Loading...
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.