2003-11-19
CITY OF BEVERLY
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Conservation Commission
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: November 19, 2003
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Lang (Chairman), Tony Paluzzi (Vice Chairman),
Linda Goodenough, Dr. Mayo Johnson, William Squibb,
Eileen Duff (arrived 7:15 p.m.),
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ian Hayes
OTHERS PRESENT: Amy Maxner, Conservation Agent
RECORDER: Jeannine Dion (by tape)
Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Certificate of Compliance
New: 277R Hale Street, DEP File #5-723 – George and Elizabeth Fisher
Maxner explains she conducted a site inspection and hands out photographs of the site. She
explains that the only deviation from the plan is a small area of driveway added next to the
existing garage. She also explains that the applicant is looking for a waiver from the requirement
of submitting an as-built plan.
Paluzzi states that the project should have an as-built plan. Johnson agrees.
Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance, contingent upon the submission of an as-built
plan. Seconded by Johnson. All members in favor. Motion carries 5-0.
Duff arrives.
Recess for Public Hearing
Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Seconded by Johnson. All in favor. Motion carries
6-0.
Beaver Pond Road – Beaver Activity Discussion with Carmen Frattaroli
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 2
Mr. Frattaroli explains to the members that he and his neighborhood group have hired a
contractor to place a “beaver deceiver” device at the culvert. The device would consist of a
caged wooden fenced structure that allows for flow but diverts the beavers attention to the
structure therefore the culvert would be left to flow freely and not become dammed. He explains
that work would last 2 to 3 days.
Maxner states that there is a similar device in place at one of the ponds at the Ispwich River
Wildlife Sanctuary in Topsfield, and it seems to work very well. She believes this is a very low
impact project with great benefits.
Paluzzi moves to allow the construction of the beaver deceiver and associated activities.
Seconded by Duff. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0. The members thank Mr. Frattaroli
for pursuing alternative measures in dealing with the beaver situation.
Notice of Intent
Cont: 13 Landers Drive – DEP File #5-825 – construct barn/garage – Kenneth DeMarco
Kenneth DeMarco is present to discuss his project with the Commission. He states that at the site
visit cut trees and vegetation were discussed, which he was unaware that there were laws against
doing such work.
Lang states that ignorance is no excuse, and that the Wetlands Protection Act has been around for
many years and it should be no surprise to him that regulations exist for resource areas.
Discussion ensues regarding options for dealing with the violations observed at the site visit.
Lang opens the discussion to the public.
Ed Dooley, 72 Grover Street, expresses his concern about health of the pond, and would like to
see replacement of the trees that were cut down. He is also concerned about potential runoff
from the barn into the pond.
Kathy Gilligan, 15 Landers Drive, expresses the same concerns and states that she is not
comfortable with the potential future uses of the barn and chemicals from motors and such can
pose a threat to the environment.
The Commission advises Mr. DeMarco on the possible options before them.
1. The Commission could vote to close the hearing and deny the project based on a lack of a
restoration plan, and issue an Enforcement Order requiring restoration.
2. Mr. Demarco could come back with an amended plan showing restorative plantings as
part of the project.
DeMarco states that he is willing to work with the Commission. Maxner advises DeMarco to ask
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 3
for a continuance to the December 9, 2003 meeting and to come back with an amended plan
showing replacement/restorative plantings. Lang advises him to consult with Maxner on
appropriate species to use.
DeMarco agrees to the continuance to the next meeting.
Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to the December 9, 2003 meeting. Seconded by Squibb.
All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Cont: 84 West Street – remove existing, construct garage and in-ground pool – Joseph
Leone
William Manuell, of Wetlands & Land Management, presents for the applicant and explains the
changes made to the plan based on conversations at the site visit. He explains the following:
Ø Elevation 10 and the first 100 feet of the Riverfront Area are being respected and all work
is being deleted from those areas;
Ø Infiltration chambers are being proposed to accommodate for the new impervious areas;
Ø All of the trees will remain, for the exception of one maple near the proposed garage;
Ø The pool and concrete decking has been eliminated and a spa is to be repositioned, with
some Land Subject to Flooding to be filled to accommodate this structure;
Ø The garage has been shifted to avoid the elevation 10 contour, with slight grading on one
corner of the structure to bring grades up to 10, 11 and 12 contours;
Ø A compensatory flood storage area will be created by removing historic yard waste
mound near the edge of the river.
Paluzzi asks what the capacity of the infiltration chambers. Griffin responds they are designed for
the 10-year storm.
Maxner asks Manuell to provide responses to the waiver requirements from the 25-Foot No-
Disturb Zone. Manuell responds that the alternative is to leave the bank sparsely vegetated and
re-locate the compensatory flood storage area thereby leaving the pile of yard waste in place. He
states that this is not an attractive option, as the benefits of restorative plantings would not be
realized leaving the bank vulnerable to erosion, and leaving yard waste in place does not add value
to the Riverfront Area. He states that the natural or consequential effects are positive by
improving existing conditions in preventing erosion, improving flood storage, wildlife habitat. He
states that he believes the project proposed improves the ability of the resource area to protect the
interests of the Ordinance.
Peter Ogren, with Hayes Engineering, states that he has been hired by the neighbors to review the
application. He states that he reviewed the test pits, and for the most part they are 2 feet above
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 4
groundwater. He points out that drainage note #1 deals with the removal of fill below infiltration
chambers. He suggests that all foreign fill be removed and replaced with clean gravel/fill.
Lang asks if there are any more questions from the Commission. There are none.
Lang asks if there are any more questions from the public. There are none.
Duff moves to close the hearing. Seconded by Paluzzi. All members are in favor. Motion carries
6-0.
Cont: Lot B, Off Haskell Street – DEP File #5-826 – construct single family home – Frank
Romano
Peter Ogren with Hayes Engineering and Nicole Hayes with Sanford Ecological Services present
for the applicant. Ogren explains the project involves the construction of a single-family home,
driveway and associated appurtenances in the Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland and
Isolated Vegetated Wetland. The proposal called for one single dwelling, the relocation of the
existing pathway that runs through the property, construction of the necessary utilities and
grading and flattening of the road.
Ogren states he contacted Sanford Ecological because there was some concern that there might
be a Vernal Pool on the property. He introduces Nicole Hayes to provide an overview of her
report.
Nicole Hayes from Sanford Ecological Services states she looked at the area according to the
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Analysis for Vernal Pool Identification Criteria. There was a
sampling of the soil and water. She did not find any amphibian species or reptiles and, in her
opinion, the vegetation did not constitute a Vernal Pool.
Ogren states there was a lot of discussion regarding flooding in the area. He states the culvert is
not adequate and should be addressed by the City of Beverly.
Dr. Johnson asks if Ms. Hayes is 100% sure that the areas are not Vernal Pools. Hayes responds
that she is sure they are not vernal pools, that they are very small areas with no Vernal Pool specie
indicators.
Duff asks when Hayes visited the site. Hayes responds that she looked at the site in the beginning
of November but because it was outside the vernal pool season, she used the dry pool method and
took it one step further and did the facultative species method.
Lang asks if there are any questions from the public.
Abutter Mia Nehme, 10 Webster Street, disagrees with the applicant’s findings regarding the
Vernal Pools and states that no scientist could ever claim 100 % confidence in her/his findings.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 5
Mike DeRosa, DeRosa Consulting retained by the neighbors, states the new Regulations offers an
opportunity for the city to defer decisions on Vernal Pool identification if there is suitable
evidence to suggest that areas identified during the non-breeding likely function as Vernal Pools.
He states Ms. Nehme has documented Vernal Pool breeding species in that area and has observed
egg masses in the spring. He states there is ample evidence to suggest that the area functions as a
Vernal Pool and urges the Commission to defer their decision until these pools can be investigated
in the spring.
Lang states the highest water tables in New England are in March, April and May and the lowest
water tables are in September, October and November, and would agree that in order to be sure
the Commission should utilize the provisions in the Regulations.
Duff states her impression at the site visit was that it would be necessary to visit the site again in
the spring.
Ogren suggests that the Commission retain a third independent expert to look at the area, as
continuing the hearing until the spring is not an attractive option to the applicant. Lang states that
it may be futile to hire another expert as he/she may come to the same conclusions about the
situation.
Lang asks if there are any further questions from the Commission. There are none.
Lang asks if there are any further questions from the public. There are none.
Maxner states that it is not the Commission’s intention to be difficult in this situation, but believes
it would be irresponsible for the Commission to make a decision tonight without springtime
evidence regarding the function of the pools.
Lang asks Ogren if his client would agree to continue to the May 4, 2004 meeting pending an
investigation of the pools in the spring. Ogren asks to consult with his client.
Ogren returns to the meeting and agrees to the continuance.
Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to the May 4, 2004 meeting, pending a springtime
investigation of the pools. Seconded by Goodenough. All members in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Cont: 2 Boyles Street – DEP File #5-816 – construct roads, site grading, drainage and
utilities for subdivision and construct five single family homes – Manor Homes at Whitehall
Robert Griffin, Griffin Engineering, presents for the applicant and states this Notice of Intent
involves the construction of roadways, site grading, drainage structures and construction of 5
single-family homes as part of a 28-lot subdivision. Bill Manuell, Wetlands & Land Management,
states that no changes have been made to the plan, but that they would like to discuss thoughts
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 6
and suggestions made by the applicant’s vernal pool expert with the Commission.
Griffin introduces Brian Butler with Oxbow Associates who has been retained by the applicant to
review the Vernal Pool habitat. Mr. Butler provides an overview of his assessment of the area.
Butler states that the certified Vernal Pool has not been evaluated for quantified data in terms of
population, but based on the surrounding area of the site he suspects that there is an appreciable
population utilizing the pool. He explains that the closer one gets to the Vernal Pool, the more
premium the habitat becomes. He states the proposed Spinnaker cul-de-sac maximizes
development around the Vernal Pool, and has suggested that this road be eliminated thereby
opening up almost 2 acres of habitat near the south side of the pool. He also states that the
proposed tunnel under Eisenhower Extension to allow for wildlife movement is inadequate and
suggests that and 8-foot wide, 4-foot high arched culvert be constructed which would allow for
greater variety of wildlife to utilize it and prove to be much less of an obstruction to amphibians.
He states that Eisenhower Extension shouldn’t experience heavy traffic, which would help lessen
the impact to the Vernal Pool as opposed to very heavily traveled roads. He explains that
Wetland Area “D” would be an area where one would find wood frogs residing most of the time.
Butler also explains that some habitat enhancement could be incorporated involving the removal
of Japanese Knotweed along the outlet of Wetland “B” to be replaced with native hardwood trees
more suitable to the area. He explains that the pool located on Edward Doherty’s property is not
as critical or premium a habitat as the certified Vernal Pool, but may serve a small population of
breeding wood frogs during some years.
Maxner introduces Dr. Brian Windmiller and Daniel Wells from Hyla Ecological wildlife biology
experts hired by the Conservation Commission.
Dr. Windmiller states he was asked by the Conservation Commission to look at issues specific to
the certified Vernal Pool within Wetland “B”, and whether this project would affect the habitat of
the Vernal Pool and assess the work that is proposed within the jurisdiction of the Commission
and the Wetlands Protection Act and the City of Beverly Ordinance. He reviews the main points
of his report:
·
The spotted salamanders and wood frogs, are both known to use Wetland B and they
move considerable distances. Anything that might serve as a potential barrier, might
pose some mortality risk and damaging close to the vernal pool.
·
There are studies and evidence, which strongly support the idea that the population of
wood frogs and spotted salamanders are likely to be heavily impacted by loss of large
amounts of upland habitat. His own studies show the same results
·
The populations of wood frogs and spotted salamanders are reduced considerably or
extricated from a site, when the biological or ecological characteristics of the wetland
and associated upland are altered.
·
The proposed project would have significant adverse affects on the wood frog and
spotted salamander populations.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 7
·
Windmiller provides GIS aerial-photo information, which illustrates the Wetland B
Vernal Pool, the 1,000-foot radius around Wetland B containing the existing contiguous
forest, and explains that the 1,000-foot radius is critical upland habitat utilized by Vernal
Pool breeders throughout the entire year.
·
He explains that although the full 1,000-feet (and in some cases in excess of 1,000 feet)
is considered critical habitat, the regulatory framework constrains jurisdiction to the first
100 feet of the Vernal Pool, and the 100-foot Buffer Zone should be left untouched to
the greatest extent possible, and states that the Beverly Ordinance recognizes it as a
resource area.
·
The first 100 feet is very important to wildlife as it is the passageway to and from the
pool, all species utilize the Buffer Zone and it is premium habitat for amphibians, and the
density of animals per square foot found within the Buffer is typically the highest.
·
Male and juvenile salamanders stay close to the pool for a greater amount of time.
·
He comments on the discussion about Spinnaker Court being removed from the plan,
and states that it would be a step in the right direction but would not completely remove
adverse impact.
·
He explains that there is a study that was conducted analyzing the impacts of road salt
and deicing chemicals on egg mass mortality of Vernal Pools, and results show an
increase rate in mortality of egg masses in Vernal Pools located in close proximity to
roads.
·
Dr. Windmiller agrees with Mr. Butler in that the pool on Mr. Doherty’s property is not
as critical as the certified Vernal Pool, and suspects it may service wood frogs during
some years.
In conclusion, Dr. Windmiller states that the proposed development will almost certainly have
detrimental impacts on the Vernal Pool by eventually extricating the entire population of
amphibians utilizing the pool, and suggests that all activity be eliminated from the 100-foot Buffer
Zone.
Lang opens the questions from the Commission.
Johnson asks Butler where the amphibians would migrate on the site. Butler responds that they
would utilize and radiate to intact habitat, but would be unable to give a precise migratory route.
Lang asks if there are questions from the public.
Joanne Avallon with the Friends of Chapman’s Corner group asks that the neighbors’ experts
respond.
Attorney Tom Harrington states that the Beverly Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Section 24-2
and 24-5 (C) requires the applicant to provide clear and convincing evidence that the project as
designed will have no adverse impact on the interests of the Ordinance or on the resources of the
City. He contends that based on what has been presented by the Commission’s expert the
applicant has yet to provide any evidence that this project will not have adverse impacts and is a
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 8
basis for denial by the Commission. Harrington introduces Bruce Jacobs a civil engineer to
provide comments.
Jacobs states that detention pond #1 has very steep slopes facing the Vernal Pool and the
possibility of erosion of that slope is extremely high. The pond may work for flood control, but is
inadequate in sediment removal capacity and there is potential for water quality issues affecting
the Vernal Pool. He explains that the snow and ice removal procedures have not been addressed
in the drain report, and the detention pond would most likely receive the brunt of the
contaminated snow and ice. He states that the drainage report is optimistic and relies on
unregulated safeguards to achieve the Stormwater Policy goals. Jacobs states he would like to
allow Michael DeRosa to provide comments.
Michael DeRosa, DeRosa Environmental, states that the removal of Spinnaker Court is a step in
the right direction. He believes the removal of Japanese Knotweed is very beneficial and the
arched culvert design is a great improvement. He explains that there are “extinction thresholds”
at play here, where at present there is approximately 28 acres of habitat available to wildlife, and
the project as designed will leave only 4 acres of habitat left. This will be devastating to the local
population of Vernal Pool breeders and other wildlife in that area. He states his concern over
almost certain degradation of water quality resulting from inevitable runoff from the road and
house lots, and refers to Dr. Windmillers comments regarding road salt and deicing chemicals on
egg mass mortality. He would like to re-emphasize the importance of the 100-foot Buffer Zone
and believes the Commission has defensible standing to enforce no-disturbance in that area under
the Beverly Wetlands Protection Ordinance that clearly applies to this project.
Harrington states that he believes the Beverly Wetlands Protection Regulations are applicable and
reminds the Commission that the Regulations do not go beyond the authority of the Ordinance.
Mr. Hutt, 71 Cross Lane, asks what effects blasting will have on wildlife and drainage. Dr.
Windmiller states that whatever creatures located within the blasting area are obviously killed
instantly. Griffin responds that drainage should not be an issue exasperated by blasting.
Lang states that the issue of drainage will be addressed by the Commission’s independent expert
most likely at the next meeting.
Lang asks if there are any further questions from the Commission. There are none.
Lang asks if there are any further questions from the public. There are none.
In light of Dr. Windmiller’s presentation, Lang recommends that the applicant reconsider the
Eisenhower Extension and how it affects the overall status of the resource area. Bob Griffin
responds that the city attorney recently determined that there is a constraint because of a Special
Permit and the Boyles Street entrance may not be an option, therefore the Eisenhower Extension
may be absolutely necessary as a secondary access.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 9
Harrington states the former City Solicitor’s opinion is that the applicant needs to amend the
Special Permit before they use it.
Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to the December 9, 2003 meeting. Seconded by
Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Order of Conditions
Cont: 84 West Street – remove existing, construct garage and in-ground pool – Joseph
Leone
Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions
·
Standard Conditions.
·
Compensatory storage area be created prior to any other work on the site and certified by
an engineer and submitted to the Commission for review and approval.
·
The 10-foot wide riparian zone re-planting plan shall be adhered to as depicted on the plan
entitled “Proposed Site Improvement Plan” prepared by Hugh J. Collins Landscape
Designer, revised October 14, 2003.
·
All foreign fill shall be removed within the infiltration chamber pits and be replaced with
new clean washed gravel as noted on the approved plan.
Seconded by Dr. Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Old/New Business
Cont: Enforcement Order – 53 Lothrop Street – Robert Hubbard
Maxner explains that at the last meeting, the Commission voted to issue an Enforcement Order
for the construction of a deck/addition with a full foundation in the Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank
without a permit from the Commission. The Enforcement Order required Mr. Hubbard to appear
before the Commission to explain the situation.
Maxner states Mr. Hubbard provided a letter dated November 19, 2003 for her to read to the
Commission. Maxner reads the letter into the record. He states that last year he and his wife
replaced an enclosed porch, which had a failing foundation with a new structure and foundation.
Plans were drawn by Semasko and Verbridge and presented to the Building Department. At that
time he asked if it was necessary to go before the Conservation Commission. One week later he
was told that he didn’t have to and was presented with a Building Permit. After the old
foundation was replaced, Amy Maxner went to his home and informed him that the loam pile and
new foundation was concerning the Commission and that he should come to the meeting. At that
time, he stopped all work and had the loam removed. He has since learned that he must file a
RDA and hired Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering to prepare the necessary paperwork and
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 10
plans. At this time, he is requesting that the Cease and Desist Order be modified so that he may
close in house and foundation so as to make the home weather tight for the coming winter. He
understands that no work shall be done to disturb any other portion on the property.
John Jennings, from the Building Department states that Mr. Hubbard spoke with Mr. Nelson and
himself and he believes that this problem is wholly the Building Department’s error. The Building
Department made a mistake – not the Planning Department or Mr. Hubbard. The Building
Department determined that Mr. Hubbard was replacing over the existing footprint and that was
all that he was doing. The Building Department made the mistake of not getting the signature
from the Conservation Commission.
John Jennings reads a letter into record.
Duff states that she is disappointed in what happened and is frustrated with the re-occurance of
seemingly obvious violations. She states that she would not however want to make it difficult for
the Hubbards to make their home safe for the winter.
Dr. Johnson moves to remove the Enforcement Order. Seconded by Goodenough. All members
are in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Robert Griffin, Griffin Engineering, states he has been retained by the Hubbards to prepare the
application for the rest of the proposed work. He states that the Top of Coastal Bank is the top
of the slope at the limit of the yard.
Lang recommends allowing Mr. Hubbard to make the structure weather tight and then requiring
him to file a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission for the rest of the proposed work
on his property.
Duff moves to allow Mr. Hubbard to proceed to weather tight construction, and require a Notice
of Intent for any other work proposed. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor.
Motion carries 6-0.
New: Extension to Tall Tree Drive – DEP File #5-631 – Thomas Carnevale
The Commission received a request for a one-year extension for the 3 lots on Tall Tree Drive #5-
631. Maxner states she informed Mr. Carnevale that this will be the last extension under the
Ordinance.
Lang asks why he is requesting an extension. Maxner states he still needs to do final grading,
loaming and seeding in the spring.
Paluzzi moves to grant a final one-year extension for Tall Tree Drive DEP File # 5-631, seconded
by Dr. Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 11
Conceptual Plan – Endicott College – Joe Orzel
Joe Orzel, Gulf of Maine, provides an overview of a conceptual plan that Endicott College will be
submitting to the Commission for a new dormitory. He is looking for feedback from the
Commission regarding various options. The applicant is proposing to fill approximately 4,600
square feet of detention basin and as mitigation restoring approximately 7,000 square feet of
historically filled Bordering Vegetated Wetland located north of the project near the ball field.
Orzel explains that he has talked with Army Corps of Engineers about the filling of the detention
basin which was constructed to mitigate filling of federal wetlands as related to the sports
complex project. He states that the Corps had no issues with the filling of the basin.
Lang states it would be useful if a plan was prepared to show where the resources currently are.
The Commission members agree that the restoration of the natural BVW would be a great benefit
and did not see too much of an issue with the filling of the detention basin as long as runoff was
dealt with appropriately.
673 Hale Street, Discussion with Anna Ozols
Anna Ozols, 673 North Street, states there is an access road that goes back to a railroad crossing
(MBTA). She states she appeared before the Commission to discuss buffer landscaping efforts in
1999. Since then debris was cleaned off the railroad tracks and the ditch. At this point in time it
is a very tenuous situation because the MBTA sprays the tracks regularly and she is concerned
that the thousands of spring blooming bulbs that she planted might be damaged by the herbicide
and that the spray might infiltrate into the little stream bed and the intermittent stream.
Ozols asks if the Conservation Commission could consider the area to be a no-spray zone. There
are some areas designated as no-spray zones and if the railroad is amenable to having the area
marked as a no-spray zone, she hopes the Conservation Commission would feel the same way.
Lang states he supports the request 100%. Other members agree that this would be a very
environmentally beneficial plan. He recommends that the Commission send a letter to the MBTA
notifying them that the Commission supports extending the no-spray zone 200 feet to the south to
the access road.
Paluzzi moves that the Conservation Commission send a letter to the MBTA supporting the
extension of the no-spray zone 200 feet south of the current no-spray zone. Seconded by
Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Cont: Watershed Overlay District Ordinance amendments discussion
Maxner asks the Commission members to summarize their suggestions and comments, send them
to her and she will incorporate the comments into the draft.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 12
Fine Subcommittee
Maxner suggests establishing a date for the subcommittee to meet. Subcommittee members agree
to schedule their meeting for Saturday, December 6, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in the library. This
meeting will deal with assessing fines to the violations at 5 Elm Top Lane and 433 Hale Street.
Holiday Dinner Plans
The members agree on December 12, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. for the Conservation Commission’s
holiday party to be hosted by Chairman Lang.
The Vitale Site
Linda Goodenough states the City Council voted on an agreement that did not meet their
approval six months prior. She recommends that the Commission send a letter to City Council
stating that the Commission would have appreciated if the Council consulted with the
Commission, considering that the land is under the Commission’s jurisdiction.
She states that she believes the city is giving away 30 acres of land with absolutely no
compensation and the city was supposed to be compensated by New England Power.
Lake suggests that the Commission members prepare questions for the City Council on this topic
and that the members discuss this further at the next meeting.
Chubbs Brook Project - CDM
Maxner states that tomorrow morning a representative from CDM will be providing a detailed
explanation for a proposed change in a culvert drainage structure on the corner of Chanticleer
Drive and Hale Street (Dix Park Area). She explains that the contractor ran into an unexpected
problem with the Chubbs Brook Project. At the Dix Park area, where they are connecting the 36-
inch pipe to the culvert, they found that the culvert was a stone bottom culvert. They have to do
some additional rip-rap and alter the position of the proposed culvert and more detail will be
provided to the Commission tomorrow morning. Maxner states that she will contact Chairman
Lang to review the changes with him and allow Lang to provide oversight, suggestions and
approval. The Commission is comfortable with that approach.
299 Dodge Street - Sabatini
Maxner states she and Bob Nelson, Building Inspector, went to Mr. Sabatini’s house to talk with
him regarding the drain discharging to an Isolated Wetland. Maxner explained that Sabatini stated
he plugged up the drain that was draining his driveway to the adjoining property (wetland area).
He told Maxner that he is not going to remove the sand berm, that it is there because he thinks the
water coming from his neighbor’s property is going to flood him out. He informed Maxner that
he would be out of the country for one month.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2003
Page 13
Maxner informed Mr. Sabatini that he will have to address the sand berm somehow and that she
will bring this to the Commission’s attention.
Lang suggests that an Enforcement Order be issued to require Mr. Sabatini to come before the
Commission to address the violation.
Paluzzi moves to issue an Enforcement Order to Mr. Sabatini at 299 Dodge Street. Seconded by
Johnson. All members are in favor. Motions carries 6-0.
Approval of Minutes
Johnson moves to approve the minutes dated September 30, 2003 as amended. Seconded by
Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
Adjournment
Duff moves to adjourn. Seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 11:00 p.m.