Loading...
2012-08-21CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 David Lang, Chairman, Tony Paluzzi, Vice Chairman, Christine Bertoni, Anne Grant, and Stephanie Root - Herbster Robert Buchsbaum and Bill Squibb Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner Jane Dooley Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 3 rd Floor Council Chambers, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA. Certificates of Compliance New: 38 South Terrace, DEP File #5 -1049 - reconstruction of existing stone seawall using concrete blocks and reinforced concrete footing — Timothy Lundergan Maxner states that the Order, issued in April of 2011, approved work involving reconstruction of an existing stone seawall using concrete blocks with reinforced concrete footing. Originally the applicant had requested permission to pour additional concrete to create an additional set of steps that Commission denied as it has determined the new steps constitute an impermissible alteration of a resource area; the applicant was allowed to present alternatives to the Conservation Administrator for gaining access to the beach that involves a temporary removable structure that can be anchored to the existing concrete pad. Maxner notes she approved detachable aluminum stairs. The design engineer provided an as -built plan and rundown on deviations from the approved plan including horizontal weep holes versus perpendicular with end outlet, and granite block abutment was placed on western edge for reinforcement. The final top of wall was 16 versus 15 to establish a level poured footing. Maxner notes she did site inspection with engineer and site is stable noting the applicant planted shrubs along the top of the seawall, mostly raspberry and some high bush blueberry, which seem to be doing well. Paluzzi moves to issue the Certificate of Compliance. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 5 -0. In response to Commission, applicant said temporary structure would be removed seasonally on November 15 and if it will be left in longer he would notify the Commission. Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 Request for Determination of Applicability New: 10 Pine Knoll Drive — construct addition — James Fortin Maxner reads legal notice. Maxner notes that the applicant does not appear to be present but was at previous Conservation Commission meeting and is proposing to construct an addition within lawn area in the 100' buffer zone to BVW. The addition will be approximately 47 feet from the wetland at its closest point, but around 60+ feet from the resource on average. No site grading is proposed and no vegetation removal is needed to accommodate the addition aside from lawn. Maxner notes that she met with the applicant and contractor on site and delineated the limit of work and where and how the erosion controls are to be installed, which they have followed, and that excess excavated soil, not needed for foundation back fill, will be trucked off site. She adds that applicant went through Zoning Board of Appeals since an in -law apartment will be included and dimensions are set. Maxner lists the following Special Conditions made to the applicant and contractor and that sign off is required before work started: 1. Erosion controls shall be properly installed and maintained in good function and repair for the duration of the project and shall not be removed without the Conservation Administrator's approval. 2. There shall be no grading, addition of fill, soil or loam to change the elevations of the property within the Commission's jurisdiction. 3. All disturbed soils shall be permanently stabilized with vegetation after construction but before erosion controls are removed. 4. All debris shall be removed from within the Buffer Zone and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws. 5. When completed, the project must conform to the plans as presented to the Commission. Work or structures shall not come closer to the wetland thank originally proposed. Changes to the project must be reviewed by the Conservation Administrator prior to implementation in the field. Deviations from the approved plan may result in enforcement actions and /or fines or demolition of non - compliant structures. Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative # 3 Determination with the addition of the Special Conditions that are in the field staff notes. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 5 -0. Recess for Public Hearings Paluzzi moves to recess public hearings. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 5 -0. Notices of Intent and /or Abbreviated Notices of Intent Cont: 43 Water Street — install steel sheet pile bulkhead, fill land under ocean, install travel lift and floating docks — Beverly Port Marina Maxner states that the applicant has requested a continuance to the September 11, 2012 meeting. Paluzzi moves to continue to the September 11 meeting. Seconded by Root. Motion carries 5 -0. Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 Cont: 400 Hale Street, Endicott College - pond vegetation management and chemical treatment — Dennis Monaco Maxner notes that the Commission agreed to visit the ponds individually as their schedules allowed. Joe Orzel, of Gulf of Maine Research Center, notes the College is proposing pond management activities at their ponds on the main campus. He notes that baseline samples and analysis has been completed and results have been forwarded to the Commission. Maxner states that Orzel has provided the sample conditions from DEP. Discussion ensues about bacterial samples, results of testing and sources of nitrogen, phosphorous and coliform (i.e., over fertilization or leaching from neighboring septic system). Orzel responds that tests were run but intent is to deal with the algae and offers to do follow -up testing and to provide information about what fertilization is being done around the pond. Bertoni reiterates her question from the previous meeting if testing for coliform would be done and relevance to sewer system. Lang notes this is an important factor and requests the information for the next meeting. Orzel mentions conditions are expected from DEP relative to coliform. Discussion ensues about what action would be taken if there is an issue in the pond. Bertoni suggests many parameters on water quality should be included rather than just suppressing algae. Lang concurs and says the chemistry of what is coming into the pond should be understood. He suggests a list of specific suite of chemicals coming into and out of the pond should be understood. Discussion ensues about having testing done in the spring, summer and fall upstream, in pond and downstream. Maxner refers Orzel to sample list of conditions and mentions those that are relevant to specific proposal and reviews each of the following sample conditions that she believes is relevant to the project: ➢ This Order approves the use of SeClear algaecide and water quality enhancer at a rate of 2.6 to 5.1- gallons /acre foot (0.4 to 0.8 Cu/L). Should the BRP WM 04 Permit require a different suite of chemicals, the applicant shall come back to the Commission for a determination as to whether this change requires a Minor Modification or Amendment. ➢ The applicant or its designee shall obtain a valid BRP WM 04 permit for the application of aquatic herbicides and /or algaecides for the target species and a copy of the permit shall be forwarded to the Commission prior to initiation of any treatment activities. ➢ All application of chemicals shall be applied by an applicator licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, Pesticide Bureau. ➢ In the event of a fish kill, the applicant and licensed applicator shall immediately contact the Department of Environmental Protection Emergency Response Program at # 888- 304 -1133; the Department of Fish and Game's Westborough office at 508- 792 -7270; or the Boston 24 -hour response line at 1- 800 - 632 -8075. ➢ During drawdown, water levels shall be reduced gradually so as to allow wildlife to move to deeper water, locate alternative lodge sites or relocate food caches (if applicable) prior to ice formation and substrate freezing; and to minimize impacts to fish spawning and other non - target organisms that may have water level requirements for reproduction. Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 ➢ Refueling, servicing and repair of motorized watercraft and service vehicles associated with the pond surveys or treatments shall take place at least 100 feet from the pond banks. Equipment operators shall be prepared to immediately respond to, and contain accidental releases of fuel, motor oil or aquatic herbicides /algaecides. On -site absorbent materials shall be maintained for use in containing accidental spills. If an accidental release occurs, the issuing authority shall be immediately notified and the containment areas shall be treated according to the guidelines established by DEP's Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Long term storage and staging of chemicals shall take place outside the 100 -foot buffer zone. ➢ Prior to repeat of the chemical treatment allowed by this Order, the applicant shall survey the pond watershed using the techniques described in the publication "Surveying a Lake Watershed and Preparing an Action Plan" published by DEP in 2001. Following completion of the survey, the applicant shall propose an action plan outlining BMP's to address long -term water quality impacts within the watershed. The Commission reserves the right to condition future pond management proposals to address pollution inputs within reasonable control of the applicant. ➢ The applicant shall develop a post- management monitoring program to identify new growth of target species in early stages. Strategies to address new growth should be considered and implemented to assist in the development of long -term management strategies. ➢ Following the completion of the project or at the end of the term of this Order, the applicant shall request a Certificate of Compliance and include an affidavit signed by the licensed application stating that the aquatic vegetation/target species has been treated in accordance with the requirements of this Order. Lang notes that the additional conditions are needed to make sure testing protocol is comprehensive: ➢ The monitoring sampling regime including samples upstream, in pond and down stream, shall be taken not less than three (3) times a year during the spring, summer and late fall. ➢ Prior to pond treatment, the applicant shall test and forward the results to the Commission within 30 days of this Order, for the following additional parameters /nutrients upstream, in pond and down stream: ➢ Fecal Coliform ➢ Streptococcal Coliform ➢ Total Coliform ➢ Chlorophyll B Paluzzi moves to close the hearing and approve the special conditions as discussed. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 5 -0. Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation New: Endicott College Northeast Campus Area — Endicott College c/o Dennis Monaco Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 Maxner reads legal notice. Grant recuses herself and leaves the hearing room. Joe Orzel, Gulf of Maine, representative for applicant, refers to wetland systems in northeast portion of campus where there is bordering vegetated wetland and bank. He provides a brief description of each Flag Series as labeled in the field and on the plant. He notes there is a vernal pool on the site to the west where he observed wood frog tadpoles and adult green frogs. He says the pool is from wetland flags B21 to B27. In response to Lang, he defines where athletic fields are located on the site relative to vernal pool, stating that these wetlands tend to dry up in the middle of the summer with exception of vernal pool and pond. Lang questions members if a peer review consultant should be hired to check the habitat values. Discussion ensues about checking evidence vernal pool habitat, with Maxner noting that this review would be similar to 50 Dunham Road in that the Commission's consultant would not be checking the wetland line but only for evidence of vernal pool function. Members agree that a peer review is appropriate, with Lang noting that the applicant's consultant is very competent but is the College's advocate after all. The Commission discusses its intention to conduct comprehensive site visit for a couple of hours and agrees to schedule an inspection for 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, September 8, 2012. Lang mentions it would be helpful if the consultant could attend the site visit and look at vernal pool habitat during visit. Lang notes the Commission will get estimates from a couple consultants and keep Monaco informed in that regard. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing until the Commission's next meeting on September 11 with a site visit on Saturday September 8, 2012 at 8:00 a.m. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 4 -0. Old/New Business Cont: 875 Hale Street, Order of Conditions DEP File #5 -1038 — request for Minor Modification under the Ordinance — Montrose School Park, LLC Grant continues to recuse herself and remains outside of the hearing room. John Ogren of Hayes Engineering, Attorney Brad Latham and Jeff Rhuda are present representing the applicant. Ogren explains that they are before the Commission this evening requesting that the Commission find the changes made to the plan as a Minor Modification under the Ordinance only. He provides an overlay plan that shows the previously approved plan and the modified plan, with the black showing the approved plan and the red showing the modifications. He explains that they have gone back before the Planning Board and decreased the length of the roadway (Road A), by pulling the cul -de -sac back, which effects the house sites, lot lines and driveways. He explains buffer zone impacts, noting they have done impervious surface calculations for Lots 3, 4 and 5, which are in the buffer zone. He notes the table shows that the modified plan has 8,127 square feet of impervious where and previously approved plan has 9,163 square feet of impervious surface, resulting in 1,036 square feet of reduction in impervious surface. He notes there are slight changes to the drainage but new drainage calculations have not been done because there is reduction in impervious surface. He explains that the house on Lot 3 is further away from the wetlands, on Lot 4 the house a bit closer to the wetland by 2 -3 feet, and the house on Lot 5 is further away from the wetlands. He notes that he Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 believes overall this is an improvement from the approved plan as impervious surfaces have been reduced, but it is essentially the same plan. He asks if there are any questions. Lang confirms that this request is under the Ordinance only. Hayes states correct. Lang asks why. Rhuda states that they do not wish to open up the Order of Conditions at this time. Maxner notes that the applicant would have to come back to the Commission for an Amendment under the State Act. Rhuda explains that the Planning Board wants to replace the previous OSRD plan with this plan and in order to do so they must receive all other necessary waivers from other boards, thus they are before the Commission seeking a Minor Modification under the Ordinance as they are changing activity within the Buffer Zone, and the Planning Board wants to keep the OSRD plan on record. He notes that they could not see tying up the Commission's time with opening the Order, as they do not know what the courts are going to do. Lang asks if there are any other questions from Commission members. There are none. He asks if there any questions from the public. John Dick, Hancock Associates, states that he has been hired by a group of abutters to take a look at this project. He notes that his first impression is that this is a minor change to the plan as it is a reduction in footprint, but understands better why they have come back to the Commission. He wishes to point out two things. First, the Commission's Special Condition #15 says that if there are any changes to the above - described plans DEP must be notified and he is not sure if this can move forward according to the condition. Second he notes he got a copy of the new plan that has a note that says this property is not within a flood hazard area based on FEMA Map dated 1992. He notes that the maps have been updated and this property is within a flood zone and the question is, whether the notes are erroneous or if this changes have been looked at to see if the plan has changed and he his not been able to do an analysis on this before the meeting, and asks the Commission for time to look at this. Maxner confirms that this could be subject to the FEMA map change that became effective in July. Dick states yes. Lang notes that Dick was not able to do this analysis before the meeting. Dick states no. Lang asks the applicant as to whether they have any way to address the FEMA issue tonight and whether they have looked at the new FEMA maps to see if this project is within the flood zone. Ogren states that he does not know. Rhuda states that they would request the Commission to act on this application tonight and he will have the engineer forward the flood maps, as this is a delay tactic. Lang notes that he believes this would fit the Commission's criteria for a minor modification as there is a decrease in impervious footprint and it has decreased road length, but his only question is whether the project is within the floodplain. He notes that the Commission could approve this contingent upon the condition that the floodplain map is provided to show whether the project falls within in the flood zone, and if it does the applicant would have to come back to address this. Alfred Brown, abutter at 903R Hale Street, notes that he is the abutter that is in the lowest part of the floodplain, and having looked at all of the floodplain plans submitted since January 1, he agrees that there is very little that has changed from the original plan, but the floodplain has Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 changed dramatically, noting that is has crossed over from one side of the railroad tracks to the other. He asks the Commission to postpone its decision of any kind until the next meeting which will give them a little time to look at the plan submitted by Mr. Rhuda to get some help in regard to the water table which is rising. He refers to the topography of this area, and notes that there is nothing more damaging than the ponds and lakes above. He notes that the railroad tracks act as a dam from the ocean and the hills above. He would like to propose that the Commission put this decision off to the next meeting. Rhuda notes that to show what a red herring this is, he refers to the wetlands that are at elevation 8.5 and the development is up at elevation 14 and he does not think that floodplains change by 8 feet. Lang notes that the Commission still does not know at what elevation the floodplain is located. Maxner reads Standard Condition #15 and request for minor modification versus new Notice of Intent and that she is not sure DEP was carbon copied on request. She states that their request for a Minor Modification satisfies this condition by asking the Commission whether a new NOI is necessary or of the changes are minor. She does not know if DEP was cc'd on this request. Rhuda says the request is only under the Beverly Ordinance and so DEP was not cc'd. Lang notes that he understands both sides, but he believes the Commission would be within its discretion to conditionally approve this as he is of the opinion that these changes are minor, but that the FEMA map information be provided to ensure that the new elevations do not impact the project. Maxner reads written correspondence from abutters dated August 17, 2012 that addresses Standard Condition #15 and Special Condition #7 and requests that applicant be required to seek modification of both order and permit, and notify abutters. Also, the abutters request that the Commission deny the developer's modification request relative to not taking into consideration of impact to wetland interest protection, flooding and FEMA revised flood zone. Maxner mentions reference to special condition #7 that addresses width of right of way and impact that should maximize width of No Disturb Zone. She reads the condition. Lang asks for a motion. Paluzzi moves to approve the minor modification. Lang notes approval is based on the information provided on the revised plan, engineering calculations for impervious area in 100 - foot buffer zone. Maxner notes that all special conditions will still apply to this minor modification. Lang adds that they must provide copy of FEMA map within 7 days showing how the new flood zones do not impact the subdivision. Bertoni asks that the new FEMA map to be overlaid onto the site plan. Rhuda agrees to revise plan to show new FEMA flood elevations. Seconded by Root. Motion carries 5 -0. Grant returns to the meeting. New: 62 South Terrace — Enforcement Order, existing floating dock — Michael Burta Maxner explains that it has come to the Commission's attention that a floating dock system is being maintained at 62 South Terrace which may not be properly permitted. She notes that she Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 performed a file review in the Conservation office and a brief on -line deed research at the Registry of Deeds and was not able to find any permits for such floats and was therefore compelled to ask Mr. Burta to come in and provide any evidence of approvals that he has in his possession. Attorney Peter Gilmore representing Mr. Burta, explains that based on his research, permitting has not been granted by the Conservation Commission for the floats, but there is a Chapter 91 waterways license for the property relative to the seawall that Burta mistakenly believed authorized placement of floats in the river. He adds that Burta thought that included supporting structures like floats, but it is intended to prevent erosion and damage to the seawall at that location. He notes that Burta would be filing an NOI requesting approval for the float system and asks Commission about timeline for NOI and asks that the Commission indulge Mr. Burta and leave the floats in place in the meantime, which has been there for 10 years. He mentions how harbormaster is aware of float system and reiterates Burta's misunderstanding of waterways license. Also, he asks how to proceed with DEP or Commission. Lang mentions that DEP no longer permits floating docks that rest on the bottom at low tide and he notes that Commission cannot permit floating docks. Lang explains how permanent pile supported docks or piers are permitted. Gilmore explains that Mr. Burta had been before the Commission in 2005 for house renovations and the floats were depicted on that plan. Lang notes that there was no mention whatsoever in that NOI application about the floats. Gilmore agrees, but contends that Mr. Burta was not trying to hide anything, but had misunderstood his Chapter 91 license. Gilmore notes the abutter filing complaint against Burta's floating docks who they themselves have a derelict float. In response to Lang, Burta describes conversation with Beverly Harbormaster who explained necessity of Notice of Intent and there is nothing that Harbormaster can do. Maxner mentions her inquiry with Beverly Harbormaster and reads her email correspondence with Harbormaster. In response to Lang, Burta states he keeps two boats on floating dock now. Gilmore asks the Commission to continue this discussion until its next meeting on September 11 and allow Burta to keep the floats where they are so he and Burta can investigate process with DEP. Lang explains that the floating dock system needs to be taken out of water for now as it in violation. Maxner mentions that DEP forestalls its Chapter 91 license permitting process until it gets an Order of Conditions approving the project by the Commission. Lang describes how this situation is an ongoing problem for the City and that neighbors end up enforcing neighbors. Maxner concurs that illegal activity probably occurs but it is difficult to enforce in all cases due to limited staff presence. She notes that storage of floating dock system would not be permitted in resource area. Lang allows abutters to provide testimony. Extensive discussion ensues as to possible options for removing the floats. Lang notes that the Commission cannot allow them to remain as they are in violation. Root notes that it makes sense to require that some progress be made to remove the floats and have Mr. Burta come back at the Septebmer 11 meeting to update the Commission on his efforts. Lang notes there should be Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 minimum standards set for this. Discussion ensues as to the removal of small watercraft, debris and terminal T section of floats. Maxner explains that the Commission needs to vote to ratify the enforcement order and issue modified directives. Paluzzi moves to ratify the Enforcement Order and issue the following directives: ➢ Continue to cease and desist from any maintenance or construction activities on the dock system; ➢ Remove, at the very least, the terminal T- section of the floats, all small water craft, canoes and debris from the area no later than September 11, 2012; ➢ Attend the September 11, 2012 Conservation Commission meeting and provide a written report that details your good faith efforts to secure storage facilities for the remaining sections of the dock system; ➢ At the September 11, 2012 meeting, the Commission will consider and establish an appropriate deadline for final removal of all remaining components of the dock system. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 5 -0. New: I Lake Shore Avenue — Enforcement Order, unauthorized work in Buffer Zone — Robert & Michael Hubbard Maxner notes that while on a site inspection in the vicinity of 1 Lake Shore Avenue, she observed unauthorized work and disturbance within the 100 -Foot Buffer Zone to and Isolated Vegetated Wetland located at 1 Lake Shore Avenue, consisting of ➢ Disturbance of vegetation and areas of soil excavation; ➢ Storage of an above - ground storage tank with unknown contents; ➢ Stockpiling of excavated soil. She went ahead and issued an enforcement order requiring the following: ➢ Immediately remove the above - ground storage tank, if not off site, to a location well outside the Buffer Zone (at least 100 feet from the edge of the 100 -Foot Buffer Zone and not upstream from the wetland). ➢ Remove stockpiled soil to a location well outside the Buffer zone. Immedately install erosion/sedimentation controls (i.e. staked hay bales, entrenched below grade) at the edges of all soil disturbance. ➢ Stabilize exposed soil with hay, fabric or equivalent. ➢ Conspicuously monument the limits of the buffer Zone on site; ➢ The developer to appear at the August 21, 2012 Conservation Commission meeting with a plan to fully restore the Buffer Zone to its original condition to be reviewed and approved by the Commission. Maxner describes paved access driveway to main house and that buffer zone encompasses part of driveway, wetland is on abutting open space parcel that Commission voted to accept under its care and custody. She suggests restoration on wetlands side of driveway at 1 Lake Shore Avenue Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 is needed such as shrubs. Robert Hubbard responds that there were vines and weeds and invasive species removed near pool. He notes that loam was the soil to be used for new lawn. Maxner explains that natural vegetated area should not become lawn and suggests a restorative planting. Hubbard mentions that the area will naturally return to its original state. Discussion ensues about having Hubbard add shade tolerant native shrubs to area by September 11. Discussion ensues about whether fines should be imposed for these violations and what steps Commission should take going forward with Hubbard if there are any other environmental violations. Maxner recommends if Hubbard sees a buffer zone on a future plan, he should call her. Resident from 17 Lake Shore Avenue expresses concern about trees designated for removal and blasting impact on the underwater area and neighbor's foundations. Lang explains that the fire department controls blasting. Second resident from 17 Lake Shore Avenue expresses dismay about contractor cutting down trees as part of development. Maxner explains that is not within Commission's wetlands jurisdiction but rather under the Planning Board that conditions project where City's Eric Barber is monitoring site. Paluzzi moves to ratify the enforcement order and require a dozen native shade tolerant shrubs to be planted by September 11 on the wetlands side of road. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 5- 0. New: 22 Whitehall Circle, DEP File #5 -1083 — tree removal request — c/o Chris Sciacca Maxner notes that she provided Commission with copy of arborist's report that speaks to cluster of three trees slated for preservation, but the arborist has determined that the 14" Oak is showing signs of decline and the builder, Chris Sciacca, would like to remove it while he has easy access to this area of the property. Currently, the plan is to replant three (3) 2" caliper Red Maples in that vicinity. Sciacca is concerned that there isn't much room left to plant an additional tree, as it is already crowded. Members review the photos of the trees and arborist report. Paluzzi moves to allow removal of the Oak and require that not less than 3 native shrubs to be installed within the buffer zone between the retaining wall and the post and rail fence at the 25' NDZ. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 5 -0. New: Proposed Eagle Scout Proiect — trail improvements off of Bride Street to Greens Hill — Ben McDonald Maxner explains that Eagle Scout candidate Ben McDonald is proposing a trail project off of Bridge Street to define a better entrance to the open space at Greens Hill along the Bass River behind the Ayer's Ryal Side School. She notes that Ben was unable to attend meeting since he is undergoing jaw surgery. She describes project that includes trimming to re- define trail along with cutting an ancillary trail and cleaning up of trash. She provides photos of the area for Commission review. She notes that the entrance trail is as far from the river's edge as possible. Members agree that the new entrance is more protective against erosion into the river. Conservation Commission August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 10 Paluzzi moves to approve proposed Eagle Scout project. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 5- 0. Orders of Conditions Maxner notes that discussion already occurred on Endicott College pond treatment relative to special conditions, but that standard conditions should be added. Paluzzi moves to approve the Order of Conditions, with standard conditions and special conditions as discussed and agreed to by the applicant's representatives. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 5 -0. Approval of Minutes Paluzzi moves to approve the June 12, 2012 minutes. Seconded by Bertoni. Motion carries 5 -0. Expenditure Approvals Paluzzi moves to reimburse Chris Bertoni for her registration for an upcoming MACC wetlands delineation workshop in the amount of $95. Seconded by Grant. Motion carries 4 -0 -1 with Bertoni abstaining. Discussion or Action Items Related to Commission Business Maxner notes that Jubilee Yacht Club is going to be removing and replacing its underground storage tanks and fuel delivery lines is in the buffer zone. She mentions that the tanks are outside of the buffer zone and are likely in the flood plain, but the fuel lines are within the buffer zone. She asks the Commission what type of filing would be required. Lang notes that this seems to be a fairly straightforward project and recommends an RDA. Commission concurs that an RDA is sufficient. Adjournment Grant moves to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 5 -0. The next regular meeting of the Conservation Commission is Tuesday September 11, 2012 at the Beverly City Hall, 3 rd Floor Council Chambers.