Loading...
2002-04-23 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Conservation Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: April 23, 2002 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:Chairman David Lang, Vice-Chairman Anthony Paluzzi, Linda Goodenough, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Jay Donnelly, Jon Mazuy, Richard Benevento BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Karen Bradley Call to Order Chairman Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Discussion with George Binns Mr. Binns is present to provide his information on flyash. Lang asks Binns what his background includes. Binns states that he is a Mechanical Engineer with a Master’s Degree in Chemical Engineering and Mathematics. He provides a brief summary of his experience with flyash. He explains that airborne flyash can cause black lung disease, brown lung disease, white lung disease and asbestosis. He states that once the flyash gets into your lungs, you cannot get rid of it. Because of the given facts, he is of the opinion that if flyash is present, it should be left alone not to be disturbed. Benevento arrives at 7:15 p.m. A discussion takes place regarding the groundwater data at the Vitale Site and the water filtration site. Binns states that he is concerned for settlement issues that could arise from the water filtration site as well as the property values in the area. Lang thanks Binns for the information that he has provided. He states that water treatment residue and flyash are two very different issues. Lang urges Binns to review the groundwater data of the water filtration site. He states that a new technique called low flow purging was used to conduct the testing. Pam Kampersal states that she is a member of the Wenham Lake Watershed Association and she invites all present to attend their annual meeting on May 30, 2002. Lisa Evans of Clean Air Task Force is present and states that she has reviewed the data from the Vitale Site and explains that over time, leaching eventually occurs. She states that based on that Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 2 information, it is detrimental to leave the toxins present in the soil. Evans leaves a publication from the Clean Air Task Force on this issue. Request for Determination of Applicability New: 68 West Street – installation of cedar fence – Gregory and Elizabeth Pratt Hurlburt reads the legal notice. Gregory Pratt is present and states that the purpose of the proposed fence is to block access to the pond in their backyard. He explains that the fence will be erected outside the wetland area but within the buffer zone. He provides a print of the site for the commission. Lang asks if there are any questions from the commission. Mazuy asks if this will be a closed fence. Pratt states no, it will be a 4-foot tall baluster fence. Donnelly asks what impact the proposed fence will have on wildlife movement to and from the pond. Pratt states that there will be space between the balusters of the fence enabling wildlife to get through to the pond. Mazuy asks if they plan to dig holes for the posts. Pratt states yes. He states that there will be no cement footings and no pre-treated wood being used, only natural cedar posts. He states that the removed soil will be used elsewhere on the property. Lang asks if there are any further questions from the commission. There are none. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Mazuy moves to close the hearing, seconded by Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Mazuy moves to issues a Negative Determination #3, seconded by Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 886 Hale Street – repair/replace wall – Bruce Erikson Hurlburt reads the legal notice. A representative for Erickson presents pictures of the dilapidated wall that is to be replaced. He states that the owner of the property wishes to rebuild the wall approximately 2.5 feet higher than what presently exists. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 3 Mazuy asks what will be put between the wall and the pond. The representative states that haybales and silt fence will be place in that area. Lang requests that the haybales and silt fence be shown on the plan. The representative states that the haybales and silt fence will be approximately 20 feet away from the wall and will mark it on the plan. Lang asks if there are any further questions from the commission. There are none. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Mazuy moves to close the hearing, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Mazuy moves to issue a Negative Determination #3 with the following conditions: 1. The placement of haybales and silt fence be shown on the plan; 2. All excavated materials to be placed on the left side of the driveway away from the pond. Seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 5 Nicole Avenue – removal of trees, raise grade, and installation of above ground pool – Scott Keaton Hurlburt reads the legal notice. Scott Keaton is present any explains the layout of the site. He states that the proposed above ground pool is to located approximately 15 feet within the buffer zone. Mazuy states that he visited the site and views it as a very cramped site. Mazuy states that there are stakes present on the site and asks what they were for. Keaton states that the stakes are present for a retaining wall. Benevento questions the outstanding Order of Conditions for this subdivision. Hurlburt provides the status of the Order of Conditions. Goodenough states that she is concerned for some of the trees in the area as well as the slope of the site. She states that the site will not be able to handle any heavy construction equipment. Donnelly explains that the concern of the commission is that when trees are removed from the buffer zone, the habitat will change as well. He states that a site visit should be conducted to investigate the impact this project will have on the habitat. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 4 Paluzzi asks how many trees over a 12-inch diameter will be removed. Keaton states that nine large trees will be removed. A discussion takes place regarding whether or not Keaton should file a Notice of Intent in order to save time should the commission decide to request a full filing. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Benevento moves to continue the hearing to the next meeting on May 14, 2002 with a site inspection scheduled for April 27, 2002 at 8:30 a.m., seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 11 Cherry Road – Addition of three-season room – Charles and Francine Gerrior Hurlburt reads the legal notice. Charles Gerrior is present to explain the project. He states that the addition of a three-season room will be located off the back of the house. He states that there is a brook present at the rear of his property that dries up in the summer. Lang asks how the excavated material will be removed from the site. Gerrior states that he is unsure, the contractor is responsible to take care of the excavated material. Mazuy asks how far the existing brook is from the addition. Gerrior states that the addition will be approximately 40 feet away from the brook. Lang asks if there are any additional questions from the commission. There are none. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Mazuy moves to close the hearing, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Benevento moves to issue a Negative Determination # 3, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 215 Dodge Street – Level lot with retaining wall, add in-ground pool with landscaping and driveway – Michael Ouellette Hurlburt reads the legal notice. Hurlburt updates the commission regarding the enforcement order that was issued on the property because work was being done within the riverfront area that required a permit. She states that the applicant has filed since the enforcement order was issued. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 5 Michael Ouellette is present to explain his proposed project. He states that he plans to build a 4- foot high retaining wall approximately 60 feet long that will curve along to the side driveway on his property. He states that the wall will be approximately 12 feet from the side of the street. Lang explains that the stream that runs parallel along Whitaker Way is a perennial stream. He states that the issue is that work within 200 feet of this stream creates a Rivers Act violation. Oullette states that the location of the pool is past the 200-foot mark, the wall is within that area. Benevento moves to remove the existing enforcement order for 215 Dodge Street, seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 6-1. Mazuy opposed. Donnelly states that he is concerned for erosion down the existing slope after the removal of trees. Ouellette states that once the wall is in place the likelihood of erosion should be avoided. The excavator for the project is present and explains that stone backfill will be used as well as appropriate surface grade to avoid water runoff. He states that the surface will be landscaped and filter fabric will be used on the backside of the retaining wall. He states that stone will be placed behind the wall for approximately 2 feet. Paluzzi asks where the sheet runoff from the driveway will go. The excavator states the runoff will go into the sewer on the street and run approximately 40 feet into the stormdrain. Donnelly asks if the City Engineer has been involved in the design of this project. Ouellette states yes and no issues have been raised. Paluzzi asks if any additional trees will be planted. Ouellette states that he plans to replace some of the trees with landscaping trees to create some privacy. Lang asks if there are any additional questions from the commission. There are none. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. Laurie Rodolico, 9 Whitaker Way, asks if the proposed wall will drop down onto the street. Ouellette states new wall with have the same pitch as what presently exists and will be 12 feet back off the street to avoid city property. Rodolicco states that she is concerned for vehicles in and out of Whitaker Way. Lang states that this issue is out of the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. Cindy Burt, 10 Whitaker Way, asks what will be planted in front of the wall. Ouellette states that Junipers will be planted in that area to prevent erosion. Benevento moves to issue a Negative Determination #3, seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 6-1. Mazuy opposed. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 6 Recess for Public Hearing Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearing, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Notice of Intent Cont.: 44 Boyles Street – construct single family home – Matthew Kavanagh Bill Manuel of Wetlands and Land Management is present to represent the owner of the property. He states that this project proposes to construct a dwelling and some lawn area in the buffer zone to an isolated wetland regulated under the local bylaw and also to bordering vegetated wetland that exists on the abutting property. Manuel states that at the site inspection the major concern that was focused on was the preservation of some trees in the vicinity of the isolated wetland area. He plotted ten trees that will be preserved. The smallest of those trees is a 14-inch maple and the largest tree is a 30-inch oak. He states that the most of these trees fall outside the haybale line. Manuel states that the entire back portion of the lot is not being disturbed. Manuel explains that the layout of the house is somewhat in a state of flux, but is confident that the main portion of the house will not change. He states that the area of the garage and entrance to the front of the house is still subject to some discussion with the architect, but these areas are outside the buffer zone. Therefore, no future design change will have an effect on an Order of Conditions issued. Lang asks if part of the garage be in the buffer zone as it presently stands. Manuel states no. Lang asks if there are any questions from the members of the commission. There are none. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Benevento moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 5-0-1. Mazuy abstains. Cont: within Beverly Harbor – construct natural gas pipeline – Algonquin Gas Transmission Company Attorney John Bonsaw is present to represent Algonquin Gas Transmission Company. He updates the commission on the status of neighboring communities’ Order of Conditions. Lang asks if any commissions are requesting mitigation. Bonsaw states no, that the mitigation is handled through the MEPA process. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 7 Lang asks how they will compensate for shellfish impacted by this project. Response is that MEPA has accepted their justification that with restoration measures for the trenches and spoiled areas, localized impact to population will be temporary. Benevento asks how wide is the swath after the plow goes through an area. Response is that in water depths less than 20 feet using conventional dredging, the width of the trench will be 50 to 60 feet wide. Benevento asks how long this trench will be. Response if that the entire pipeline from Beverly to Weymouth is 30 miles. In Beverly’s jurisdiction it is approximately 2.5 miles, 1.5 miles of which will be open cut area. In water depths over 20 feet, the post lay plow method will be used. A lengthy discussion takes place on the different construction methods that will be used. A representative states that there is no jurisdiction to general shellfish throughout the waters of Massachusetts, only those that are within the mapped resource areas and are considered shellfish beds. Lang asks if the DEP has expressed any concern for mitigation for the shellfish in this area. Response is that the restoration measures that have been agreed to are sufficient. Pre- construction and post-construction implementation of the restoration process have been reviewed and deemed acceptable. The post-construction restoration will be monitored for 2 years and if restoration is measured insufficient, additional restoration measures could be required. Donnelly asks is there is any contingency plan in place that defines what actions could be taken to restore the population if restoration does not take place. Response is that informal discussions have taken place regarding reseeding an areas to increase the supply of larvae to repopulate should insufficient restoration take place. Benevento states that when referring to page 5.2, he is of the understanding that the mitigation program is still under discussion. A discussion takes place regarding the MEPA process of issuance of their certificate. Lang asks if they are still working with the Army Core of Engineers in negotiating the mitigation program that will be initiated. The response is yes; they will be meeting with the Division of Marine Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries, the Army Core of Engineers and DEP. Lang states that Beverly is the most impacted by this pipeline and the mitigation plan should be very clearly defined. Lang stresses that a good number of lobster pots are located in Beverly Harbor and is concerned for the livelihood of the industry. Bonsaw explains that marine resources issues are being considered and funds will be in place prior to construction for loss of compensation and gear replacement. Lang asks if there are any additional questions from the commission. Johnson states that when this project was first being proposed to the city, horizontal drilling was the only technique that was mentioned. He states that this technique appears to cause less disturbance to the sediments. He asks why the process has now changed. Response is that the Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 8 use horizontal drilling in this area has been maximized. He states that construction techniques are consistent with the proposed route of the pipeline. Lang asks if is more expensive to do directional drilling than conventional plowing. Response is that it is more expensive as well as less time efficient. A lengthy discussion takes place on the two different techniques. Wayne Dwyer explains that the two proposed horizontal drills are the longest for a 42-inch diameter hole, for a 30-inch pipe and for the existing soil conditions that have been done anywhere. He states that this is a very costly construction technique as well as having a higher risk for failure. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. Kathy Abbot, 132 Water Street, asks if they will be accessing any equipment from the ramp located at the end of Water Street. Response is no. Abbott states that she is concerned for the disturbance of any toxic materials existing in the harbor. She asks if there will any ongoing monitoring in the harbor. Response is that the meeting that will take place later in the week will also address refining the proposed monitoring plan. A brief explanation of the monitoring plan is given. Abbott asks if the public will be made aware of the results of the monitoring. Response is that the commission can request notification of the results. The representative further adds that samplings have been done and they have identified the areas of contamination. He states that a capping process will be conducted in these areas and they are presently working out the details with DEP. He explains the capping process in detail stating that exposure of contamination to the environment should be eliminated when using this process. Benevento asks what the sediment was classified as in this area. Response is that there is one segment in this half of a mile area that is classified as Category 3. Benevento asks how far the sediments plume out after trenching. Response is that modeling exercises have been performed using different sediment types and different construction techniques. The courser material will settle out within a couple hundred feet of the trenching area. This material would be anything from fine to medium sand. Fine silts and clay type materials were suspended several thousand feet away from the trenching activity. Benevento asks if you could be suspending hazardous material to areas that have no contamination. Response is yes, that is why using the refined capping method is important. Anthony Wilbert, Kernwood Avenue, states that he is a Marine Biologist. He states that extensive eelgrass beds exist in Beverly Harbor and this fact should be considered. He explains that in the first two years of a small lobster’s life they bury down deep. He states that stirring up contaminants should also be considered given this information. Response is that the extensive geophysical studies were conducted to determine the best route that minimizes impact on the shellfish habitat. Benevento asks if lobsters will die from the effect of the plume of sediment. Wilbert states yes, but to what extent is difficult to quantify. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 9 Lang asks if turbidity levels will be monitored. Response is that this is another issue being discussed with DEP. A lengthy discussion takes place regarding possible monitoring methods and it is stated that they are committed to using an environmental bucket as a mitigation method. Pam Kampersal, 241 Dodge Street, asks if there are any areas of contamination that are within Category 1 and 2. Response is that probing was done every tenth of a mile. The Category 3 contaminated area around Milepost 2 is approximately ½ mile long, 3 feet deep. The small Category 3 contaminated area around Milepost 3 is approximately 595 feet. All other contaminated areas are at Category 1. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, states that she has contacted Salem Sound and their response was to confirm that extensive reviews of important habitats and contaminants in the area have been conducted. Mary states that current aerial photographs of Beverly Harbor as well as the MA Division of Marine Fisheries map are available to determine locations of eelgrass beds and marine habitats in Beverly Harbor. Mary asks if the dynamics of the harbor have been considered. Response is that a pre-construction survey using Mass GIS as a guideline was conducted to determine the best route to avoid important habitats. Kathy Abbot, 132 Water Street, asks if this pipeline will be earthquake proof. Response is yes; records show that post-1970 no pipeline ruptures have occurred. Brian Boches, 19 Rezza Road, states that the route of the pipeline should avoid any areas that are most hazardous and asks why these areas are not being avoided all together. Response is that due to the nature of the harbor, they are somewhat constrained in movement from the current position to avoid blasting and other impacts. Lang asks if removal of contaminated materials have been considered. Response is that option has been investigated and the process of removal is explained in detail. The representative states that the Beverly Harbor does not have the capacity to handle the process. An explanation of the capping process is explained in detail and it is stated that a similar process was used in the Boston Harbor. Lang asks if the pipeline will disturb any shellfish beds. Response is that in the intertidal areas shellfish beds are avoided. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, states that the maps should be reviewed prior to issuing any Order of Conditions. Kathy Abbot, 132 Water Street, states that post-monitoring should be decided by the agencies, the proposed two-year timeframe is inadequate in her opinion. Lang asks if there are any additional questions from the public. There are none. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 10 Lang asks if it is possible to adjust the route of the pipeline to avoid heavily contaminated areas. Response is that extensive blasting will be the alternative. Also stated is that the proposed route is presently certificated by FERC and if the route changes, the entire process will have to be repeated. Goodenough states that she would like to know the outcome of this week’s meeting with the various agencies. A representative of Algonquin asked the Commission to submit a list of items to be addressed prior to the next meeting. Benevento responded that he has not seen any member of the Algonquin team write down any comment or question from the Commission and that the burden is not on the Commission to supply them with the concerns but rather Algonquin to be taking notes to address the items for the next meeting. It is decided that a supplemental package of all new information as a result of the meeting will be forwarded to the Conservation Commission. Mazuy moves to continue the hearing to a special meeting on May 7, 2002 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 6-1. Benevento opposed. Goodenough exits the meeting at 9:25 p.m. New: 4 Farms Lane – installation of sewer pipe –Brian Boches Hurlburt reads the legal notice. Brian Boches is present and states that the work entails the installation of 445 feet of sewer pipe along Farms Lane. He states that the sewer line will run under the existing culvert that runs along the road. Boches states that he and Paul Fiore used a transit to determine whether and 8- inch line could go from a stub that was put off of Park Street and get underneath the culvert. Fiore is of the opinion that he will be able to do so. He states that no stockpiling of dirt will take place, they will lay the pipe as they go. He states the he has met with all the neighbors and they are anxious to get the sewer line installed. Mazuy asks if 8-inch pipe is the appropriate size. Boches states yes, and adds that the Department of Public Works is of the opinion that the 8-inch pipe will be sufficient. Donnelly asks if the system will function on pressure or gravity. Boches states gravity. Donnelly asks what plan is in place for dewatering during excavation. Boches states that he is unsure. He states that there is a manhole connected to the city drain line and a well could be dug in that area and pump it into that drain line. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 11 Benevento asks what the depth of the bottom of the trench will be. Boches states that the depth of the trench will vary from 8 ft. in some sections to 4 ft. as it gets closer to his property. He states that the culvert is 6 ft. deep. Lang asks if there are any additional questions from the commission. There are none. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. David McKinney, 2 Farms Lane, would like to know the route of the sewer line. He states that his right of way is next to the private road. Boches states that the line will come down the middle of the private road and will not go over McKinney’s driveway. Another neighbor states that they are very much in favor of installing a sewer line along the road, but they want to be sure it will be in everybody’s best interest. Boches states that the tie-ins will be the responsibility of each individual owner. Mazuy asks what plan is in place if the gravity feed line under the culvert does not work. Boches explains that they could go over the culvert but states that when they get down to the houses the system will be too shallow which will entail adding another type of system to tie into. Boches states that this will be an added expense. Lang asks if there are any additional questions from the public. There are none. Mazuy moves to close the hearing, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Order of Conditions 44 Boyles Street – Matthew Kavanagh Benevento moves to issue Standard Order of Conditions with the following condition: · All marked trees on the site are not to be cut. Seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 5-0-1. Mazuy abstains. 4 Farms Lane – Brian Boches Benevento moves to issue Standard Order of Conditions with the following conditions: Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 12 · Applicant required submit a dewatering plan that shows how the 100-foot buffer zone will be protected from erosion. The administrator must approve this plan. · If the applicant is unable to install the sewer line under the existing culvert he must notify the administrator. Seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Certificate of Compliance 357 Hale Street – DEP File #5-723 – John and Judith Shields Kurt Young of Wetlands Preservation is present to represent the owner of the property. He states that the Asbuilt Plan has been submitted. He points out one change shown on the plan being that a catch basin was added in one of the flowerbeds. Benevento moves to approve the Certificate of Compliance for 357 Hale Street – DEP File #5- 723, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Old/New Business Modification to DEP File #5-723 – 277R Hale Street Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering is present to represent the owners of the property. He explains the layout of the site and states that the plan has been scaled back from the original plan. He states that there will be no building addition to the house, only a new staircase down the hill around the existing house, a new walkway and patio, and renovation inside the house. Mazuy moves to approve the Modification 277R Hale Street – DEP File #5-723, seconded by Benevento. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. West Street at Hale Street – emergency certification Hurlburt states that she has received a letter from Mass Highway requesting work to be done on the culvert at West and Hale Streets under emergency provisions of the WPA. She states that the work is to be completed by May 8, 2002. She states that she received authorization from Lang for this work and the commission must ratify that action. Mazuy moves to ratify the action of the chairman for the emergency certification for West Street and Hale Street, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Discussion – 4 Bridal Path Lane Hurlburt states that she received a call that trees were being cut down on Conservation land. She reminds the commission that the site is surrounded by conservation land. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 13 Doug Cook is present and states that they have removed some dead tress that were adjacent from this property and was made aware that this was conservation land from Hurlburt. He states that he understands the issue and would like to rectify the situation. He states that the reason that they removed the trees was for safety reasons. Paluzzi asks how many trees were taken down. Cook states that between 6 to 12 trees were taken down. Hurlburt asks is the trees were dead or in a state of decay. Cook states the trees were in a state of decay. Benevento asks if an arborist made the recommendation to cut down the trees. Cook states no. A site inspection is scheduled for April 27, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. Cook asks if they can proceed with the rest of the work on the property. Hurlburt states yes. Algonquin Gas Benevento moves to request the administrator to contact Algonquin Gas and request that the commission receive the following information by Friday, May 3, 2002: · Maps from Salem Sound showing locations of eelgrass beds and shellfish beds; · Meeting minutes from EPA, Army Core of Engineers, DEP and Division of Marine Fisheries meetings that took place after tonight’s meeting. Seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. 495 Cabot Street Hurlburt states that a site inspection was conducted at 495 Cabot Street today. She states that DEP has requested that she bring the revised plan that was submitted with the superseding order to the commission for their comments. Bob Griffin is present and provides and overview of the changes to the plan including the wetland replication for the plan. Lang reads the commission’s list of reasons for denial for this project. Attorney Tom Alexander states that DEP is looking for acknowledgement from the Conservation Commission that the revised plan has been reviewed. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 14 Bill Squibb, 509 Cabot Street, states that the commission should take this opportunity to make recommendations on the revised plan. Hurlburt states that there is no relevance for the commission to review the plan since the commission cannot act on the plan due to the superseding order. Mazuy moves to notify DEP of the following information: · The Conservation Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on the modified plan for 495 Cabot Street, but are of the opinion that we have no jurisdiction to comment on the revision due to the superseding order; · The Conservation Commission is still of the opinion that the project consists of too much construction for the size of the site. Seconded by Paluzzi. Motion carries 4-2. Lang and Benevento opposed. Squibb asks how this project fits into the new wetlands ordinance. Lang states that this was filed prior to the effective date of the new bylaw. Hurlburt suggests contacting the City Solicitor on this matter. Request to Support of Environmental Bond Bill Hurlburt states that she received a letter from Ed Becker of Essex County Greenbelt requesting that the Conservation Commission support the Environmental Bond Bill. Paluzzi moves to support the Environmental Bond Bill as requested by Essex County Greenbelt, seconded by Mazuy. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Letter from Pam Kampersal – Cycles 128 Hurlburt reads a letter from Pam Kampersal regarding the Cycles 128. She is requesting that the Conservation Commission draft a letter to Cycles 128 that states that they are violating a prior agreement that prohibits the use of motorcycles in the area behind the building. Donnelly moves to issue a letter by the Conservation Commission to Cycles 128 with regard to this issue, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Approval of Minutes Donnelly submits changes to the March 26, 2002 meeting minutes to the recorder. Hurlburt states that she will make the changes. Benevento moves to approve the March 26, 2002 meeting minutes as amended, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2002 Page 15 Adjourn Benevento moves to adjourn, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. The meeting is adjourned at 10:30 p.m.