Loading...
2005-07-19 Special Meeting CITY OF BEVERLY SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Date: July 19, 2005 Board: Conservation Commission Subcommittee: Members Present: David Lang (Chairman),Anthony Paluzzi (Vice Chairman), Linda Goodenough, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Bill Squibb & Gregg Cademartori Members Absent: Ian Hayes Others Present: Amy Maxner-Environmental Planner Minutes Secretary: Amy Maxner Voting Members: Johnson, Goodenough, Paluzzi, Squibb, Lang ORDERS OF CONDITIONS DEP #5-816 – 2 Boyles St, Beverly MA Manor Homes at Whitehall Hill Circle, LLC, Conventional Style Subdivision Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and states that the hearing was closed on July 12, 2005 and there will be no further comments accepted from the public or the applicant. He explains the Commission is here tonight to discuss the project and vote on whether to approve or deny the project and issue an Order of Conditions for DEP File # 5-816, 2 Boyles Street, Beverly, MA Manor Homes at Whitehall Hill Circle, LLC, Conventional Subdivision. Maxner states she has provided members with a bullet sheet that outlines the chronology of the application and public hearings as well as bullet sheets to guide the discussion, one for discussion under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and Regulations and one under the Beverly Wetlands Protection Ordinance and Regulations. Lang reviews the chronology of the application and suggests that the discussion begin under the Wetlands Protection Act. Members agree to this. Discussion pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act & Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 Maxner states she has listed each wetland resource area found in each wetland system that are located throughout the site, and listed the statutory interests those resource areas are presumed to be significant. Lang reads off the following: Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 Wetland A: Contains Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), Inland Bank to an Intermittent Stream, and are assumed to be significant to the following interests of the Act: Private and Public Water Supply Groundwater Supply Flood Control Storm Damage Prevention Prevention of Pollution Protection of Fisheries Protection of Wildlife Habitat Maxner states that the applicant is not proposing any work in the BVW of Wetland A, but the applicant is proposing to alter 50 linear feet of bank to the intermittent stream of the Wetland A system for the crossing of Spyglass Hill. She asks the Commission whether members find the resource areas to be significant to the above referenced interests and if the work proposed meets the performance standards pursuant to 310 CMR 10.54 (4) 1-5. Goodenough states that based on the thresholds in the Regulations, she believes the bank crossing at Wetland A meets the performance standards. She states the crossing occurs at the narrowest point of the steam, and impacts no BVW, and thinks that listed functions will not be impaired. Johnson states he thinks the work can be conditioned to protect the resource areas and believes the resource areas are significant to the interests listed, and that all activity proposed within Wetland A meets the performance standards in the State Regulations. Members indicate that they are in agreement with this assessment for activities within and interests protected by Wetland A. Lang states the next wetland system to be discussed is Wetland B, and reads off the following: Wetland B: Contains Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), Inland Bank to an Intermittent Stream, Land Under Water, and a Certified Vernal Pool, and are assumed to be significant to the following interests of the Act: Private and Public Water Supply Groundwater Supply Flood Control Storm Damage Prevention Prevention of Pollution Protection of Fisheries Protection of Wildlife Habitat 2 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 Lang states no work is proposed in the BVW, Bank or the Vernal Pool, however under the Stormwater Management Standards, discharge to Vernal Pools, which are considered Outstanding Resource Waters, must meet Stormwater Standard # 6. Lang states there is discharge by way of level spreaders at approximately 45 feet from the edge of the vernal pool, and approximately 30 feet from the BVW that surrounds the vernal pool from Detention Pond # 1, and a level spreader immediately adjacent to the BVW down stream of the vernal pool from Detention Pond # 4. Maxner states the Commission’s independent hydrologist, Dr. Chiang, has reviewed the drainage and pursuant to his letter dated April 6, 2004 letter, he has found the drainage plan to be acceptable. Lang asks if the Commission considers these resource areas significant to the interests listed. Members indicate that they are in agreement that the resource areas are significant to the interests. Johnson states that the proximity of these drainage structures, houses, roadway and grading to the vernal pool and the amount of disturbance within the 100-Foot Buffer Zone to the pool is very problematic. He refers to the 310 CMR 10.04 definition of Vernal Pool habitat, and states that the Commission can exercise its jurisdiction over this area and the upland habitat as well, since it provides critical non-breeding habitat values. He states he has always maintained he would not approve Eisenhower Extension as designed as he believes that it is much too destructive to the vernal pool and its long-term viability. Squibb states that the proposed work is on average about 30 feet from the BVW surrounding the vernal pool, but that Detention Pond # 4 and its level spreader is less than a couple feet from the edge of the BVW and believes this will not protect the habitat features of the Buffer Zone or the wetland itself. He states that the applicant has not provided any proof that this will not have an adverse impact on the vernal pool, but that he has found Dr. Windmiller’s reports and testimony convincing in demonstrating that there will be negative impact. Goodenough agrees, and states despite removing Spinnaker Court and the two houses at the end of it, Dr. Windmiller still maintained that the remaining structures will have a significant detrimental impact on the vernal pool and she is inclined to agree. She states that a very large percentage of the Buffer Zone will be deforested and graded and that will alter the nutrient and temperature conditions of the pool as well as completely eliminating upland habitat and its features such as tree trunks and woody debris. Cademartori states there seems to be no rationale for the location of the critter tunnel, but the fact that the applicant has provided it seems to imply that there is a need to maintain connection between Wetland B and Wetland D. He states no information was collected on actual habitat usage or migratory pathways as indicated in Dr. Windmiller’s report, 3 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 and therefore the Commission has no way of making an informed decision as to how to protect this area, or where to provide passageways for migratory routes. Johnson agrees and states he would not be comfortable conditioning an unknown. Lang states Dr. Windmiller’s report indicates there is a link between roadway runoff and egg mass mortality and that he believes Eisenhower Extension poses a threat to the vernal pool and its water quality. He states that these issues were discussed frequently throughout the public hearings and the applicant chose to ignore the Commission’s concerns. Paluzzi agrees and states that he is not inclined to approve this portion of Eisenhower Extension as he believes there will be significant negative impacts to the vernal pool because it would be surrounded on three sides with roads, houses, lawns and detention basins. Squibb states that Dr. Windmiller’s reports indicate that there is a high density of vernal pool creatures within the first 100 feet from the pool, and it seems clear to him that these creatures will be destroyed during work, and there will be no habitat left for creatures that may migrate back to this area. He asks Maxner what the Planning Board’s final decision th was for this plan. Maxner states the Planning Board denied the plan on June 30. Lang states there seems to be consensus among the members that the proposed activities and structures within the Buffer Zone to the vernal pool of Wetland B cannot be approved or even conditioned to protect the vernal pool and the associated habitat. Members agree with this assessment. Lang states the next wetland system to be discussed is Wetland C, and reads off the following: Wetland C: Consists of Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), Inland Bank to an Intermittent Stream, and an uncertified Vernal Pool, and are assumed to be significant to the following interests of the Act: Public & Private Water Supply Groundwater Supply Flood Control Storm Damage Prevention Pollution Prevention Fisheries Protection of Wildlife Habitat Lang states the applicant is not proposing any work in the BVW of Wetland C system, and explains the applicant has proposed detention basin #2 discharge by way of a level spreader and grading at 20 feet from the edge of the BVW at its closest point. 4 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 Lang states the applicant is not proposing any work on the Bank of Wetland C system. Lang states no work is proposed within the vernal pool resource area itself, and under the Stormwater Management Standards, discharge to Vernal Pools, which are considered Outstanding Resource Waters, must meet Stormwater Standard # 6. Lang states the applicant has proposed detention basin #3 discharge by way of a level spreader and grading at approximately 225 feet from the edge of the vernal pool at its closest point, and approx.175 feet from the BVW that surrounds the vernal pool at its closest point. Goodenough states there seems to be very little to discuss regarding this wetland system, as there are no performance standards for the Buffer Zone under the States Regulations. She states she believes these activities are approvable under the Regulations. Members agree with this assessment. Maxner asks if the Commission finds the resource areas within Wetland C to be significant to the interests of the Act. Goodenough states these resource areas clearly function to protect the interests listed. Members indicate that they agree with this finding. Lang states the next wetland system to be discussed is the North East Wetland, and reads off the following: North East Wetland: This wetland was subject to review by the Commission during the hearing for 44 Boyles Street, a project for the construction of a single-family house DEP File #5-768, and designated it an Isolated Vegetated Wetland. He explains that evidence of a surface water connection flowing from this wetland down gradient to Wetland was seen and heard by staff and members of the Commission. Lang states no work is proposed within this resource area, and the rip rap emergency spillway for Detention Pond # 3 is approx. 55 feet from the edge of this wetland at its closest point. Members agree these activities are not problematic and are approvable under the State Regulations. Maxner asks if the Commission would like to make a finding and characterize this wetland as a vegetated wetland connected to Wetland C by way of surface water connection as was found during the cluster subdivision hearings. Squibb states he would be in favor of remaining consistent with how the Commission ruled prior for the cluster subdivision. Goodenough agrees, and states the wetland is significant to the interests of the Act. Members agree with this finding. Lang states the next wetland system to be discussed is Wetland D, and reads off the following: 5 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 Wetland D: Contains Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), and Bank of Intermittent Stream, and is assumed to be significant to the following interests of the Act: ?? Public & Private Water Supply ?? Groundwater Supply ?? Flood Control ?? Storm Damage Prevention ?? Pollution Prevention ?? Fisheries ?? Protection of Wildlife Habitat Lang states the applicant has proposed filling 1,806 square feet of BVW for the construction of Eisenhower Extension, and 3,600 square feet of replication. Lang states the Commission needs to make a finding as to whether the work as proposed meets the performance standard under 310 CMR 10.55 (4) 1-7. Maxner asks if the Commission finds these resource areas significant to the interests listed. Members indicate that they are in agreement that the resource areas are significant to the interests. Discussion ensues regarding the requirements for replication. Paluzzi states that the replication as proposed seems to meet the Regulations. Johnson agrees. Goodenough states the Commission has the discretion to approve or deny portions of a particular plan and the Commission should determine up to which point Eisenhower Extension is not approvable and at what point it becomes acceptable. Maxner reminds members that the Commissionmayallow filling of BVW only at its discretion. Squibb asks Maxner what the Planning Board requirements are for access points to a site. Maxner states there are no definitive requirements as to the number of access points, and she suggests that members consider the two upland access points that completely avoid wetland impacts. Goodenough states she believes there is room for the applicant to revise the plan to avoid this impact and avoid the entire Buffer Zone to Wetland B and filling of Wetland D. She states these areas are extremely sensitive and filling of BVW should be avoided. Squibb states three houses would be eliminated if the Eisenhower Extension is eliminated, but does not think it should affect the applicant’s ability to develop the property as a residential subdivision as two access and egress points at Birchwoods and Boyles Streets are uplands. Goodenough agrees, and states she is not convinced that this would create a hardship on the applicant’s ability to develop the property. 6 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 Cademartori states the area of proposed replication involves deforestation of a mature mixed deciduous forest and is located directly adjacent to the house lot # 2, leaving no protection or any kind of buffer to the newly created wetland. Squibb agrees that this location for wetland would most likely lead to encroachment by expansion of lawn and run off from lawn chemicals. Members review the plan and discuss the roadways. Paluzzi states the Commission could deny Eisenhower Extension up to station 6 + 00, with the rest of the road layout being approved from that point on. Members further discuss work proposed within the Buffer Zone to Wetland B as part of Spyglass Hill. Lang states that Spyglass Hill constitutes a significant impact within the Buffer Zone to the vernal pool of Wetland B, and wonders if denying all work and structures within the Buffer Zone to the vernal pool would in essence change the project substantially and would require a new plan. Goodenough agrees, and states that it is not up to the Commission to design the project, but denying work within the Buffer Zone to the vernal pool would impact the entire road layout significantly. She thinks that the impact of that section of Spyglass Hill is unacceptable. Members agree. Lang states there seems to be two main aspects of the plan that are at issue, the first being the impact to the vernal pool, surrounding upland habitat, and 100-foot buffer zone to Wetland B from houses, roads, clearing, grading and drainage structures related to Eisenhower Extension and Spinnaker Court, and the second issue relates to impact to Wetland D from filling for construction of Eisenhower Extension. Lang states he will entertain a motion on whether to approve or deny the project based on the findings that the Commission has made through its discussion. Goodenough moves to accept the findings as just discussed for all wetland systems. Seconded by Johnson. Cademartori abstains. Motion carries 5-0-1 (with one abstention). Goodenough moves to deny the project based on the Commission’s findings as to the impacts to Wetland B and the vernal pool habitat and filling of Wetland D, which cannot be conditioned to protect the interests. Seconded by Paluzzi. Cademartori abstains. Motion carries 5-0-1 (one abstension). Discussion Pursuant to the Beverly Wetlands Protection Ordinance and Regulations Maxner refers the Commission members to the second bullet sheet to guide discussion under the Beverly Wetlands Protection Ordinance and Regulations, and explains that she has listed each wetland resource area found in each wetland system that are located throughout the site, and listed the interests those resource areas are presumed to be significant to. Goodenough reminds the Commission that at the last meeting when the Commission closed this hearing, they voted to apply the standards called out in the local Regulations 7 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 to this plan. She refers to Section 24.1. of the Ordinance, and states that it is clear to her that the purpose of the Beverly Wetlands Protection Ordinance and Regulations is to provide more protection than the Act, and findings to that effect are supportable under the Ordinance. Johnson agrees, and states that the Regulations are there to further interpret the Ordinance, but it is the Ordinance that gives the Commission the authority to protect the resources further and deny projects that may be acceptable under the Act. Members agree with this assessment. Lang states the first wetland to be discussed is Wetland A, and reads off the following: Wetland A: Consists of Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), Inland Bank to Intermittent Stream, 100-Foot Buffer Zone and 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone, and are assumed to be significant to the following interests of the Ordinance: ?? Private & Public Water Supply ?? Groundwater Supply ?? Flood Control ?? Storm Damage Prevention ?? Prevention of Pollution ?? Fisheries ?? Protection of Wildlife Habitat ?? Prevention of Erosion & Sedimentation Lang states there is no work proposed within the BVW of Wetland A. He states the applicant is proposing to alter 50 linear feet of Bank resource area for the roadway crossing as well as a drainage outlet with boulder retaining wall and rip rap velocity reducer which is proposed immediately adjacent to the northeast tip of this resource area. Maxner reminds the Commission that the Ordinance and Regulations do not have specific performance standards for Bank, so the Ordinance defers to the 310 CMR 10.54 (4)(a) 1- 5 for this resource area. She states that the Commission found the work to be in conformance with this provision of the State Regulations, but that there are other sections of the Ordinance and Regulations that apply to this work. Johnson states, in his opinion, the resource areas are serving to protect the interests of the Ordinance as just listed. Members agree with this finding. Goodenough states she believes the section of the Regulations addressing road crossings was established to limit wetland alteration only to provide a single means of access to the upland portions of a site and this plan depicts three, two of which completely avoid wetland impacts. 8 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 Paluzzi agrees and states he does not think that this activity could be conditioned to protect the resource area. Squibb states he believes that the applicant has options to access the upland buildable portions of the site without having to cross this area and is not convinced this crossing is necessary. Maxner asks the Commission if it would like to address the incursion into the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone by the drainage outlet at the northern tip of Wetland A. Lang states he believes that the waiver criteria for incursion into the No Disturb Zone could not be met as he is convinced that the project could go forward without going into this area. Members agree with this and a lengthy discussion about the Commission’s waiver criteria and No Disturb Policy ensues. Lang states the next wetland system to consider is Wetland B and reads off the following: Wetland B: Consists of Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), Inland Bank to Intermittent Stream, Certified Vernal Pool, 100-Foot No Disturbance Zone, 100-Foot Buffer Zone and 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone, and are assumed to be significant to the following interests of the Ordinance: ?? Public & Private Water Supply ?? Groundwater Supply ?? Flood Control ?? Storm Damage Prevention ?? Pollution Prevention ?? Fisheries ?? Protection of Wildlife Habitat ?? Prevention of Erosion & Sedimentation Lang states there is no work proposed within the BVW, Inland Bank, or Vernal Pool of this wetland. Lang states the activities within the 100-Foot No Disturb Zone include road construction, grading, construction of two houses, and construction of two detention ponds. He states it was discussed throughout the public hearings that this is the first Vernal Pool to be regulated under the Ordinance. Johnson states, in his opinion, the resource areas are serving to protect the interests of the Ordinance as just listed. Members agree with this finding. Goodenough states that throughout the public hearing process, it was made clear to the applicant that the Commission intended to provide the fullest protection to the Vernal 9 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 Pool and its surrounding upland habitat, as it is the first to be regulated under the Ordinance and any decisions with regard to its protection would be precedent setting. She states that she would find that none of the work within the 100-Foot No Disturbance Zone to the vernal pool meets the performance standards in the Regulations. She states she would rely on Dr. Windmiller’s reports and testimony to provide clear rational as to why the Commission believes these activities would have significant negative impacts on the vernal pool and surrounding habitat. Cademartori states that according to the performance standards for the 100-Foot No Disturbance Zone for Vernal Pool, Section III A. 5. d., work shall not obstruct migratory pathways of vernal pool breeders. He states that it is his understanding migratory pathways for the vernal pools on site were never determined. He states that the Ordinance provides the Commission with the ability to protect this element of vernal pool habitat and it seems that members are not comfortable with the proposed activities within the upland areas adjacent to the pool. Johnson states that the migratory pathways as well as upland habitat is critical to the long term viability to the pool and believes there is far too much development that is too close within these areas to ensure its protection. Goodenough agrees, and thinks the Commission is at a disadvantage without all the pertinent data to make an informed decision with regard to protecting pathways. Discussion ensues regarding the “critter tunnel”, and members agree that as discussed under the Act, this tunnel is not located based on any data collected for its placement. Squibb states he recalls Dr. Windmiller explaining that vernal pools have very small watersheds, which are very sensitive to any changes in land use and he thinks that the pool should be protected to the fullest extent especially considering it is the first to be considered under the Ordinance. Goodenough states she would apply the same set of findings as discussed under the Act to this discussion for all habitat related impacts, and cite Dr. Windmiller’s testimony and reports to support the Commission’s rationale. Members agree with this. Maxner asks the Commission if they would like to discuss incursion into the No- Disturbance Zones. Discussion ensues regarding the performance standards for the Buffer Zone and the No Disturb Zones policy as they are called out in the Regulations. Members agree the work does not meet the performance standards, and agree that the applicant did not meet the burden of proof showing there are no other alternatives to the plan design. Lang states the next wetland system to be discussed is Wetland C, and reads off the following: Wetland C: Consists of Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Inland Bank to an Intermittent Stream, and Un-Certified Vernal Pool, 100-Foot No Disturbance Zone, 100-Foot Buffer 10 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 Zone, and 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone, and are assumed to be significant to the following interests of the Ordinance: ?? Public & Private Water Supply ?? Groundwater Supply ?? Flood Control ?? Storm Damage Prevention ?? Pollution Prevention ?? Fisheries ?? Protection of Wildlife Habitat ?? Prevention of Erosion & Sedimentation Paluzzi states, in his opinion, the resource areas are serving to protect the interests of the Ordinance as just listed. Members agree with this finding. Lang states there is no work proposed within the BVW of this wetland, but the level spreading and associated grading for detention pond # 2 is located about 20 feet from the edge of the BVW. Paluzzi states work is within the 25-Foot No-Disturbance Zone without the applicant showing proof it must be located there. He states that the road and the detention pond may disrupt the vernal pool pathways but it is not easy to determine without the necessary information regarding the pathways. Squibb agrees and states he is not convinced that the detention pond needs to be so close to the BVW, and thinks the waivers have not been met, and believes there are alternatives to locations of these structures. Goodenough states that the Ordinance protects any vernal pool, and believes that this uncertified vernal pool is part of a large connected wetland system and should be protected as strictly as the Wetland B pool. Lang states the next wetland system to be discussed is Wetland E or North East Wetland and reads off the following: Wetland NE: Consists of vegetated wetland hydraulically connected to Wetland C by way of surface water connection and is assumed to be significant to the following interests of the Ordinance: ?? Public & Private Water Supply ?? Groundwater Supply ?? Flood Control ?? Storm Damage Prevention ?? Pollution Prevention ?? Fisheries 11 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 ?? Protection of Wildlife Habitat ?? Prevention of Erosion & Sedimentation Members agree to apply the same findings as discussed under the Wetlands Act as far as this wetland’s connectivity to Wetland C. Members agree that these resource areas are significant to the interests as listed. Lang states there is no work proposed within the resource areas of this system, and the rip rap emergency spillway for Detention Pont # 3 is approximately 55 feet from the edge of this wetland. Members briefly discuss the work proposed within the Buffer Zone and agree there are no apparent issues with the work as far as the 25-Foot No Disturbance Zone, but agree that these structures may have impacts on the migratory pathways to the uncertified vernal pool within Wetland C. Lang states the last wetland system to be discussed is Wetland D and reads off the following: Wetland D: Contains Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Inland Bank to Intermittent Stream, 100-Foot Buffer Zone and 25-Foot No-Disturbance Zone, and are assumed to be significant to the following interests protected by the Ordinance: ?? Public & Private Water Supply ?? Groundwater Supply ?? Flood Control ?? Storm Damage Prevention ?? Pollution Prevention ?? Fisheries ?? Protection of Wildlife Habitat ?? Prevention of Erosion & Sedimentation Lang states the applicant is proposing to fill 1,806 square feet of BVW for the construction of Eisenhower Extension with 3,600 square feet of compensatory replication. Paluzzi states he believes that this wetland is significant to all the interests listed. Members agree. Squibb states he would refer to Regulations under wetland alterations for roadways and driveways and adds the Ordinance provides the Commission the ability to deny this work if there are alternatives to wetland impacts. Discussion ensues regarding Section V. E. 1. of the Regulations, and the impact of this wetland fill, and members agree that it is avoidable and contributes to significant negative impact to the surrounding upland habitat to the vernal pool and adjacent wetlands. 12 Beverly Conservation Commission July 19, 2005 Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 Goodenough states that filling wetland and deforesting upland for replication constitutes unacceptable negative impacts to both the wetland and the upland buffer areas and states she is not convinced that this portion of the roadway is necessary in order for the project to be viable. Lang states these concerns had been communicated to the applicant from the beginning and continued to be an issue even after the elimination of Spinnaker Court, and the applicant has ignored them. Lang states there seems to be consensus among members regarding the impacts to primarily Wetland Systems B and D and work within these wetlands and associated Buffer Zones are the most problematic to the Commission. He states that the Commission’s findings with regard to the impacts to these systems are driving factors for denying this project as designed. Members agree. Cademartori states that the written findings should reflect the fact that the work within Wetland B and D was the most problematic and is grounds for denial under the Beverly Wetlands Protection Ordinance alone and is only clarified by the performance standards outlined in the Beverly Wetlands Protection Regulations. He states that the findings under the Ordinance for these systems are central to the Commission’s decision to deny. Goodenough motions to accept the findings as just discussed for all wetland systems. Seconded by Johnson. Cademartori abstains. Motion carries 5-0-1 (with one abstention). Goodenough motions to deny a project based upon the findings as discussed under the Beverly Wetlands Protection Ordinance and guided by the Beverly Wetlands Protection Regulations. Seconded by Johnson. Cademartori abstains. Motion carries 5-0-1 (with one abstention). Johnson states, as with the cluster decision, the Commission may wish to consider securing the services of outside counsel considering the gravity of this decision and its need for an experienced attorney in defending Commission’s decisions under bylaws. Goodenough agrees, and states that considering the tremendous work load the City Solicitor is burdened with, the Commission would need someone to be able to devote concentrated time to the defense of the Commission’s decision. Squibb states he would also like to see expert counsel with experience in environmental law and would be supportive of securing outside expert counsel. Members agree that this should be pursued if at all possible. Adjournment Paluzzi moves to adjourn. Seconded by Johnson. Cademartori abstains. Motion carries 5- 0-1 (one abstention). Meeting adjourns at 9:15 p.m. 13