2012-04-03 (2)CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD: Conservation Commission
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: April 3, 2012
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Lang, Chairman, Tony Paluzzi, Vice Chairman,
Christine Bertoni, Robert Buchsbaum, Anne Grant, Kate
Glidden, and Bill Squibb
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER: Jane Dooley
Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Beverly City Hall, 3 rd Floor Council Chambers,
191 Cabot Street, Beverly.
Certificate of Compliance
New: 376 Hale Street (a.k.a. 400 Hale St.) DEP File #5 -194 — herbicide treatment of nuisance
aquatic vegetation — Endicott College
Peter Pommersheim of Meridian Engineering is representing the College for the this and the
following Certificate request made by the College.
Maxner describes how this order was issued in 1986 relative to herbicide treatment of the main
campus pond to remove nuisance vegetation that was choking the pond at the time. Maxner states
that based on information in the file, the treatment chemical was Diquat Dibromide, which was used
at a rate of approximately two gallons per surface acre or less. Aquatic Control Technology, Inc.
performed the treatment and it's principle, Gerald Smith, provided a final observation report noting
that the treatment conducted in May of 1986 achieved "excellent control of nuisance aquatic
vegetation..." She notes that based on current conditions of the pond, it does not appear that milfoil
has returned, as current aeration and possibly better surrounding management practices may have
retarded its ability to reestablish. Peter Pommersheim of Meridian Associates notes in response to
Buchsbaum that there has not been any further problem with nuisance vegetation that he is aware
of
Paluzzi moves to issue the Certificate of Compliance DEP File #5 -194 for 376 Hale Street.
Seconded by Squibb. Motion carries 7 -0.
New: 376 Hale Street (a.k.a. 400 Hale St.) DEP File #5 -361— stabilization of the pond bank,
drainage structures — Endicott College
Conservation Commission
April 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 11
Maxner describes the Order, issued in July of 1990, governed installing rip rap along a section of
the pond bank to stabilize erosion of the bank, reconstructing a bituminous concrete swale which
drained runoff from the parking lot into the pond, replacement of the bituminous concrete berm
running along at the edge of pavement to the pond and installing a catch basin at the mouth of the
swale to help catch and trap sand from the paved surface. She notes that based on the as -built plan
and recent observations, the pond bank looks to be fairly stable; the catch basin is still there, but the
swale was replaced with a drainpipe and the berm was replaced with granite curbing. The
Commission reviewed and signed off on the swale converted to drainpipe, catch basin and granite
curbing under a recent request for Certificate, under DEP File #5 -23.
Pommersheim agrees that swale is no longer there, although the catch basin remains. He responds to
Bertoni that he did not know exactly when the riprap was installed.
Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance DEP #5 -361 for 376 Hale Street. Seconded by
Buchsbaum. Motion carries 7 -0.
New: 289 Hale Street, DEP File #5 -521— retaining wall and slope stabilization — Endicott
College
Maxner describes order issued in May 1996 that governed the stabilization of the coastal bank
behind Tupper Hall. She states that research referred to stabilization for unauthorized clear cutting.
She notes she viewed the area during a site visit this afternoon and there were no remnants of brush
packing. In response to Buchsbaum, Pommersheim describes bioengineering technique used where
cuts are done in steep slope and backfilled branches are used to create a barrier to hold soil back. At
the site the soil is well stabilized. Maxner notes that there is leaf litter and brush but no signs of
erosion.
Glidden moves to issue Certificate of Compliance for 289 Hale Street DEP File #5 -521. Seconded
by Squibb. Motion carries 7 -0.
Request for Determination of Applicability
New: 32 Pickman Road — construct in- ground swimming pool, pervious paver patio &
landscaping — John & Andrea Osbon
Maxner reads legal notice.
Ralph Sabatino from Andrews Pools representing applicant. He notes the RDA is for an inground
swimming pool to the rear of the home in established lawn area between retaining wall and
embankment to wetlands outside the 25 -foot No Disturb Zone. Sabatino explains that to get
excavator access to site for pool a small retaining wall would be dismantled. Erosion controls would
be placed at the top of the embankment, seven to eight feet from the excavation. Ground cover such
as high bush blueberry would be used for stabilization along the embankment that is showing signs
of destabilization.
Conservation Commission
April 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 11
He notes that he walked the site with Maxner and reviewed possible low maintenance plants for
erosion control including ivy, pachysandra to hold the embankment. He adds that once pool is
installed there is established flat lawn area and small garden, pavers would be used for patio to
minimize runoff that goes off toward home. He states that there is no backwash as a cartridge filter
will be used. Also, that there is already a stone line drainage swall between both properties that a
street catch basin discharges to, so using that to lower the pool level will help to keep runoff to
minimum. If pool ever needs to be emptied it would be pumped out and water trucked away, not
discharged into wetland.
In response to questions, Sabatino explains that pavers would be installed in stone dust, details
about salt system for salt water pool and generation of chlorine in gas form, and that street drainage
system incorporated into stone line drainage swall has a headwall.
Discussion ensues about whether a structural engineer has been consulted regarding weight of water
and stone and their potential impact to the stability of the slope. Sabatino mentions that pool would
be installed in flat area of land in a solid section, not in slope. The distance from the back of the
house to the slope grade is 42 feet. Maxner will work with Sabatino on use of low growing non-
invasive species.
Maxner reminds the Commission that a no- disturb plaque is installed which was a condition of a
RDA permit issued by the Commission in 2004 for construction of an addition at the south side of
the house. The plaque was placed at her direction based on her best and novice estimate of the edge
of wetland. Maxner explains that the Commission wanted demarcation of 25 -foot No Disturb Zone
and she defines her best guess since it was difficult to see due to leaf litter but notes that the
embankment is soft and is a concern.
Discussion ensues about proposed pool depth to be 6 -feet deep and downward pressure where
Sabatino said self - standing retaining wall would be steel reinforced if there is an embankment issue
relative to expanded lawn.
Lang notes his concern that the pool will create pressure that will further destabilize the bank and he
feels that this needs to be looked at by a structural engineer. He notes that a site visit is probably
advisable. The Commission agrees to hold a site walk on Saturday, April 21 at 8 a.m.
Paluzzi moves to continue the application to the April 24, 2012 meeting. Seconded by Squibb.
Motion carries 7 -0.
Recess for Public Hearings
Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Seconded by Squibb. Motion carries 7 -0.
Notices of Intent and /or Abbreviated Notices of Intent
New: 41 Prince Street — demolish existing, construct new house and pool — Jonathan Uroskie
Maxner reads the legal notice.
Conservation Commission
April 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 11
Curt Young from Wetland Preservation, Inc., and Brian Stein from Siemasko Verbridge Architects
are present for the applicant. Young states that the wetland delineation was approved under an
ANRAD from 2010 and is still valid. He describes the resource areas with existing seawall on top
of coastal bank that has been approved, also elevations on beach and existing tennis court and small
house on street at top of slope as well as small boat house, vegetated hillside with Black Locust and
Norway Maple trees and grass, and planting bed near edge of wall.
He notes the buffer zone extends across approximately 90% of property. Young notes that work
proposed in project is within Commission's jurisdiction. A small house will be razed and new house
constructed that will be non - conforming with pool and terrace to tennis court (that will be
removed).
Stein describes how architectural details for house with three -car garage fits into 30 -foot setback
from street and 20 -foot from other side, to keep as close to Prince Street as possible. Terrace and
screen porch is in A -zone, as well as pervious patio and pool with fence. An asphalt driveway is
proposed.
Young reiterates that tennis courts will be removed from 25 -foot NDZ and planting beds would be
enlarged along portion of seawall. An arborist would take down five Locust trees and replace them
with vegetation in that area. The under story of another wall was pruned and a planting bed will
replace that with suggested plantings. No change would occur to the boathouse. There is interest in
re- pointing the stones in the seawall that is in fairly good shape, and Young asks if the Commission
would consider a perpetual condition that allows for seawall maintenance. Lang notes that the
Commission does not usually allow for maintenance as work has a way of expanding without
approvals.
Stein mentions that the house is out of A -zone as much as possible and is best fit for area. Young
notes that there is no stream flow from over wash where the area is coastal zone driven into 13,000
square feet. In response to Squibb, he notes a typographical error that needs to be corrected on site
map referring to the C and A Zones that need to be switched. Likewise in response to Buchsbaum,
he says that relative to sea level rise there could be potential for more runoff in flooding conditions
but there would not be frequent flooding incidents. The basement of the house is at 17 -foot
elevation, first floor at 21 -foot elevation.
Commission agrees to schedule a site meeting on April 21 at 8: 30 a.m.
Abutter from 37 Prince inquires about proposed work and his concern about maintenance of natural
hillside when trees are removed. Lang assures resident that Commission will look at slope when it
visits the site. Discussion ensues about invasive species (Black Locust and Norway Maple) and that
vegetative under layer could develop with new sprouts expected to come back naturally.
Maxner mentions dry wells and runoff from saltwater pool. Young responds that dry wells would
not surcharge if groundwater table comes up but coastal storm would fill those up but he does not
expect issue with saltwater. Stein clarifies that dry wells in driveway are sized to direct runoff from
house to tributary area. He explains infiltrating during a storm would increase capacity of dry well.
Conservation Commission
April 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 11
Also, the 500- gallon dry well at the back of garage would accept backwash from pool. In response
to Buchsbaum, Stein says there would be a 3,000 to 4,000 increase in impervious surface at the site
so this is why the dry wells are proposed.
Discussion ensues about any blasting required at the site due to ledge outcropping where 450 cubic
yards of ledge would be removed for house construction and up to 20 -feet of ledge will be removed
for sewer pump station. The pool will be 18 -feet by 36 -feet and 8 -feet deep at deepest section.
Buchsbaum moves to continue the hearing until the Commission's next meeting on April 24.
Seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 7 -0.
New: 43 Water Street — install steel sheet pile bulkhead, fill land under ocean, install travel lift
and floating docks — Beverly Port Marina
Maxner reads legal notice.
Jonathon Silver representing applicant, Beverly Port Marina (BPM) presents an overview of entire
Beverly Port Marina property relative to what is proposed for alteration. He explains that giant
travel lift site for taking boats out and placing them back into the water was constructed in 1963 and
is in need of repair to remain operational. Silver refers to photographs that illustrate beams that have
been installed temporarily to shore up compromised structure and the deck at the icehouse is in
disrepair with weakened pilings located in the water where customers are not allowed on deck.
Silver mentions that BPM was in front of Commission two years ago for an RDA to shore up the
seawall in front of fuel tanks and degradation has since occurred causing concern about collapse and
need for further repair of seawall and pilings. He describes how storms are breaching seawall, wood
sheet piling is pulling away, problems with wooden bulkhead, broken cables, and developing
sinkhole.
Silver explains the proposal to alleviate situation is to build out seawall on western side of site with
metal sheet piling returning to the current seawall and backfill between the new sheet pile wall and
the existing wooden bulkhead, to create bigger buffer for fuel tanks, and to mitigate need to dredge
the area periodically, which has not been in some time and is now preventing hauling of boats with
draft deeper than four feet. He notes public access is proposed since travel lift would no longer be
in the public way. He explains that BPM's engineer has said there would be better erosion control
with newly proposed wall that handles storm conditions and storm runoff better. Proposed seawall
would be a foot taller than existing wall.
Lang recommends the Commission schedule a site visit. Members agree and schedule a site walk
for April 21 at 9:15 a.m.
Discussion ensues about filling in the resource area and Silver says filling is allowed under DEP
regulations in Designated Port industrial areas. Lang mentions this does not comply with local
Ordinance and he explains need for elaborate stormwater treatment to meet water quality standards
in area to address pollution loading.
Conservation Commission
April 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 11
Silver responds to Commission members explaining that the stormwater system is self - contained
and is maintained once a year but very little oil is cleaned out. A log is kept as required by the
stormwater regulations.
Discussion ensues about feasibility of public access on site especially regarding pedestrian safety
near large shed on site where boats are mechanically removed for use and put back into storage on a
daily basis during boating season.
Paul Earl, Chairman, Beverly Harbor Management Authority, mentions that the Authority meets on
April 18 at which time this proposal will be reviewed in more detail and he expects a comment
letter to be provided to the Commission in time for its next meeting.
Attorney David Smith representing abutter Al Thibodeau mentions concerns about impact on 12-
foot walkway where a 5 -foot walkway is proposed, potential for silt buildup next to his client's
property creating a hazard that does not currently exist, the raised bulkhead increasing wash back
and additional flooding on client's property. He also questions taking of 3,500 feet of public land
for a private benefit and marina use as regulated by EPA. In response, Silver mentions that Chapter
91 regulations apply to boat hauling and marina activity consistent with EPA regulations. He agrees
to speak to engineer about potential for silting, and notes 5 -foot to 12 -foot walkway that occurs
along the waterfront, also that water runoff area would be graded to run back to Port Marina
property rather than abutter's. Smith mentions that there are already problems.
In response to Maxner, Silver says the entire property is subject to Chapter 91 litigation, although
the trial ended five years ago, a decision has not been rendered by DEP, and the marina needs to
move forward with repair work.
Discussion ensues with Buchsbaum about project package being sent to Marine Fisheries. Silver
states his belief that threshold, as fish habitat is less due to industrial area. Maxner reads from 310
CMR 10.26, which asserts assumption that the area is significant to marine fisheries, storm damage
prevention and flood control and the applicant must provide convincing evidence to the contrary.
David Suminsby, 21R Linden Avenue, inquires about text in NOI about 10 -foot walkway being
reduced to five -feet wide on the plan, and Silver says that should have been changed based on
engineering information. Discussion ensues about if distribution pipes to fuel tanks should be
installed underground possibly in covered trenches. Also in response to Suminsby, Silver says he
would take under advisement the suggestion to move the piers five feet over to provide full
walkway access.
In response to Maxner, Silver addresses where pressure washing is done on property, not when
boats are on travel lift, and whether runoff is captured.
Discussion ensues on need for caution at the site especially with storage building where Silver
explains the lack of visibility for fork lift operator and spotter moving boats in and out of storage
building and he says travel lift hauling is a much slower operation.
Conservation Commission
April 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 11
Maureen Troubetaris, Ward 1 Councilor, raises questions about whether this is the first phase of an
a larger commercial project and Silver directs her to Ms. Kinsey for that answer.
In response to Buchsbaum, Silver agrees to follow up with engineer Bob Griffin about flat seawall
and impact of wave action in area.
Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing until the Commission's next meeting on April 24. Grant
seconds the motion. Motion carries 7 -0.
Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD)
Cont: 50 Dunham Road (a.k.a. 44 Dunham Road) — review and affirm character and
delineation of wetland resource areas on site — Cummings Properties, LLC c/o Stephen
Drohosky
John Dick, Hancock Associates, representing the applicant, Henderson Clark LLP and Stephen
Drohosky of Cummings Center are present. Dick notes that the Commission met with him and Mr.
Drohosky at the site last week and walked the entire wetland line.
Lang explains the general process of what the ANRAD process is, which deals with pinpointing the
wetland delineation and at some later time the applicant will return to the Commission once a
development plan is proposed. He notes that tonight is really about the wetlands and their location
on site.
Dick explains that as a result of the site walk a revised site plan has been supplied with the location
of about 14 flags adjusted and buffer zone and 25' no disturb zone was defined. He makes
particular note of two intermittent stream systems that were identified, the first emanating from a
drainpipe from down below the parking lot at the C system running down between C1 and C2, but
no buffer zone has been assigned to this stream because it is up- gradient of any wetland resource
area. The second stream was determined to emanate from the certified vernal pool along the access
drive, running trough a culvert under the drive and discharging to wetland flag C28. He notes that
this second stream does have a buffer zone but he made a mistake with the plan and will revise it to
show the buffer. In response to Lang, Dick notes that the second stream only has one bank, but
cannot recall which side of the stream the bank is on.
Maxner notes that from her comparison with original plan which she made notations on while in the
field, where A7 is moved 25 -feet up gradient up from the swale. Dick notes that this includes
changes to A5 and A6 so it might not look to be as much of a change. She also mentions the 15 -foot
change at A11 and Al2. Dick notes that the plan is 100 scale and a 5 -foot change is about a' /4 inch.
Maxner mentions the area where they first went into the site where there is a low -lying area to the
west of the trail. Dick notes that Maxner asked he further investigate this area for wetland function.
He notes he went into the swale and ran 3 transects, all of which were non hyrdric soils, noting
some wetland indicator plants but the trees in that location indicated upland, but this does carry a lot
of water. Lang asks if he took field sheets. Dick responds no he did not, but he can give data sheet
for it. Lang and Maxner ask for the data sheets. Maxner notes that they will show percent
dominance of vegetation, Dick affirms.
Conservation Commission
April 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 11
Buchsbaum asks the status of the pond next to the building. Dick explains in 1998 that the pond, in
his opinion, may have been subject to ACOE, but was not subject to state wetland jurisdiction
because it is too small and today it is subject to local bylaw jurisdiction and notes that there is only
bank with no BVW. He notes that it is a well- maintained landscape around it with not much
underbrush to speak of, and it is a functioning pond although no fish have been caught but green
frogs probably use it. Buchsbaum asks if it is isolated, Dick notes that he considers it land subject
to flooding.
Lang asks about the possibility of certifying the pool next to the mouth of the access drive as we
heard peeper chorusing. Dick states that he would like to place some fish traps in there before that
conclusion is made. Discussion ensues about terminology for potential vernal pool where Dick
explains he is not in favor of using that terminology, noting that the Army Corps of Engineers
general permit regulates both potential and certified vernal pools and puts 750 -foot radius (nearly
three acres) around these features which can impact how a site is developed beyond 25% and is
cumulative. Dick responds to Buchsbaum about potential vernal pools as called out on the Natural
Heritage maps. Lang suggests tabling this hearing until another meeting to allow time to gather
evidence about whether or not potential vernal pools are on site and under jurisdiction of Beverly
Ordinance. Dick suggests concluding ANRAD tonight and then discussing certifying vernal pools
on private property at a later time and does not think that this is germane to this application.
Ted Regnante, land use attorney specializing in environmental law, introduces himself, notes that he
is representing owners for condominiums at 36 -38 Dunham Road, and introduces Dan Jarmolowicz
from DeRosa Environmental Consulting, who he has retained for this review. Regnante notes that
he disagrees with Mr. Dick that the determination is only for Bordering Vegetated Wetland, and he
reads from the application narrative noting that wetlands are also determined under the local
Ordinance and regulations. He notes that this particular application is deficient and more
information is needed because in the Commission's regulations as Section VI. BA.g. on page 20 it
states that all wetlands and all buffer zones, 25 -foot no disturb zones and 100 foot no disturb zones
must be located mapped and flagged and none of this has been done. He notes that what has been
done is only the BVW location, but because the buffer zone is a protected resource under the
Ordinance and further because the vernal pool and the 100 no disturb zone must be mapped too. He
goes on to state that, therefore Mr. Dick needs to locate the vernal pools. Jarmolowicz notes on the
map, which is overlay of the site plan and the GIS potential vernal pool mapping, there are 5 other
potential vernal pools. Regnante notes that the migratory pathways of the vernal pool breeding
species need to be determined as well. He notes that the Commission must know this information
and what resources exist before any other work is proposed and he believes that the tree cutting is
probably within the 100 foot no disturb zone to the vernal pool. He continues to raise his client's
concern about importance of vernal pools relative to actions taken and proposed at the site and
suggests the Commission retain a consultant to identify the vernal pools prior to any future NOI
process.
Jarmolowicz explains that they overlaid the Hancock Associates delineation map and DEP satellite
information as well the Natural Heritage maps that show certified and potential vernal pools on site.
Discussion continues with Dick stating the intent of ANRAD and that future NOI was not part of
this proceeding and that his client has an environmental consultant that could provide information
Conservation Commission
April 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 11
about vernal pools on site at the time of the NOI. Buchsbaum notes that the Heritage maps are
based on topography and that field identification needs to be done to verify the potential pools.
Lang asks if Dick has any response. Dick states that they are not asking for delineation of all
resources on site, just the wetland line. Lang understands his point, but the complexity of the site
needs to be looked at and more information of vernal pool habitat is needed that would help future
development plans. Lang states he would like to continue the hearing and collect more information.
Discussion ensues as to mapping techniques that Natural Heritage uses. Dick states that they are
not proposing to do any work under the ANRAD and believes that the vernal pool issue can be
handled at the NOI stage. Regnante states that the applicant cannot pick and choose which resource
areas the Commission can look at under its local bylaw. Lang thanks Regnante for his testimony
and asks if there is anyone else who has questions or comments.
Joe Barnaby, 2 Ariel Lane, asks about plans for 50 Dunham Road site relative to trees being cut
down on site. Discussion ensues about Commission's role with 50 Dunham Road property owner to
ensure trees were not cut down in buffer zone pertaining to Commission's wetlands jurisdiction.
Lang notes that cutting trees is a separate from ANRAD and suggests a consultant could look at the
wetland lines and define vernal pools. The Commission discusses importance of understanding
resource areas relative to if there are vernal pools on the site. Maxner asks the Commission feels
compelled to secure the services of an independent consultant to look at the wetland line. Lang
states that at the very least the vernal pool habitat would need to be determined. Buchsbaum states
that the wetland line has been looked at and he feels that there are no issues with that, but he agrees
that vernal pool habitat needs to be identified. Members agree.
Paluzzi moves to hire a consultant to further evaluate potential vernal pool habitat, and to collect
such evidence as prescribed in the Beverly Wetlands Protection Regulations. Seconded by Squibb.
Motion carries 7 -0.
Maxner will seek proposals to secure a firm for a professional consultant to make said
determination and provide report and testimony to the Commission. Lang describes how the
Commission will seek three bids and hope to make a determination or gather evidence in a few
weeks to understand the extent of vernal pool habitat. Attorney Regnante requested that DeRosa
Environmental Consulting attend site evaluation.
Squibb moves to continue the hearing until the Commission's next meeting on April 24. Seconded
by Paluzzi. Motion carries 7 -0.
Old/New Business
New: 96 & 102 Cherry Hill Drive, 10 Sam Fonzo Drive, DEP File #5 -1054 — Request for Minor
Modification to Order — The Flatley Company, c/o Richard Cane
Dick Cane representing The Flatley Company explains that per Special Condition # 1 of the Order:
The approval under this Order of Conditions is contingent upon 10 Sam Fonzo Drive, Map 65 Lot
4, being deeded over to the City of Beverly to be placed under the care and custody of the Beverly
Conservation Commission pursuant to MGL Chapter 40 Section 8C. Flatley Company has been
Conservation Commission
April 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 11
undergoing negotiations relative to securing 10 Sam Fonzo Drive so that this condition can be
satisfied. As his letter explains, they have been reluctant to record the Order at the Registry and
encumber their Cherry Hill Drive property if they were not able to secure this deal. He notes they
are seeking a Modification to Standard Condition # 5 which requires recording of the Order within
30 days of issuance.
Cane explains that a meeting was held with the City's solicitor, The Flatley Company's attorney
and Jack Kelleher where agreement was reached and the Mayor has authorized a purchase and sale
agreement for the six -acre piece to The Flatley Company and the City will accept the deed back
from The Flatley Company to be placed under the care and custody of the Conservation
Commission.
Cane mentions suggested wording that says the Order of Conditions shall be recorded
contemporaneously with the applicant acquiring title to the land prior to the time the parcel will be
conveyed back to the City. Accepting the purchase and sale from the City and accepting the land
back would be done in 30 to 60 days after The Flatley Company acquires title. Grant reviews the
language and suggests edits, Cane and Commission members agree.
Paluzzi moves to approve the Minor Modification to the Order as discussed. Seconded by Glidden.
The motion carries 7 -0.
New: Executive Session — Discussion with Counsel rmardin2 litigation re: 44 -46 River Street,
National Grid, DEP File #5 -1048
Paluzzi moves that the Commission enter into Executive Session for discussion with Counsel
pertaining to ongoing litigation re: 44 -46 River Street, National Grid, DEP File #5 -1048, to return to
regular session. Seconded by Squibb. Roll call vote: David Lang, yea, Anne Grant, yea, Robert
Buchsbaum, yea, Tony Paluzzi, yea, Bill Squibb, yea, Christine Bertoni, yea, Kate Glidden, yea.
Commission enters into Executive Session for discussion, exits executive session and then returns
to regular session.
Expenditure Approval
Squibb moves to approve reimbursement of $150 for Registry of Deeds for recording of deed for
Tall Tree Drive. Seconded by Paluzzi. The motion carries 7 -0.
Approval of Minutes
Commission members gave Maxner amendments to March 13, 2012 regular session minutes.
Buchsbaum moves the Commission approve the March 13, 2012 regular session minutes as
amended. Seconded by Paluzzi. The motion carries 5 -0 -2 with Bertoni and Lang abstaining.
Paluzzi moves the Commission approve the January 3, 2012 regular session minutes. Seconded by
Glidden. The motion carries 3 -0 -4 with Bertoni, Buchsbaum, Grant and Squibb abstaining.
Conservation Commission
April 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 11
Paluzzi moves the Commission approve the November 29, 2011 regular session minutes. Seconded
by Glidden. The motion carries 4 -0 -3 with Bertoni, Buchsbaum and Grant abstaining.
Glidden moves the Commission approve the November 1, 2011 regular session minutes. Seconded
by Paluzzi. The motion carries 4 -0 -3 with Bertoni, Buchsbaum and Grant abstaining.
Paluzzi moves the Commission approve the September 13, 2011 regular session minutes. Seconded
by Squibb. The motion carries 3 -0 -4 with Lang, Bertoni, Buchsbaum and Grant abstaining.
Glidden moves the Commission approve the August 9, 2011 regular session minutes. Seconded by
Squibb. The motion carries 3 -0 -4 with Paluzzi, Bertoni, Buchsbaum and Grant abstaining.
Other Business
Discussion ensues about Maxner developing a list of wetland consultants for the 50 Dunham Road
property vernal pool certification that could include Mary Rimmer, Bill Manuell, Rich Kirby, and
Brian Butler.
Maxner explains that the February 2008 amendments to the Stormwater Regulations are quite
complex and in depth, and she feels that a training on this topic is needed. Lang notes that a DEP
representative could give the Commission a two -hour presentation on these regulations as a separate
meeting on a Saturday or during the week. Members agree to ask DEP if May 7 th of May 14
would work for a presentation and training.
Adiournment
There being no further business to come before the Commission this evening, Paluzzi moves to
adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Squibb. The motion carries 7 -0.
The meeting adjourns at 10:05 p.m.