Loading...
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.