware of the changes noting that
the last place the runoff should be directed to is the leeching field and recommends that
the applicant go to the Board of Health and have them sign off on it.
Paluzzi agrees and asks if the Commission can issue a Certificate of Compliance pending
approval of the Board of Health. Maxner suggests that the Commission table the matter
pending a ruling from the Board of Health.
Cademartori moves to table the request for a Certificate of Compliance for 8 Beaver Pond
Road to June 13, 2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0.
Request for Determination of Applicability
Cont: 12 Shannon Lane – Addition of Porch, Deck and Above Ground Pool –
Matthew Fogelgren
Maxner explains the Commission conducted a site inspection on May 20, 2006.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 15
Paluzzi asks how far the pool will be from the Buffer Zone. Fogelgren states that it will
be about 17 feet away from the wetland.
Cademartori suggests that mitigation for the area would be appropriate as indicated by
the applicant. He also suggests that the clippings in the back of the property should be
removed.
Hayes states that the overall project is an improvement over existing conditions and he
would be inclined to grant a waiver from the 25’ NDZ standards provided that a planting
is done.
Maxner suggests that a planting plan be submitted to the Commission. She notes that she
will give them a list of appropriate native plantings. She also states the applicant should
contact her prior to construction for a pre construction meeting to inspect hay bales and
silt fence.
Paluzzi asks for public comment at this time. There was no one present who wishes to
comment on the project.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Hayes moves to issue
a Negative 3 Determination with the following conditions:
1. Prior to construction and the pre-construction meeting, the pile of dumped yard
debris located adjacent to the wetland shall be removed from the area and
disposed of at an appropriate facility (i.e. Standley Street Compost Site).
2. A planting plan for the Buffer Zone, utilizing native plant material, shall be
submitted to the Commission for review.
3. Prior to construction, the silt fence shall be installed (entrenched at least 4 inches
below grade) in the location as indicated on proposed plan. The Commission and
its Administrator shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control
methods and boundary during construction if necessary. Siltation control shall
not be removed until are areas of disturbed soil are stabilized with growing grass
or other vegetation.
4. Prior to construction, a pre-construction meeting shall be held with a member of
the Commission or its Administrator, at which time the erosion control shall be
inspected for proper installation.
5. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state
and local permits and approvals associated with this project, and no work may
commence until such permits are procured.
6. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled at a location far enough
away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland
resource areas.
Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries (4-0-2) with Johnson and Reilly
abstaining.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 15
New: Certificate of Compliance – 208 Hart Street – Michael DiGuiseppe
Maxner explains that the applicant received an Order of Conditions in the fall of 1993 for
the construction of a single-family house in the Buffer Zone to a BVW. She notes that
the owner wants to add a small screened in porch addition and is looking to close out this
Order of Conditions. She also notes that as built plans have been submitted.
Robert Clark addresses the Commission on behalf of Mr. DiGuiseppe and explained the
plans. He notes that the house in compliance with the Order of Conditions and the
vegetation is according to the plans as well.
Maxner states she conducted a site inspection and observed the resource area which looks
to have been significantly altered. She explains that the original NOI and plan, aerial
photos and the GIS map shows the resource area as BVW and the as built plans show an
open body of water and it appears that the wetland has been altered to an open body of
water. She notes that the house and the driveway seem to be in compliance with that part
of the Order but the big problem is the resource area.
Hayes suggests that the Commission visit the site. The Commission will visit the site on
June 10, 2006 at a time to be determined.
Mr. Clark states that with all of the recent rain the pond is higher than normal and
typically dries up in the summer.
Hayes moves to continue the matter to June 13, 2006. Cademartori seconds the motion.
The motion carries (6-0).
New: 13 Meadow Road – Repave Driveway and Walkway and Landscaping- Bolaji
Atewologun
Maxner reads legal notice.
Maxner explains that the applicant is proposing to repave the existing driveway and
perform landscaping within the buffer zone and small portions of 25’ NDZ to a pond.
She notes that she visited the site and took photos, which she shares with the
Commission. She notes that the Commission needs to decide if a waiver from the 25’
NDZ is appropriate for this project.
Ms. Atewologun explains that she is proposing to fix the driveway cracks and beautify
her back yard noting that the yard has been let go and many weeds and nuisance shrubs
are encroaching into what used to be maintained as lawn.
Maxner explains that the willow tree is over run by bittersweet and encroaching scrubby
undergrowth some of which is Japanese knotweed and purple loosestrife, which will be
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 15
managed to some degree under this application. She also notes that the landscaping plan
will include replanting with natural species.
Johnson asks if he is repaving the existing driveway and no new impervious surface if
being created. Atewologun states that he is repaving the existing driveway.
Maxner suggests a condition that a pre construction meeting be held with her to review
erosion control and the general plan for managing and cutting the bittersweet.
Squibb suggests that the applicant review the information regarding fertilizer in the
application.
Maxner asks if any of the limbs of the willow tree will be trimmed. Atewologun states
that she does not believe any of them need to be trimmed.
Paluzzi asks for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to
comment on the matter.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Hayes moves to
close the public hearing and issue a Negative Determination 3 with the following
conditions:
1. Prior to construction, the silt fence shall be installed (entrenched at least 4 inches
below grade) in the location as indicated on proposed plan. The Commission and
its Administrator shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control
methods and boundary during construction if necessary. Siltation control shall
not be removed until are areas of disturbed soil are stabilized with growing grass
or other vegetation.
2. Prior to construction, a pre-construction meeting shall be held with a member of
the Commission or its Administrator, at which time the erosion control shall be
inspected for proper installation.
3. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled at a location far enough
away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland
resource areas.
Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries (6-0).
Recess for Public Hearings
Hayes moves to recess for public hearings. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion
carries (6-0).
Notice of Intent
Cont: 573 Hale Street – DEP File #5-906 – Replace Existing Stone Pier – Jonathan
Loring
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 15
Maxner informs the Commission that CDM has provided comments but they were not
received in time for review at this meeting. She suggests that the matter be continued
until June 13, 2006
.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Johnson moves to
continue the public hearing to June 13, 2006. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion
carries (6-0).
Continued: 412 Hale Street – DEP File #5-909 – Landmark School – Construction of
Athletic Complex with Parking and Athletic Field
Maxner explains that the applicant has requested that the matter be continued to June 13,
2006 noting that they need time to respond to the comments from the peer review.
Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to June 13, 2006. Squibb seconds motion.
The motion carries (6-0).
Continued: 175 West Street – Construct Addition to Existing Home and Relocate
Driveway – Thad Siemasko
John Dick addresses the Commission and explains that a site visit was held and there
were two issues. One is the front side of the driveway between the two wetlands. He
explains that they are proposing to remove the pipe and restore it, which will triple the
wetland area. He also notes that they need to submit a planting plan noting that natural
indigenous plants will be used. He states that the other issue was the issuance of a DEP
file number and the comments made by DEP regarding what is going on in the riverfront
area mitigation. He states that he is going to draft a memo to DEP and explains that the
answer is that they are removing impervious surface and adding vegetation, which will
result in a 214% gain of restored area. He also noted that the driveway will be shorter
and narrower than the existing driveway.
Maxner noted that there are two open Orders of Conditions on the property and the one
pertaining to the driveway should closed prior to this project starting.
Paluzzi states that no equipment should be on the beach. Dick agrees.
Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There was no one present
who wished to comment on this project.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Hayes moves to
close the public hearing. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries (4-0-2)
with Johnson and Reilly abstaining.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 15
Continued: 7 Tall Tree Drive – Construct In Ground Pool – Robert Maihos
Jesse Blanchette of Griffin Engineering addresses the Commission and explains that a
site visit was held and there area no changes in the plans to report.
Maxner notes that flags B3 and B4 are missing in the field noting that clear cutting is
planned in the Riverfront area and the Buffer Zone to the pool.
Hayes states that he doesn’t have a strong feeling one way or another on it.
Maxner notes that the Enforcement Order still stands on the property and would be
inclined to allow the pool to move forward with the expectation that a mitigation plan for
the clearing be submitted in short order.
Johnson suggests that restoration of the area that was cut should be done as soon as
possible. Blanchette states that Mr. Maihos will fully comply with whatever restoration
the Commission wants.
Hayes questions if the garage would be built in the area that was cut. Blanchette states
that the applicant was hoping for a four-car garage in this area.
Paluzzi notes that the garage is not part of this application and should be kept separate.
Cademartori notes that the pool is pretty straight forward and notes that the wetland
alteration was done during the construction of the house and notes that the applicant has
probably surpassed thresholds within the Riverfront Area on this lot and those
calculations will need to be done for the garage and access drive.
Maxner explains to the applicant that there are alteration thresholds in the Riverfront area
and explains that they will need to calculate in the Riverfront area how much area would
be left for him to build the garage.
Cademartori suggests that the applicant submit a revised plan showing the limit of the
current disturbance to get a handle on how much disturbance is there.
Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present
who wishes to comment on this matter.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Hayes moves to
close the public hearing. Cademartori seconds the motion. The motion carries (4-0-2)
with Johnson and Reilly abstaining.
Maxner suggests that the Enforcement Order stay in place and that the Commission
modify the timeline for the restoration plan and that a Notice of Intent by the July 2006
meeting.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 15
Cademartori moved to keep the Enforcement Order in place and that the timeline be
modified for the applicant to submit a restoration plan for the July 2006 meeting. Hayes
seconds the motion. The motion carries (6-0).
Cont: 25 Linden Avenue – Raze/Reconstruct Existing Single Family Home with
Deck, Utilities, and Landscaping – Leslie Salter and David Fry
Jesse Blanchette addresses the Commission and explains that they have revised the plans
based on the site walk that was held with the Commission. He explained that they will
plant shrubs along the coastal bank and clean the area as well as leave imbedded shrubs
and put crushed stone below the deck.
Maxner notes that DEP commented that mitigation should be required and noted that the
revised plans may satisfy that requirement.
Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present
who wishes to comment on this matter.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Hayes moves to
close the public hearing. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries (4-0-2) with
Johnson and Reilly abstaining.
Continued: Brookwood Road – Pond Restoration – Brookwood School
Mr. Chute addresses the Commission and explains that the Commission had requested a
habitat analysis for the site and they prepared one and emailed it to Maxner.
Maxner states that she is not sure the habitat analysis is as comprehensive as the habitat
analysis DEP guidelines call for.
Chute states that there must have been a miscommunication and he did not realize that
the information was not sufficient.
Paluzzi suggests that the matter be continued to June 13, 2006 and suggested that the
applicant review the guidelines and see what DEP requires for this analysis. Maxner
states that she will send the guidelines to Mr. Chute and notes that conditions for the
order may be determined by the habitat analysis.
Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present
who wishes to comment on this matter.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Johnson moves to
th
continue the public hearing to the June 13 meeting. Hayes seconds the motion. The
motion carries (6-0).
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 15
Continued : 74 Hart Street – Construct 15,300 S.F. and 11,900 S.F. Buildings –
Glen Urquhart School
Maxner requests that the hearing be continued to June 13, 2006. Johnson moves to
continue the public hearing for 74 Hart Street to June 13, 2006. Hayes seconds the
motion. The motion carries (6-0).
New: 5 & 15 Roosevelt Avenue – Turner & Ballentine
Squibb recuses himself from discussion of this matter and leaves the room.
Maxner reads legal notice.
Mr. Turner addresses the Commission and explains that they are proposing to raise the
grade of their yards up to 18 inches in order to alleviate flooding which has resulted from
the development of a residential/commercial property at 495 Cabot Street, which is
directly adjacent to both applicants properties.
Turner reviewed the plan and explained the history of the property. He states that his
property is wet year round now and in the past it was only wet for a couple of weeks in
the spring and the summer. He explains that the contractor for the adjacent development
agreed to restore both properties and Conservation approval is needed.
Turner states that he also wants to expand his driveway and pitch it an inch or two to
redirect the flow of the water to the street.
Paluzzi suggests a site visit. A site visit will be held on June 10, 2006 at a time to be
determined.
Paluzzi opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Loreli Azarian, 509 Cabot
Street, states that the applicants have been left with a difficult situation due to the
incorrect installation of drainage systems at the 495 Cabot Street development and the
enhanced wetland has been excavated but the soils are impervious clay and that area has
not improved drainage.
Cademartori asks if the adjacent project has been closed out with a Certificate of
Compliance. Maxner explained that it was denied by the Beverly Conservation
Commission and DEP issued a superseding Order of Conditions and to her knowledge it
has not been reviewed for a Certificate. Cademartori suggested pulling the original filing
to see what the existing conditions were.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Johnson moves to
th
continue the public hearing to the June 13 meeting pending a site insepction. Hayes
seconds the motion. The motion carries (5-0).
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 15
Squibb returns to the meeting.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
18-20 Longmeadow Road – Sebastian Barcelar – EO Action Update
Maxner explains that the deadline for Mr. Barcelar to complete the work was May 16,
2006 and he contacted her and notified her that he had flooding problems from the storm
th
of May 12, 13, and 14. Maxner states that she visited the site and took pictures and the
water had receded.
Mr. Barcelar showed the Commission digital photos of the flooding on his property and
states that he will be renting a bobcat this weekend to remove the fill.
Hayes suggests extending the time for Barcelar to complete the work given that storm
interfered.
Johnson moves to extend the deadline to May 31, 2006 and suggests that the Commission
th
visit the site on June 10 to see if the work meets with their satisfaction. Hayes seconds
the motion. Motion carries (6-0).
New: 43 Breckenbury Lane – Morse, Purtell, Leonard – EO Discussion
Maxner states that she issued an enforcement order a couple of weeks ago for
unauthorized removal of sand from Brackenbury Beach. She explains that the order,
crafted with help from DEP, requires that a beach nourishment plan replacing the volume
and matching grain size be prepared by a qualified expert to be submitted in time for this
meeting and upon review and approval the work must be completed by the June 13, 2006
meeting.
Paluzzi questioned why the sand was removed from the beach. Ken Knowles, Meridian
Engineering representing the parties, states that the owner felt that the sand caused the
waves to roll up over his wall and he gave it to his neighbor for fill. He introduces Peter
Williams from Vine Associates.
Williams addresses the Commission and reviewed the beach restoration plan. He
explained that the parties excavated five dump truck loads of beach sand amounting to 75
cubic yards of sand in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act. He noted the details of
the report of the violation and noted that upon notification they contacted Maxner to
verify if his rights as a private property owner allowed him to remove sand in an effort to
make reasonable repairs and restoration of his seawall. He explains that a cease and
desist order was issued verbally and all further excavation was immediately halted until
such a determination could be made which Mr. Morse complied with.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 15
Williams explains that they will identify replacement sand and volume to replenish. He
explains that they have conducted a grain size testing and analysis study and explains the
process. He also notes that the beach nourishment is to take place on both the public and
private sides of the beach.
Maxner states that the first three pages of the restoration plan and the use of the Beverly
City seal is on the Beach Restoration Plan took her aback. She also notes that the Beach
Restoration plan is not signed by any of the parties involved. She also notes that she is
not sure if the Commission should agree to the language in the plan that states that the
Commission shall act in place of the other state and federal agencies. She further notes
that she is not comfortable with all of the “the Commission shalls” in the document
noting that she is not sure if it appropriate for the applicant to include such stipulations.
Cademartori agrees and would not be inclined to approve the plan as presented. He
suggests that the Commission can require that the plan be submitted to DEP or CZM for
their review.
Hayes states that he feels that if the beach is restored to its original condition then no
harm is done, noting that other agencies such as DEP may feel differently.
William states that the language is in place because he understands the Conservation
Agent has information that DEP may chose to get involved in this they would like to be
notified so that they do not have to go through the process twice.
Williams explains that the Army Corp of Engineers may have jurisdiction and further
explained that CZM will trigger the Army Corp of Engineers or the MEPA process. He
also notes that he has been involved in Beach Restorations before and medium size sand
is not hard to fine.
An abutter in the audience states that they did not use a bobcat, they used a caterpillar
with an enormous front end loader.
Cademartori stated that considering the way the Restoration Plan was laid out provokes
the Commission to take this a step further and it makes sense to have DEP review this.
Squibb suggests that the Maxner call DEP and discuss it with them and see if any other
agencies should be involved in this.
Maxner suggests that the dates on the EO need to amended.
Williams states that he recommended to his clients that they file a Notice of Intent for the
repair of the seawall to address their problems in the future.
Paluzzi suggests a site visit on June 10, 2006 at 8:00 a.m.
Paluzzi opened the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 15
Carl Soder of 1 Curtis Point addresses the Commission and expresses his concern about
the credentials of the people planning the restoration. He also questions where they will
get the sand and whether the Commission will impose fines for this violation. Williams
explained the specs for the sand and noted that the tricky part will be to find clean sand
with not too much gravel if any in it and will provide his resume.
Hayes stated that ordinarily he would be inclined to issue a fine but this is easily
rectifiable.
Squibb suggests that the Commission reserve the right to impose fines if necessary.
Williams states that he will check to see what the jurisdictional requirements for the
beach restoration are and requested that the Commission approve the plan as long as it
meets the requirements of all other agencies.
Rene Mary addressed the Commission and expressed her concern about hurricane season.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Hayes moved to
continue the matter to June 13, 2006. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries
(6-0)
New: 100 Hull Street – Geraldine Driscoll - Violation Discussion with Gary Palardy
Maxner informed the Commission that she received a response from the letter she sent to
the owner of the vacant property at 100 Hull Street. She explains that the owner is an
elderly woman who is in a nursing home and her daughter indicated that the family has
not been dumping on the site and they are not sure who is. She further explains that a
friend of the family came to her and explained that he is willing to chain off the property
and post a “no dumping sign”.
Gary Palardy addresses the Commission and explains that he put up the chain and posted
the signs. He also stated that he thinks that the property will be sold at some point and
whoever purchases it will have to do some landscaping and rectify the violations on site.
He also states that he will keep an eye on it.
The Commission thanks Palardy for attending the meeting and assisting with this
situation and agree that his approach to the situation is the most reasonable resolution at
this time.
31 Riverview Street
Maxner explains that an Emergency Order was issued to the former owner of the property
to repair the seawall and the work was never done two summers ago. She notes that
present owner, Mr. Allen reports that there is increased erosion and he wants to repair it.
She also notes that between the house and the wall there is a City sewer line. She
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 15
explains that Frank Killilea has the as built plans and the engineers are sure of what was
there before. She notes that they want to put the wall back according to the Chapter 91
License.
Maxner explains that they would like it to be declared an emergency as they will be
uncovering a sewer that services a dozen homes.
Mr. Lynch, Lynch Engineering, addresses the Commission and explains that they will be
using large stones and level up the stones and put interlocking blocks on top, which will
be interlocking and explained the process.
Cademartori questions why this should be considered an emergency when the owner
purchased it a year ago and questions if they are trying to evade the Chapter 91 License
process. Lynch explains that the sewer pipe is in danger of being exposed over the last
year and if it is not fixed it is going to burst. He also notes that he expected the City
Engineer to be at this meeting.
Johnson states that he feels that they have made a convincing case that this is an
emergency as it could be an immediate threat to health and human safety.
Paluzzi notes that when an emergency order is issue typically a Notice of Intent is filed
retroactively.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Johnson moves to
issue an Emergency Order for the restoration of the seawall in the original configuration
pending the submission of a Notice of Intent. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion
carries (5-0-1) with Cademartori abstaining.
8 Hawk Hill Road
Maxner explains that the applicant is requesting to waive the requirement for as built
plans and have the approved plan reviewed for a Certificate of Compliance for a in
ground pool and deck and shows the plan to members.
Squibb states that he is not inclined to approve that noting that is a standard condition to
require as built plans. He also notes that with all the drainage problems they had a Hawk
Hill the Commission would be remiss if they did not require the as built plans. Members
agree.
Mass Highway Bass River Road – Culvert Work
Maxner explains that two years ago Mass Highway widened the outlet pipe underneath
128 at Bass River Road. She notes that Bill Alpine, resident of Bass River Road, wants
the Commission to issue an Enforcement Order to Mass Highway requiring them to file a
Notice of Intent. She notes that the Commission issued an EO to Mass Highway
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 15
previously and it was ignored and it took much effort to even get a representative to
appear at a meeting.
Squibb states that he thinks that the Commission would be getting involved in a law suit
noting that people were taken out of that neighborhood by boat and they may be blaming
the state for it. Members agree that an Enforcement Order would not be appropriate, but
that maybe DEP would like to review this situation. Maxner states she is under the
impression that Alpine has indeed contacted DEP about this.
Orders of Conditions
25 Linden Avenue – Raze/Reconstruct Existing Single Family Home with Deck,
Utilities, and Landscaping – Leslie Salter and David Fry
Hayes moves to issue Standard Conditions with the following Special Conditions:
1. The large pile of yard debris located at the northwest corner of the property shall
be removed from site.
2. Area of invasive bushes and shrubs to be removed located at the northeast corner
of the property shall be replanted with native shrubs and bushes, such as the
species called out on the final approved plan.
Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries (5-0-1) with Reilly abstaining.
7 Tall Tree Drive – Construct In Ground Pool – Robert Maihos
Hayes moves to issue Standard Conditions with following Special Conditions:
1. Prior to construction, large stones/boulders shall be installed in the field to replace
Wetland Flag #’s 2-5.
2. Construction equipment access shall be from the east side of the house only as
depicted on the approved plan.
Johnson seconds motion. The motion carries (5-0-1) with Reilly abstaining.
175 West Street – Construct Addition to Existing Home and Relocate Driveway –
Thad Siemasko
Hayes moves to issue Standard Conditions with the following Special Conditions:
1. Prior to any site work, the outstanding Order of Conditions, DEP File # 5-740, for
work on the driveway, shall be closed out with a Certificate of Compliance.
2. Prior to any site work, a full landscaping plan for the isolated vegetated wetland
and site shall be submitted to the Commission’s Administrator for review and
approval.
Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries (5-0-1) with Reilly abstaining.
Beverly Conservation Commission
May 23, 2006 Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 15
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Beverly Conservation Commission meeting held on April 11, 2006
and May 2, 2006 were tabled until the next meeting on June 13, 1006.
Site Visits
Amy Maxner will schedule the site visits and inform the members of the Commission.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Beverly Conservation Commission
this evening. Johnson moves to adjourn the meeting. Hayes seconds the motion. The
motion carried (6-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.