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.