Loading...
2006-10-24 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: October 24, 2006 Board: Conservation Commission Members Present Chair David Lang, Vice Chair Tony Paluzzi, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Gregg Cademartori, Mary Reilly, and Bill Squibb (arrives 7:05 p.m.) Members Absent: Ian Hayes Others Present: Amy Maxner – Environmental Planner Recorder: Eileen Sacco Chair Lang calls the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. at GAR Hall, 8 Dane Street, Beverly, MA. Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Continuation of Public Hearing on Former Vitale Site Lang notes that the Commission is going to continue the public hearing discussion on the Vitale site this evening and notes that the field management plan has been submitted for discussion – and with also some discussion points at the last meeting that Ian Hayes had st drawn up dated October 1. He asks if there is anyone present who has comments on this issue that they would like to bring up at this time. Mr. Leone, Vice President of Beverly Youth Soccer addresses the Commission and states that he has a letter of support that he would like to submit. Lang asks if any other members have comments on the management plan that they would like to discuss. Lang notes that the management plan was sent to the Salem/Beverly Water Supply Board and asks if they had any comments. Maxner states that the plan incorporates the Salem/ Beverly Water Supply Board’s suggestions in the first two pages. She also notes that they would like 24 hours notice before they apply any chemical fertilizers to the turf and they would like to be supplied with a list of all the chemicals and fertilizers they intend to apply to the field including the copies of the material safety data sheets which some if not all are attached to the management plan already. She also states that they are requiring Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 27 samples at least twice a year from the brook flowing under Cabot Street/Route 97 and have them analyzed for total phosphate and nitrate content by a state approve laboratory. One sample shall be collected in the spring and one in the fall and the written report of these analyses shall be reported in 30 days to the Water Supply Board. She notes that another condition is that at the request of the Water Supply Board the city shall collect additional samples and have them analyzed at an approved laboratory for any toxic or inorganic or organic chemicals used in products on the site. That the city be made aware of duty to comply with existing and future laws pertaining to activities on the watershed of public water shed including CMS regulations. She also notes that they attached the city’s Integrated Pest Management Policy (IPM), which is a universal practice that is used throughout the city. Lang asks if that is the plan that was sent to the Water Board. Maxner confirms. Reilly asks if there is something that should specifically address the soil at the site since this is pretty much a boiler-plate plan. She questions if we need to take any special care of the soil or the plantings due to the capping. Mike Lotti, New England Power, suggests that the general maintenance of the field along with the AUL should take care of that. Lang notes that the review process that DEP has for AUL’s is just relentless and they really have certain things that they are strict with and he thinks that if there is an area that is disturbed it has to repaired fairly quickly and is the responsibility of the LSP. He also notes that the city should let the LSP know if there is anything up there so they can notify the state of the change. Lang notes that DEP asks for all kinds of records to make sure that the AUL was set up correctly. He notes that the AUL deals with the activities that can and cannot occur on the site. Mary Rodrick, 14 Peabody Avenue, states her concern about the use of dirt bikes on the Vitale site and how to control that and believes that the chain link fencing should remian. Lang notes that it is a good point and the City will have to see what happens with that. He noted that the police could monitor and patrol the site. Maxner notes that the removal of the fence is definitely in the plan and Lotti confirms that. Cademartori asks if there is any documentation from the Salem/Beverly Water Supply Board, noting that he would like to have that for the record that the Board has been consulted and recommendations have been incorporated into the plan. Lang asks if there are any other comments. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 27 Maxner notes that the proposal for the concession stand has been dropped because it would be considered a commercial use and would trigger Article 97. She explains that the facility would be for bathrooms and storage. Paluzzi moves to accept the field management plan. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Maxner asks if the Commission have any questions about the AUL opinion. Cademartori asks if the issue of fencing around the fields was still a wish of the City. Lotti explained the kinds of fencing that is used and the potential installation of it. Bruce Doig, Parks & Recreation Director, notes that in the interim there could be temporary fencing that would not need footings of any type. Doig also noted that in the long term when the money is raised they plan to install permanent fencing. Lang asked if it were possible to install something that would require digging down 6 inches or so which would not disturb the ash or the cap. Lotti will check with the LSP on that so that it would not be affected. Maxner recommends that the Commission insist that fencing be surficial. Lang explained that the Commission would like to see it installed in, preferably the top 6 inches. He explained the composition of the cap and the effects of installing a fence. He noted that there is some flexibility with the top layers. Lotti notes his concern is that we are setting ourselves up for a determination and recommends that any type of project has to be approved by the LSP. Lang suggests that a statement be included that any penetration of the cap shall have the written approval of the LSP. Rodrick states that she feels that it should be required that any penetration be approved by the LSP. Lotti states that the AUL covers any disturbance to the cap. Maxner notes that there are two different LSP’s that are called out in the document. Lotti explains that Michael Geisser is the LSP for the adjacent site and has signed documents on behalf of the city. He notes that they need to figure out who will sign for the city. He notes that the LSP of record is Wesley Stimpson of Haley and Aldrich employed by NEPCO. Lang notes that the Commission is maintaining the ownership of the site and the Parks Department will have to come to the Commission and the LSP to do any work on the site. Maxner asks if there is any room in the AUL to incorporate the Commission as an entity that must be approach if an opinion is sought from the LSP and is that appropriate. Lotti states that if there is a way for the Chairman to sign as the owner the Commission would be in the link forever, explaining that the LSP could change. He further notes that he does not know if the position of Chairman has the authority to do that. Lang notes that this was discussed previously on the ownership issue and it reverted back to the City Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 27 Council. He notes that the City Council is the legally signing body for the city. He notes that the Commission can get an opinion from the City Solicitor on that. Lotti notes that there are sections in the AUL regarding activities that are consistent and inconsistent with the site, explaining areas where they would need approval. He notes that any activity or construction that involved materials beneath the protective cover would be included in that and reads a section of the AUL noting that is fairly restrictive as to what can be done. Maxner asks if DEP is notified by the LSP if this comes up. Lotti notes that the LSP and the owners are the responsible parties and DEP is really hands off, but do have monitoring powers. Rodrick addresses the Commission and questions if the watershed is protected by these plans and AUL’s. Lang notes that the Commission is deferring to the Salem/Beverly Water Supply Board just for that reason, as the Commission wanted to make sure that Board had direct input for that purpose. Maxner notes that the Superintendent of the SBWSB was involved in the drafting of the conditions. Lang notes that Maxner prepared a list of questions for review and asks if the Commission has touched on all of them. Maxner reviews the list and notes that in terms of field maintenance it would be the Beverly DPW who would be responsible for physical maintenance of the fields. Johnson asks if the compensatory land swap was still a viable option with the Mayor. Maxner notes that she spoke with Tina Cassidy, Planning Director, regarding the open space parcels offered by Mayor Scanlon for compensation and she has spoken with the Mayor who is amenable to providing the parcels of land on Pole Swamp Lane which was discussed at the last meeting. She notes that the Open Space Committee recommended that it would be a priority parcel at this point. She also notes that Cassidy suggested that if the Commission would like to make it a condition that they receive written confirmation from the Mayor he would be willing to do that. Lang asks how many acres are offered. Maxner notes that it was a series of parcels along Pole Swamp Lane totaling over 25 acres. Lang notes that the confirmation would be recorded at the registry of deeds. Maxner reads off the rest of the potential special conditions for approval and asks the Commission to vote on them individually: ?? The Commission shall establish that installation of any utilities across any portion of the site, other than that proposed for the storage/bathroom facility or that directly related to the use of the site for ball fields, shall in the Commission’s opinion, trigger Article 97 disposition procedures. Paluzzi so moves. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 5-0. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 27 ?? The Commission shall establish that any proposed use of the temporary access road, traversing the site up to the abutting private property to the north, for any reason other than activities related to the Vitale Fly Ash Consolidation and Habitat Restoration Project, shall in the Commission’s opinion, trigger Article 97 disposition procedures. Paluzzi so moves. Seconded by Reilly. All members are in favor. Motion carries 5-0. ?? The Commission shall establish that if the City decides to include concession/commercial activities on site, that it shall in the Commission’s opinion, trigger Article 97 disposition procedures. Paluzzi so moves. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 5-0. ?? The Commission shall establish that if Article 97 disposition procedures are pursued by any entity in the future, and the Commission votes to allow such disposition, a Grant of Environmental Restriction shall be placed on the site and placed under the jurisdiction of the appropriate agency of the State of Massachusetts. She notes this is suggested in Mike Lotti’s letter dated June 28, 2006. Paluzzi so moves. Seconded by Reilly. All members are in favor. Motion carries 5-0. ?? The Commission shall place a permanent/perpetual prohibition on any further wetland filling/alteration on the site for any reason by any entity, regardless of whether compensatory wetland replication can be accomplished. This should not include the removal of the culvert crossing (if it is decided to remove it), as the area of the crossing shall be restored to bank and BVW if it removed. Discussion ensues regarding this condition. Lotti states that may be too restrictive with regard to NEPCO’s restoration project, and reminds the Commission that it still maintains it regulatory authority pursuant to the Wetlands Act and Ordinance and would be able to restrict or limit any further wetland disturbance through that avenue. Lang agrees and would not want to make it difficult for NEPCO to carry out restorative activities, as they are needed. Cademartori agrees and states that in some instances maintenance of some restoration areas may be necessary in the future. Members agree not to incorporate this condition into the approval. Lang suggests that the Commission vote on the AUL opinion and asks if there is any further discussion in that regard. Paluzzi moves to approve the language of the AUL opinion. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Lotti notes that the text will not change in the AUL except for the naming of the signing authority. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 27 Lang asks for a motion to adopt the use of the former Vitale site for the use of ball fields in the future if all of the issues discussed tonight are implemented properly and asks if there is any discussion in this regard. Cademartori states that he would like to see a license agreement drawn up which should be revisited to make sure that all conditions are adhered to, and could be revoked if necessary. He suggests that Maxner research licensing agreements and possibly find a template to work from so that all of the documents discussed tonight can be referenced together. He notes that the Commission should think of terms or renewal in case any issues arise with the use of the site. Lotti notes that in Hopedale they have conservation land that is used as a field and that may be a source for such a license template. Maxner asks if they should think about the terms of review and asks if it should be yearly. Members agree that a yearly review may be appropriate at first and the frequency from there could be changed as needed. Paluzzi moves to approve and allow the use of the former Vitale site for the use of ball fields in the future provided that all conditions discussed tonight are implemented as described. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Lang asks for a motion that the approval is contingent upon receipt of a letter from Mayor Scanlon confirming the transfers of the parcels of land on Pole Swamp Lane. Paluzzi so moves. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Lang notes that the Commission will now start their regular meeting of the Beverly Conservation Commission at 6:50 p.m. Certificate of Compliance 8 Beaver Pond Road – DEP File # 5-795 – Michael Reichert Maxner informs the Commission that they issued an Order of Conditions for the construction of a single-family house, drive way and septic system within the buffer zone to a BVW and IVW. She notes that members will recall tabling the discussion to allow the applicant to inquire with the Board of Health as to whether the discharge from the driveway drainpipe is allowable directly over the leaching field for the septic system. She notes that the applicant has submitted revised as built plans which show that the drainage pipe has been moved down slope. She asked the contractor for the project Pete Grenier to address the Commission and explain the changes to the plan. Mr. Grenier explained that they moved the pipe and extended it so that it avoids the leaching field. He also noted that the Board of Health signed off on the change. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 27 Lang asks if the water runs across the street. Grenier states that there is a gully there. Maxner notes that some might go over the street but it catches in the drainpipe and discharges further down. Lang asked to have the discharge point located on the map. Grenier reviews the plan. Maxner notes that she visited the site. She explains that the little turnaround halfway down the driveway is now paved and the plan calls it out as gravel. She estimated that the area is 20X20. Lang states that he has not problem with that. Paluzzi agrees. Paluzzi moves to issue a certificate of compliance for 8 Beaver Pond Road with Standard Perpetual Conditions. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Request for Determination of Applicability New: 7 Cole Street – Expand Driveway, Build Retaining Wall, Walkway, Deck and Landscaping – Siobhan Coyle and Chris Climenson Maxner reads legal notice. Ms. Coyle addresses the Commission and explains that she is proposing to expand and level the driveway, build a retaining wall at the end and construct a deck at the rear of the house. She also noted that they are planning some other landscaping improvements within the Buffer Zone to a BVW. She also explained that some grading work may occur within the NDZ to alleviate pooling of water next to the foundation as the back yard is shaped with a hump in the middle that traps water next to the house and causes flooding. She states that at present the NDZ consists entirely of lawn and they will be reseeding to re-establish the lawn once the grading is complete. Reilly asks how much grading will be done near the wetland. Coyle explains the plan and the location of the grading noting that she thinks that she is barely within the 25 feet. Lang asks how they will determine where the 25-Foot NDZ will be before they start. Coyle notes that they would measure. Maxner states that the wetland is basically at the base of the slope with obvious vegetation and that there is little room for disagreement as to the edge of wetland. She suggests that the Commission issue a condition that a silt fence would be placed along the 25 foot NDZ. Maxner notes that she has explained to the applicant that any landscaping needs to be native species and she has provided her with a list of appropriate plantings. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There was no one present who wished to comment on the matter. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 27 Maxner notes that the arborvitaes at the end of the driveway will be removed and asked if they would be replanted. Ms. Coyle stated that she was not sure if she would replant them or not. Maxner suggests that the Commission require that they keep the driveway pervious. Ms. Coyle states that she has no problem with that. Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative 3 Determination for 7 Cole Street with the following conditions: ??All of the excavated spoils shall be removed offsite. ??Native vegetation shall be planted on the site. ??A silt fence shall be installed along the 25’ NDZ – with allowance to grade the mounded area within the 25 foot NDZ Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. New: 67 Brimbal Avenue – Remove Dead Trees, Brush Pile, Shed and Upgrade Deck to Porch – Lucien and Emily Belanger Maxner reads legal notice. Mr. Belanger addresses the Commission and explains that they are proposing to remove four trees on his property, one of which is within the 25 foot NDZ but is posing a hazard. He also notes that there are several piles of brush and rotting, molded firewood left by the previous owner right at the edge of the brook which he plans on removing. He also requested to remove 6-inches of top soil from 25 feet to 100 feet of the buffer zone as the lawn is over run with weeds and he would like to recondition the lawn and reseed. He also requested that they be allowed to upgrade the existing deck to a enclosed porch 90 feet from the wetland and the removal of a shed that is in disrepair. Belanger also notes that Maxner has informed him that some of the debris on the site has fallen into the water and the opposite side of the brook and that needs to be addressed. He stated that they would clean that up and he would provide before and after photos of the area. Lang asks for clarification regarding the work to be performed in the 25 foot NDZ. He noted that there would be no work done in the 25 foot NDZ other than removing historic debris and removal of one rotting tree and any excess soil would be removed from the site. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing and issue a Negative 3 Determination with the following special conditions: Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 27 1.) Erosion control shall be installed along the edge of wetland to protect from sedimentation by loose soil prior to work on site, and shall be inspected by the Conservation Administrator prior to work; 2.) 2.) Landscaping shall include species native to New England. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Squibb arrives. New: 376 Hale Street – Soil Borings for Wetland Restoration Feasibility Study and Confirmation of Inland Coastal Wetland Resource Area Boundaries – Endicott College Maxner reads legal notice. Hunt Durey, Manager of the Wetlands Restoration Program of CZM, addresses the Commission and explains that they are requesting to do some limited soil borings within the buffer zone and other resources on the Endicott College property near Thissell Marsh. He also notes that the other part of this application is the verification of the resource areas on the property. He explains that all of this is related to potential wetlands restoration opportunity for Thissell Marsh which has experienced a variety of degradations in the past 100-150 years including filling and explains the various activities that have taken place there. He explains the Wetlands Restoration Program to the Commission; noting that Endicott College has the opportunity to look at the current condition of the marsh, review the history of the site and what the options are for restoration. He notes that they have a consultant to conduct the feasibility study to look at the conditions and come up with a range of restoration options that can be taken up at this site to improve its condition. He notes that participation in this program is completely voluntary and involves many different entities. Lang asks how many borings they intend to do. Craig Wood, Louis Berger Group, states that they intend to perform 6 borings, 4 in the vicinity of the existing tennis courts noting that the court was built on a wetland back in the 1950’s and the College is investigating the possibility of restoring the wetlands underneath the tennis courts and reconstructing them elsewhere in uplands in another location of the College. He states that this effort will be incorporated into an environmental course offered by the college so that students can be involved with this project from start to finish and in long term monitoring. He also notes that there will be two borings elsewhere and notes the location on the plan. Lang asks what kind of equipment they plan to use. Wood states that they plan to use very low impact equipment and explains the process. He notes that they picked areas that are easily accessible and an ATV will be able to get in there without too much disruption. Lang asks where they will go. Wood explains the locations on the plan. Lang notes that it seems pretty straightforward and is an interesting and beneficial project. He does not feel that a site inspection is necessary. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 27 Wood explains the resource areas on the plans and identifies them. He notes that they have included two previous applications by the College submitted to the Commission in their plans. He explains the delineations are straightforward and take information from previously approved plans. Maxner asks if they have Riverfront Area. Wood explains that there is Riverfront Area, which consists of a stretch of the stream that was culverted some time ago. Wood explains that the culvert from Hale Street to a location on the plan is 1,100 feet. Cademartori states that he is curious about the velocity zone and where it is in that area. He asks if it was superimposed from the flood map. Wood explains that it was superimposed from the flood map but notes it was on an approved Endicott College plan. He notes that the 100-year floodplain is elevation 11 and the highest elevation of the dune is elevation 12. Cademartori states that he would not feel comfortable affirming the limits of the velocity zone on this application. Wood states that would not be a problem and adds that the Commission will be looking at this much closer under a full NOI once the restoration approach is finalized. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Rene Mary addresses the Commission and states that the official name of the creek is Centerville Creek. Squibb asks how #1 and #2 borings are going to be drilled. Wood explains the process and the location on the plan. Lang asks if they are going to use plastic tubes. Wood says that they are. Lang explains the process of using the plastic tubes. Maxner suggests a Negative #2, and a Positive #2A for all jurisdictional areas as noted on the plan, excluding the velocity zone, as well as a Negative #3. Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative #2, and a Positive #2A for all jurisdictional areas as noted on the plan, excluding the velocity zone as well as a Negative #3. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Rene Mary addresses the Commission and expresses her concerns about the correct name of the creek, insisting that the proper name is the Centerville Creek Wood states that he has been proposed with four different names for the creek and Thissell seemed to be the one that was put forward the most. He offered to talk with her more on this issue. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 27 Notice of Intent 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 November 14. 2006 meeting. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to November 14, 2006. Squibb seconds motion. The motion carries (7-0). Cont: Massachusetts Bay – Neptune LNG, LLC – Deep Water LNG Port in Beverly Harbor Doug Jones addresses the Commission and notes that a presentation was made a couple months back and they have no information to present this evening. He stated that they would like guidance on the process from here. Maxner notes that she forwarded their most recent letter regarding the change to a limited project to the Commission. She suggested that Mr. Jones address that. He notes that they filed as a regular project initially and realized during the Manchester process that they should have filed for a limited project. He explains that there are two standards that they have to meet as a limited project and noted that they have to meet and they have addressed them. They are contouring of the sea floor and the impact on shellfish. He notes that their survey for land containing shellfish was spotty at best. Jones states that they do not think it is a significant shellfish habitat, as it is not commercially fished in the area. He notes that there was evidence of scallops in the video surveys that they did. He notes that the State Division of Marine Fisheries thought it was a significant habitat for shell fish. Maxner asks if they were referring to Beverly. Jones stated that it was the whole route that DMF was referring to. Lang notes that they state that they found some scallops but no lobsters and questions that finding. Jones stated that they did observe some lobster but not in abundance. He notes that the construction is planned for when there is very little lobster activity in this area, noting that they do migrate to the shore towards the summer and in the winter they go offshore. He explains the timetable for their proposed construction. He notes that they have met with the Massachusetts Lobsterman’s Association and they confirm that June, July and August there is very little lobstering out there and in September and October they migrate out there. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 27 Lang asks if they have any permits from the State and what their time line is for permitting. Jones explains that the federal FEIS and its combined State EIS will be issued in the beginning of November and they expect to receive the MEPA Certificate in mid December and a Coast Guard Maritime License in mid February of next year. He notes that once they receive the MEPA certificate the other agencies can issue their permits and explains the sequence of that. Lang asks if they have met with MEPA. Jones explains that because it is a deep water port the Coast Guard has a third party reviewer preparing the EIS so consultation with MEPA goes directly with the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard will ask for a response to the state agency questions. Lang notes that the Deep Water Port is connected to the pipeline itself. Wood explains that there are three components the ships and the buoy system 12 miles off Marblehead Neck and explains the system. He notes that it is being reviewed as one project. Lang asks for member’s comments. Johnson states that he is not sure what application this should come under questioning if it is still a Notice of Intent relative to the Limited Project status. Maxner explains that the project exceeds thresholds, which triggers a limited project status and the Commission still has jurisdiction in terms of approving it and issuing conditions. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Lang notes that there was a question at the last hearing about the method of using apoxy on the pipes for Algonquin. Rene Mary expressed her concern about the application of epoxy on the pipes before they are installed under the ocean. Jones states the pipes are epoxy coated and the pipes are fully welded on the ship and would be dried and cured then placed in the water. Rene Mary addresses the Commission and expresses her concern about the distance that they are passing through Beverly with this project and the impact on the marine wildlife with two proposed pipelines. Jones notes that it is seven tenths of a mile and they have addressed the marine wildlife issues in the draft and the final EIS. He notes that once the pipes are buried the lobsters can migrate. Lang notes that both companies are following the ecologic route and if they both get permitted it is a problem that the federal government has to deal with. Mary Rodrick addresses the Commission and asks about the data on the numbers of scallops they found in their survey. Jones states that there was a handful and they did not see an abundance of shell fish and explained their findings. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 27 Lang requests a copy of the report on the shellfish, noting that he finds that surprising that there is not a lot of shell fish out there, as a lot of people make a living on that around here. He also notes that when he is out there he sees lobster pots 6 miles out. Jones states that they will provide that. Lang also suggests that they provide a sample Order of Conditions on what they have done in other communities and we can go from there. Cademartori asks how many Order of Conditions they have received. Jones notes that only Marblehead has issued their order, noting that they are meeting Thursday with Salem and Manchester in mid November. Lang requested copies of correspondence they have received with comments from MEPA and any federal agencies noting that would be helpful in drafting an Order of Conditions, as well as surveys relative to sea bottom auguring and the results of there borings for the th next meeting on November 14. Reilly asks when the Commission would be receiving the EIS. Jones explains that they expect to get it the first week of November and will forward it to the Commission when they get it. Squibb asks how many ships will be sitting in the harbor at a time. Jones explains that there will be one there but they will overlap as materials are delivered for a nine hour time frame once a week. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to November 14, 2006. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Continuation: 27 Ober Street – DEP File # 5-922 – Rehab Seawall with Alterations to Stairs/Ramp Access – Christopher Dick David Smith addresses the Commission and explains the plan. He notes that the work involves the repair of portions of the seawall, steps to the beach, and raising the height of the wall by about 18” and backfilling with loam and seed for lawn conditions, as they th exist now. He notes that the Commission visited the site on September 9 and looked at the adjacent property. He notes that he feels that everyone appreciates the topography of the land and further notes that the matter has been continued several times so that they could address DEP’s comments, and he has sent a copy of their response to DEP to the Commission. He explains that DEP had concerns about raising the height of the wall and noted that at the site visit it was noted that the wall is 100 years old and the condition of the wall and the sediment present is the result of extreme storm effects. He explains that DEP was concerned that the erosion rate of the beach would be increased by raising the wall. He notes that the only way waves are going to crash this wall is if a storm surge was 12 feet or more. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 27 Smith notes that DEP commented that salt tolerant plants should be used on the site. He notes that they do not feel that plantings are the way to go and that they would not prevent erosion. Smith states that he has been in conversations with DEP and CZM and invited them to the site. He requested that the Commission approve the project and they will deal with DEP and hopes to convince them that they should raise the height of the wall. Cademartori asks if there has been any response from Jill on this. Maxner states that she has not heard from her directly yet. Johnson states that he would be reluctant to approve this knowing that DEP has concerns about this, noting that the Commission considers DEP its allies. He also notes that increasing the size of the wall would increase the reflection of the wave off the wall and that argument does make sense to him. He notes because of this he is not ready to dismiss the reflection as detriment. Smith explains that reflection that results in a wave would be in an extreme storm event. Johnson notes that the waves have a lot of velocity and energy and hit hard. Smith agreed and noted that the comments are relevant but he does not think this site really pertains to those concerns. He also notes that DEP approved another job at 77 Paine Avenue and there have been no issues with the beach due to that project. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment. There was no one present who wished to comment on the project. Lang suggests that the Commission continue the public hearing and try to get DEP out to look at the site. Maxner will put in a request from the Commission for DEP to visit the site. Cademartori states that he thinks that the Commission should take their time on this noting that there might be some kind of compromise with a stepped wall and isn’t inclined to approve this considering DEP’s opposition, and recommends that Maxner invite DEP out for a site visit. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to November 14, 2006. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Continuation: 44 Prince Street – Reconstruct Single Family House and Guest House - David Carnevale Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 27 Bob Griffin addresses the Commission and explains that they have a reduction in scope from the previous proposal. He explains the plans and the location with ocean on two sides of the property and the other resource areas and their locations. He notes that the original proposal was to raze the main house and add to the existing guesthouse. He notes that the Commission had some concerns regarding zoning for that proposal. He notes that they would have required a finding from the ZBA and Mr. Carnevale is not interested in pursuing that. He explains that they now propose to maintain the existing features of the main house and add and addition, and maintain the guesthouse and keep the detached garage where it is. He also explains that they are going to move the second detached garage to the eastern side of the property onto the main house. He also explains that they are still going to reconstruct the pool and the gazebo with the same size and shape. Griffin also notes that they are going to reconfigure the driveways to give them access easier access to both the main house and the guesthouse. He also explains that the guest house and the main house will have separate driveways and they will reconstruct the fence along the eastern side of the property and install underground utilities as well as landscaping in various locations. He also notes that they are going to remove 6 trees and explained their locations on the plans. He notes that this is a scaled back plan and essentially all of the work is outside of the 25 foot NDZ. Johnson asks if the driveway will stay the same. Griffin states that it will but Mr. Carnevale may wish to change that in the future. Lang asks if there is any work in the NDZ near the guesthouse. Griffin explains that 6 or 8 feet might be in the area where the underground electric line will be installed. Maxner recalls that there was a note on the plan that the applicant intends to vista prune the existing vegetation along the bank and asks if there is a feel for what will be pruned and what they hope to achieve. Griffin explains that they are proposing a general pruning as the trees have not been touched for years and they are trying to clean it up again. He notes that it will comply with regulations. Maxner questions if there are erosion control measures proposed for the side of the pool. Griffin states that there is a good reason for that and explains that there is a wall that water cannot get past and explains the site on the plans. Cademartori questions the stormwater control for the site. Griffin explains the plan. Cademartori asks if there are any requirements of the engineering department regarding this. Maxner states not that she knows of. Maxner asks about roof runoff and if it will infiltrate that. Griffin explains that they could direct it and infiltrate it but they have not looked at that. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 27 Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Mr. Holleran of 2 Prince Street notes that they are constructing another driveway and expresses concern about that. Griffin explains the plan and notes that there is a gate with a key that prevents people from getting down to that area. He notes that they discussed that with the city and there are no concerns. Lang requests that the questions regarding this be kept to wetlands issues. Holleran explains how the area has been used for pedestrian traffic. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Cont: 7 Deer Haven Road – Fill Approximately 305 s.f. of Isolated Vegetated Wetland – Christopher and Kandis Cloutman Bob Griffin addresses the Commission and notes that the Commission visited the site on th September 30. He recalls that there was a consensus that things have changed on the site due to the construction of the subdivision in the neighborhood and explains the area. He notes that at the last meeting they offered to withdraw the application and some members of the Commission were uncomfortable with that without additional information. He notes that a suggestion was made to hire an independent consultant to review the area and the Cloutman’s have hired someone to review the area. He refers to Dr. Wang’s opinion and states that his opinion is that there is about 150 s.f. in the corner of the depression that would qualify as an isolated vegetated wetland based on soils, but otherwise the necessary characteristics are not there and it is his opinion that under the Ordinance of Beverly there is no jurisdiction. He apologized for the time and trouble that he has caused for the reviewing of this and if the Commission has no objection they would like to withdraw the application. Maxner notes that at the last meeting she recommended that the Commission get some additional information that would help them come to that conclusion that they were edging towards anyway that there may not be a viable wetland. She states that this information and a closer look at the soils and the whole depression and based on our observations it satisfies her suspicions. She notes that the regulations spell out that an isolated wetland needs to be at least 1000 s.f. in area and we only have 150 s.f., so it doesn’t even come close to what the jurisdiction requires. Lang notes that if they withdraw the application it does not require a vote on the part of the Commission. Maxner agrees and explains that she thought it would be a good idea to Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 27 discuss the findings and she wanted to make sure that the Commission is comfortable with the decision. Lang notes that the new information really does help because when he was out there the hydrology threw him and explained his findings. He states that he is comfortable with it. Johnson agrees. Griffin thanks the Commission for their time. Maxner asks if the Commission would like her to send a letter to the Cloutman’s notifying them that the Commission has determined that it is not a wetland. Members agree. Cont: 23 Linden Avenue – DEP File #5-928 – Repair Eroded Stone Wall on Bass River – Lou Ellen Viel Lang recused himself from discussion of this matter, as he did not attend the site visit. Maxner explains that Tom Keogh from Hancock Environmental did not feel that they were needed at the meeting since they submitted the cross sections and if that was sufficient for the Commission to make a decision the Commission could close the hearing. Paluzzi states that he would be comfortable closing the public hearing. Johnson moves to close the public hearing. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries (4-0-1) with Cademartori abstaining. Cont: Massachusetts Bay DEP File # 5-929 – Construct Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline – Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC John Bonsall addresses the Commission and explains that they provided a presentation a couple of weeks ago and they have some further information on the epoxy that they use to fuse the pipes together on the barge and provides a written summary to Commission members noting that it is not cooled with any water and waste water is not a factor. He states the epoxy is dry and cured by the time the pipe is laid. Bonsall introduced Mr. Bourjia to explain the process of applying the epoxy and the installation of the pipes. Bonsall updates the Commission on where they are in the permitting process. He notes that the Coast Guard is the lead agency for MEPA and explains where they are in that thth process. He notes that they will be having public hearings on November 8 and 9 and explained the locations and the public comment periods. He notes that they have received Orders of Conditions from Marblehead and Salem and are expecting Weymouth, Manchester and Gloucester soon. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 27 Bonsall explains that the pipeline that goes from Beverly Harbor to Weymouth is fully buried. Bonsall asked Paul Martin to explain the information presented a couple of weeks ago regarding shell fish. Martin explained that they collected the information form MA GIS and notes that it does not include a mapped area of Beverly so they do not consider it an area as land containing shell fish. Bonsall notes that this project is not as complicated as the Hubline Project and the equipment and activity within Beverly Harbor is lesser of an impact. He notes that they are ready to close the heairng and start talking about an Order of Conditions. Lang asks what permit they received today. Bonsall explains that they got the FEIS, which is the Final Environmental Impact Statement. He explains that they responded to comments, which are appended to the EIS. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Squibb moves to close the public hearing. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Lang suggests that the Commission meet next Monday to work on the Order of Conditions for this project. Bonsall notes that many of the Conditions for Hubline would not apply to this project. Lang suggests that Bonsall provide a draft version of the Order. Maxner asks if the Commission expects a draft from her for next Monday. Lang notes that whatever can be done ahead of time would be helpful. Maxner asks if the FEIS would be considered new information and if the hearing can be closed at this point. Cademartori agrees and thinks the hearing should be left open to allow the Commission the opportunity to review the FEIS. Johnson moves to reconsider the motion to close the public hearing. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to October 30, 2006. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Cont :171 West Street – Raze Existing House and Construct a Single Family House and Pool – Preston Bradford Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 27 Bill Manuell addresses the Commission and notes that a site visit was held on Saturday and the architect presented a plan that shows more of a revised concept as opposed to the plan presented at the last meeting. He notes that the site plan now reflects what was talked about: a series of linear footings and foundation walls that will be perpendicular to the onshore waves. He notes that the B zone and the flood zone orientation and explains the plan. He notes that the diagram is a schematic and notes that they have a better concept of the building and the access and they would like build a circular drive with minimal grades. He notes that there is an overhead power line and they would like to take the power off the pole and bring it underground up the driveway. He notes that is important because the utility pole is within feet of the bank of Chubbs Creek. He also notes that they talked about trees on the site and notes that there are two trees within the NDZ that would be retained and noted that there is one tree that would go and they propose to plant a number of sizeable trees that would be planted in the NDZ and along the lawn area to compensate. Manuell notes that there may be a minor disturbance to the NDZ for the installation of the pool and explained the area on the plan. He explains an area for mitigation with a planting plan. He asks the Commission if they have any comments on the plans so that further refinements can be made for submittal at the next meeting. Paluzzi asks how much encroachment there will be because of the deck. Manuell estimates that the area is 9 feet long and two feet wide. Johnson notes that the arc is there because of the indenture of the seawall. Maxner notes that she thinks that there are a lot of opportunities for mitigation on the site and to reclaim some wetlands on the site as well. She notes that care should be taken to manage site runoff the best they can. Lang opens the hearing up 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, Johnson moves to continue the public hearing to November 14, 2006. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. OLD/NEW BUSINESS 9 Otis Road – Install Electrical Transformer – Redgate Realty Inc. Bob Griffin addresses the Commission and explains that this project is the result of the construction of a 50’ x 100’ building. He notes that the project was designed to be outside of the buffer zone and explains that it is now time to install the electricity and they thought that they could install a transformer and the electric company has Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 27 determined that the location of the transformer pad should be just off the building. He explains the design of the transformer and notes that the location would be in the 100- foot buffer zone and they need to file an RDA. He explains that they have a time crunch because the electric company is ready to install and requested that the Commission allow the installation of the transformer pad at this time with the promise that they will file an RDA for this work in time for the next meeting. Maxner notes that she discussed this with Mr. Lawler this afternoon and his original plan was to place the transformer right up against the building and when the power company saw that they refused to do the work because there has to be a 10 foot separation from the building. She notes that she suggested they come to the Commission to explain the situation and see if they are amenable to allowing the work to be done, and allow them to come back with an RDA for the pad. Lang asks what kind of vegetation is there now. Griffin states that he does not think that they have to take out any trees to do this. Maxner notes that Lawler told her that there is spot ready to go and they don’t need to remove anything to do the work. Lang states that he feels that it is a reasonable request. Paluzzi asks if the line coming in will affect any trees. Griffin notes that it will be close to the building and no tree or vegetation removal is necessary. Squibb questions why they cannot put two transformers on one pole. Griffin states that he was not involved in those discussions but the Power Company was specific about the location. Paluzzi moves to allow the work to be done on the transformer on the condition that the applicant file an RDA for the work for the next meeting. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: Bass River Plaza – DEP File #5-926 – Discussion Re: Alternative Analysis per DEP Appeal – Bass River JDS, LLC Maxner notes that she emailed the alternatives analysis to Commission members for their review and discussion tonight. Bill Manuell addresses the Commission and notes that the Commission issued an Order of Conditions for the project at 240-242 Elliot Street in a Riverfront Area and they had characterized the area behind the building as disturbed and degraded because it was filled tide land and it is kind of gravelly hardpan and they did test borings which were difficult to do. He notes that the DEP appealed the Order and is of the position that anytime there is grass or growth in a riverfront area it must not be construed as being disturbed or degraded. He notes that he met on the site with Jill Provencal who recommended that Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 27 they provide an alternatives analysis so that they comply with the regulations of the riverfront area. He explains that the alternatives analysis presents three alternatives and when considering alternative analysis it has to be economically equivalent. He notes that they looked at a no build which no economically equivalent and was eliminated. Manuell explains that the second option that they looked at was moving the project out of the riverfront area but notes that essentially the whole site was in the riverfront area so that was not an alternative. He notes that lastly they looked at removing 18 spaces and a dumpster pad which would dramatically change the use of the parcel so that it would not be economically equivalent anymore. He notes that they concluded that none of those alternatives were similar to the proposed project. He further explains that they looked at the impact thresholds and they were compliant with the impact thresholds that are provided for in the regulations. He explains that they sent all of this information to DEP and he has talked with Jill Provencal and she stated that she is comfortable with it and she is ready to issue the SOC and she wants to reaffirm the Beverly Conservation Commission’s Order of Conditions but not before the Commission has the opportunity to comment on this analysis. He notes that he is here this evening to get the input of the Commission on that. Lang asks if any members of the Commission have concerns about this. Cademartori states that he is fine with it as long as the Order of Conditions will be part of the Superseding Order. Maxner states that she expressed that to Jill at the site visit that they would like the special conditions to remain in effect. She also notes that the plans have been revised to incorporate the landscaping conditions the Commission imposed, and discussed this with the applicant and Jill. The applicant understood that the Commission was gearing towards a more naturalized riparian zone as opposed to a neatly manicured landscaped area. Paluzzi moves to send confirmation to DEP that the Commission has reviewed the alternatives analysis and reaffirms their Order of Conditions for 240-242 Elliot Street. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Continuation: 76 Paine Avenue – Enforcement Order – Jack Swansburg Maxner reports that Mr. Swansburg’s Attorney, Thomas Frisardi, has requested that the matter regarding the Enforcement Order and fines be continued to the November 14, 2006 meeting of the Commission. Paluzzi moves to continue the matter to November 14, 2006. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Maxner notes that she he has also requested that the matter regarding the work on the wall and 77 Paine Avenue Certificate of Compliance be scheduled together with the EO discussion at the November meeting. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 27 Lang states that he is not inclined to grant this request and explained his reasons. He states that it is clear in the minutes from the Commission meetings that the applicant’s respective engineers were supposed to work together to finish this and it is apparent that Mr. Swansburg and his engineer did not work in concert with Mr. Wadsworth. He states that he finds it interesting that Mr. Swansburg waited a whole year to bring this issue to the forefront and now he wants to tell the Commission what they did wrong. Johnson states that he does not think that the dispute over the boundaries in the corner of the property or worked performed thereon is the concern of the Commission. Maxner explains that Swansburg’s premise is that Wadsworth went ahead and did work on his property that was not on the approved plan and never approved by the Commission. She states that Swansburg believes he cannot build his wall according to the approved plan because of Wadsworth’s work. She goes on and provides a brief chronology of the work on the wall at 77 Paine Avenue, noting that Mr. Wadsworth wrote to Mr. Swansburg on September 5, 2005 regarding access route to the work areas and coordinating the work at the interface with the respective engineers. Squibb states that the work at the interface was intentionally left to the engineers to work out because this was recognized as an area that would be difficult to execute without cooperation. He states the Commission members are not coastal engineers and did not have the expertise to dictate how this interface should be constructed, and that is why experts are required in designing these projects. Johnson notes that the Commissioners are not surveyors either, and they don’t know where the property lines are and it is not the Commission’s responsibility to know this information. Cademartori notes that if they really want to address this problem, it is a civil legal matter at this point and thinks that Swansburg should come in with a plan to address the interface if he thinks he really needs to. He is not convinced that Swansburg’s design cannot be achieved, and thinks that with the lack of participation on Swansburg’s part Wadsworth was forced to do something or that whole corner would have been very vulnerable. He states that he finds it hard to believe that Swansburg had no knowledge of this work being done as he lives directly next door and involves his property. Lang agrees and thinks that all of recent correspondence is in reaction to the enforcement action taken by the Commission against Swansburg for the basketball court. Squibb notes that when the Commission approved the as-builts for 77 Paine Avenue, and notes that Wadsworth’s wall is built to specifications, and that is what the Commission is obligated to review and vote on. He does not think it is the Commission’s problem that cooperation never occurred. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 27 Maxner stated that the Commission relied on Dave Smith – Wadsworth’s engineer, for his expert opinion with regard to the interface built by Wadsworth and Smith gave his opinion that this was a satisfactory way to address this part of the wall. Lang recommends that the Commission not place this on the next agenda, and let the City Solicitor handle this. He notes that the Solicitor has been apprised of it and the Commission will take their advice from him. Brief discussion ensues regarding the fines for the basketball court, and Cademartori notes that it was clear that any changes to the plan require additional approvals and they understood that and did the work anyway. Maxner refers the members to the chronology of the violation and enforcement actions taken by the Commission and recommends that discussion be tabled to the November meeting. 4 Cavendish Square – DEP File #5-849 – Wetland Restoration Monitoring Update Maxner states that the Commission is not going to discuss this tonight but has received the monitoring report as required by the Order of Conditions and it was included in their packets. 71 Brimbal Avenue – Enforcement Order – Anthony Lanzillo Maxner asks the Commission to vote to amend the Enforcement Order requiring Mr. Lanzillo to remove the brush and material in the wetland and file an RDA for the work that he wants to do in the buffer zone. Paluzzi moves to amend the Enforcement Order for 71 Brimbal Avenue as stated. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: Glen Urquhart School – DEP File #5-916 – Peer Review by Horsley & Witten Discussion Maxner stated that the third party peer review by Horsley Witten (HW) has provided a report that the plan as proposed does not meet the stormwater standards, however with particular changes listed in the letter, Horslely Witten believes the applicant can come into compliance. Maxner explains the proposed modifications made by HW: ??The design of the organic filters needs to be changed to be pocket wetlands as the bottoms of these filters will be in groundwater and will not function for water quality, but would better function as actual constructed wetlands. ??They also requested a hydraulic analysis be performed that supports the fact that the 24” clay pipe will handle the new flow. ??She explains that the rest of the comments are regarding the changes and ask for a more detailed sediment control plan. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 27 She explains that Glen Urquhart’s engineers have indicated that these changes are very easily incorporated into the plan and have done so. She reads the final approval letter provided by HW indicating that all of their concerns have been addressed and the plan as revised now meets the regulations. Maxner states that she wants to hear comments from the Commission regarding this so they can move forward. Members of the Commission indicated that they were satisfied. Paluzzi moves to release the Order of Conditions to allow work to commence. Seconded by Johnson. Lang abstains. Motion carries 5-0-1 (one abstention). 208 Hart Street – DEP File #5-923 – Minor Modification – Michael DiGuiseppe Maxner informs the Commission that the applicant is looking for a minor modification to the approved plan to delay the implementation of the planting plan as he has not yet started the work on the addition. She notes that the Order of Conditions called for the plantings to be done this year by October 1, 2006. She suggested to him that he file for a minor modification to do the planting by June 1, 2007 prior to any other work on the site. Paluzzi moves to approve the minor modification to have the plantings in by June 1, 2007 for 208 Hart Street prior to any other work on site involving the addition. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: 865 Hale Street –DEP File #5-788 - Extension Permit – Kevin Barry Maxner notes that the applicant has requested an extension for one-year for work relative to establishing an area behind the house next to a wetland. She explains the status of the project. Johnson moves to grant a one-year extension for 865 Hale Street. Paluzzi seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: 8 Patti Road –DEP File #5-788 - Extension Permit – John Crowell Maxner notes that the applicant is requesting a one-year extension to do landscaping relative to an addition to the home. Paluzzi moves to grant a one-year extension for 8 Patti Road. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: 4 Quincy Park –DEP File #5-788 - Extension Permit – Mark and Debra Dellafera Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 27 Maxner notes that the applicant is requesting a one-year extension to complete the project. Paluzzi moves to grant a one-year extension for 4 Quincy Park. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: 261 Hart Street –Local Bylaw OOC - Extension Permit – Hilary Gabrieli Maxner notes that the applicant is requesting a one-year extension to complete the project. Paluzzi moves to grant a one-year extension 261 Hart Street. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: Beverly Airport – DEP File # 5-841 Runway Project – Request Revision to Monitoring Schedule – Dan Nitzsche/Beverly Airport Maxner explains that the applicant’s wetland scientist is asking to change the monitoring frequency of the replacement wetland. She explains that they are requesting that the th monitoring be completed once a year right around July 15 and that it be changed to once a year rather than twice a year. She notes that the wetland consultant explained that it would be the height of the growing season and noted that DEP guidelines call for monitoring once a year in mid July as that will capture the full growth of all plants present. Paluzzi moves to approve this change to have the monitoring completed once a year by th July 15with no further documentation for this change being required. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Sam Fonzo Drive Maxner explains that the City went out for an RFP for parcels on Sam Fonzo Drive near the airport. She notes that Kelleher Construction is going to be submitting an ANRAD application for the next meeting on one of those parcels, and they would like the Commission to have a site inspection prior to the next meeting on November 14, 2006 in order to avoid inclement weather. Lang noted that he thinks that they feel that if it snows they will have to wait until the spring. The Commission will hold a site visit on Saturday, November 11, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. Expenditure Approvals Maxner reads off the following expenditures that need the Commission’s approval: Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 27 Self Inking Stamp for Conservation Commission mailing material $42.48 Paluzzi moves to approve the expenditure for Self Inking Stamp for Conservation Commission $42.48. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Mailing fees to FedEx Glen Urquhart Documents to Horsley & Witten $23.89. Paluzzi moves to approve the Mailing fees to FEDEX Glen Urquhart Documents to Horsley & Witten $23.89. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Public Hearing Notice for Vitale Site hearing in the Salem Evening Newspaper $113.43 Paluzzi moves to approve the expenditure for the Public Hearing Notice for Vitale Site hearing in the Newspaper $113.43. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the July 11, 2006 Conservation Commission meeting were presented for approval. Paluzzi moves to approve the minutes of July 11, 2006 as submitted. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 5-0. Orders of Conditions 44 Prince Street – DEP File #5-910 Discussion ensues regarding potential Special Conditions. Paluzzi moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions as discussed: 1. Roof runoff from the new house addition shall be directed into subsurface drywells. 2. Stormwater runoff from the new driveways servicing the main house and the guest house shall be directed to maximize infiltration and minimize direct discharge to resource areas by way of crushed stone shoulders or other means as appropriate. 3. Proposed vista pruning shall not reduce the canopy by more than 10% as defined in 310 CMR 10.04. Johnson seconds the motion. Reilly abstains. The motion carries 5-0-1 (one abstention). 23 Linden Avenue – DEP File #5-928 Paluzzi moves to issue Standard Conditions. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries (4-0-2) with Lang and Cademartori abstaining. Beverly Conservation Commission October 24, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 27 Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Beverly Conservation Commission this evening. Paluzzi moves to adjourn the meeting. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carried (6-0). The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.