Loading...
2004-03-23 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Conservation Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: March 23, 2004 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Lang (Chairman), Tony Paluzzi (Vice Chairman), Linda Goodenough, Dr. Mayo Johnson, William Squibb, Ian Hayes and Eileen Duff (arrives 7:15 p.m.) BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 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 43-47A Water Street, DEP File #5-438 – Beverly Port Marina, Inc. John Hannon, P.E. with Mayflower Engineering Inc., presents for the applicant Frank Kinzie, Beverly Port Marina. He explains the outstanding Order of Conditions, issued in March of 1993, was for the replacement of underground fuel storage tanks. The as-built shows aboveground storage tanks (AST) as opposed to underground. At the June 3, 2003 meeting, the owners and their attorney appeared before the Commission to explain their understanding of the Order and what structures were there when they brought the property. The Commission asked that the applicant come back with a certified as-built plan. Maxner conducted a site inspection with the engineer on March 23, 2004 and photographs were taken and distributed for the members’ review. Hannon states he has reviewed the relevant documents and prepared an as-built plan detailing the location and configuration of the AST’s. He explains that the Kinzie’s bought the property with the AST’s in place. Mr. Kinzie explains that the AST’s are double tanks and have state of the art leak detection and electronic monitoring. He explains the fire suppression system and that state and local fire safety personnel inspect the AST’s and safety systems annually. Hayes asks if the tanks are suspended. Kinzie responds that they are and surrounded on the ground by 8-inch concrete berm to contain any spills. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 2 Lang asks if the actual gas lines float. Kinzie responds that the gas lines leading out to the refueling dock are set within the floating docks with flexible hinged joints within the lines between each dock section. He explains that the hinged joints are braided metal on the outer surface. He explains that the gas lines approximately 200 gallons of fuel at any given time, and is equal to about what a typical boat holds. He explains that the fuel hose from the tank is about 15 feet in length and floats to accommodate the change in tide levels. There being no other questions from the Commission members, Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance. Seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Recess for Public Hearings Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Notice of Intent Cont: 12 Lawnbank Road – Daniel & Susan Martignetti Michael Juliano P.E., Meridian Associates, Inc., presents the revised plans for the applicant to address comments made by the Commission at the February 21 site walk and February 24 public hearing. Changes include the addition of a second Coastal Bank, deletion of the pool and re- locating the ancient way on top of the existing seawall, among other changes. (DEP’s policy on Coastal Bank delineations was provided to the members for their review.) Based on the plan, elevation 20 is considered the 100-year flood elevation which includes Velocity Zone (wave action), which are both above the elevation of the top of the seawall (top of coastal bank #1) and was not depicted on the previous plan. (A copy of the FEMA flood map for that area was provided to the members.) Activity is still proposed within the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zones, but additional plantings are proposed on the westerly end of the bank where the pool and grading has been removed. Maxner asks if grading will still occur on the Coastal Bank and on the lawn next to the house. Juliano responds yes, grading will be done to flatten the slope. He explains the replanting plan and the species that will be included. Johnson asks how far the proposed deck will encroach into the No-Disturb Zone. Juliano states that it will be approximately 10 feet into that zone, and it will be on sono tubes. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. There being no further questions from the Commission or the public, Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 3 Cont: 8 Hawk Hill Road – Lawrence Townsend Libby Wallace, Hayes Engineering, presents for the applicant. This project involves installation of an in-ground pool and deck in the Buffer Zone to an Isolated Vegetated Wetland and Bordering th Vegetated Wetland. A site visit was conducted on Saturday, March 13, and members discussed the possibility of restorative plantings within the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone, cleaning out errant stumps and branches from the wetland, and refurbishing the rip-rap wall along the edge of the IVW. Rich Williams, Hayes Engineering, presents a revised plan to address some of the Commission’s concerns. Lang states that the majority of plantings within the No-Disturb Zone should be native species. Hayes states that should be no problem. The applicant asks if the Commission could provide a list of plants that members would like to see planted. Lang states that Maxner will provide a list. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. There being no further questions from the Commission, Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing. Goodenough seconds. All in favor. Motions carries 7-0. Cont: 8 Wentworth Drive – Holly & Steven Kalivas John Dick, Hancock Associates, states the Commission had an issue with the placement of the pool and its proximity to the wetland. The applicant thought it through, talked it over and wanted to approach the Commission with this revised plan. Duff states the previous plan seems better than the revised plan. John Dick states there are a few concerns. The proximity of the deep end of the pool to the deck. The applicant wishes to maintain the deck and put the shed in the yard at the end of the driveway to form a visual barrier. There is a 22 square foot increment in structure within the 25-foot no- build, which is all lawn. The difference between the two concepts, in terms of total area within the No-Disturb is 22 square feet. The applicant can shave the patio and reduce it below that. Dick states this not an undisturbed condition. It is a mowed lawn up to the edge of the wetland. This is the best his client can do without actually putting the pool in his present driveway. Lang expresses concern that this is a precedent that the Commission is going to start to set. He states the applicant could push the pool further to the property boundary, move the shed out of the area and use shrubbery as a buffer for headlights. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 4 Dick states he does not think the applicant can go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance because the pool could be built meeting the setback requirements. He doesn’t think the applicant can go before the Board of Appeals and say that the Conservation Commission would like us to move the pool further out of the Resource Area because it is not in the Resource Area, it is in a Buffer Zone. Lang disagrees. He states he has testified at the ZBA about creative things like that. He recommends that the applicant move the pool. Squibb expresses concern about setting precedents and asks if there could be compromise. Lang states the concern about children jumping off the deck is a legitimate point, however it is not a Conservation Commission concern. He states the applicant will still have the problem because children will jump whether it is 3 feet deep or 7 feet deep and maybe this type of configuration just won’t work. Duff states there was discussion at the site visit that the property may not be a property that you can put a pool on. Steven Kalivas states he had someone come over from the Conservation Commission look at the site before they proceeded on this and were told that it looked like it would go fine. Maxner responds that she would like to make it clear that Mrs. Kalivas asked her to look at the property but she is not in the practice of providing real estate advice. She rendered a general opinion and by no means should that be construed as an approval of installing a pool. Lang states the applicant has room to fit the pool in and must be cognizant of the 25-foot setback and if it is not honored, then you have to give back something in return. Dick states the applicant bought the site and was altered before the Regulations were written. Lang states there probably is a configuration that would make everybody happy, but it is clear that there is room to move the structures out of the No-Disturb Zone. Erin MacGregor, LEC Environmental, states the applicant is willing to negotiate but is concerned about safety issues. She asks for some direction from the Commission. Goodenough recommends that the pool be rotated toward the shed area and to reconfigure the shed. It looks like there is enough room to put a pool in and still respect the No-Disturb Zone. Dr. Johnson states there are also other pool shapes and sizes that might fit better. Lang recommends that the applicants take another look at the plans and perhaps continue this to the next meeting. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 5 Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing until April 13, 2003, seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Cont: Lot 4 – 21 New Balch Street – DEP File #5-831 – construction of portion of dwelling and driveway, deck, foundation drain, drywell and grading – Dana Tower, Tower Homes, Inc. Greg Hockmuth, representative from The Neve Morin Group, Inc. presents for the applicant and states a site walk took place on March 13, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. He explains this project involves the construction of a single-family house and associated appurtenances in the Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland. He states that during the site walk, a row of seven 12-inch diameter Catalpa trees was noticed and the Commission asked if the developer would be willing to keep the trees to act as a natural screen. The original plan showed that the trees would be removed, however, the developer is more than happy to keep the trees. The only other revision to the plan is the addition of the existing 30-inch culvert. Maxner states in the Standard Order of Conditions there is a condition that asks for the buyer of the property to sign a written statement stating that he/she is aware that there is a Outstanding Order of Conditions, wetlands issues, etc. She states that the plan gets recorded along with the Order so this may satisfy the Commission’s questions about the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone being recognized. Lang responds that the Commission may still insist on having it called out on the deed. Squibb asks about the drainage of the site and if runoff will flow onto adjacent properties. Hockmuth states that there is a natural low spot in the rear of the yard that naturally flows down toward the stream and does not anticipate that to change and grading in that area is not proposed. Maxner asks what the average roof runoff is. Hockmuth responds that he does not have that information. Lang opens the hearing to questions from the public. There are none. There being no further questions from the Commission, Johnson moves to close the hearing, seconded by Duff. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Cont: 569 Hale Street, Jim Monahan, Landvest Bill Manuell from Wetlands & Land Management appears on behalf of the applicant. He states a site walk was conducted on March 13, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. He explains the purpose of the application is to prove to the Planning Board that the application for Approval Not Required, Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 6 which was submitted, has frontage and can be endorsed by the Planning Board. The ultimate plan will be to utilize the existing driveway, continue the access for house #569 and an existing carriage house and a new dwelling built possibly in the buffer zone and foregoing construction of the proposed driveways. He also explains that both crossings have been revised on the plan to show possible arched crossings to further avoid wetland impacts. Manuell states that the applicant is requesting that the Commission issue an Order of Conditions for the project with conditions stipulating that the applicant would have to come back to the Commission before any work could be done on the site. Dr. Johnson states it would be a good idea that the Planning Board and Conservation Commission work together on this application, but would like to see more detailed plans if the existing driveway access is not allowed for these new lots. Members agree that this would only be an initial approval, and if the driveways have to be constructed more details would need to be provided. Lang opens the hearing to questions or comments from the public. There are none. There being no further questions or comments from the Commission, Paluzzi moves to close the hearing. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Cont: Off Boulder Lane, DEP File #5-815, Miles Group, Inc. Maxner reads a letter from Bill Manuell dated March 17, 2004 requesting that the hearing be continued to the May 25, 2004 meeting agenda. Hayes moves to continue Off Boulder Lane, DEP File #5-815, to May 25, 2004. Seconded by Paluzzi. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 245 Dodge Street – Henry & Donna Bertolon Maxner reads the legal notice. Maxner explains that the applicant was issued an Order of Conditions for this project but is now making changes to the plan and is submitting a new Notice of Intent. Robert Griffin, engineer for the applicant, provides an overview of the approved plan. He states because the landscaping is going to come closer than 50 feet from the resource area, the applicant decided to file a new Notice of Intent for the work. Most of the work is the same. The pool and septic system are in the same locations but there are landscaping changes around the structures. The changes are as follows: · The driveway is being shifted. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 7 · The deck area around the pool is larger. · There is a proposal to put in a barbecue pit type structure and a little pool house to store the pool equipment. · A retaining wall with stairs to provide easier access to the lower portion of the site. · Removal of 8 trees. · In the process of constructing a pool house, the applicant got closer to a BVW. · The lot line is changing slightly in order to meet the zoning requirements for the pool house. Griffin states the reason for the tree removal is that there are very large pine trees in the backyard and the applicant is planning to make a lot of improvements in the backyard. There are concerns that if the pine trees fell, they would damage some of the proposed improvements and it would be difficult to reach the location for clean up. Some of the tree removals are within the 25-Foot No- Disturbance Zone from the BVW, but the applicant is not proposing to do any stump removal at this location to maintain the root systems. Maxner provides photos of the trees at the site. Members review the photos. Griffin introduces Greg Lombardi, the Landscape Architect from Lombardi Design, to provide an overview of the landscape improvements. Maxner states it would be a good idea for the Commission to visit the area again because there is a newly flagged wetland that incorporates the adjacent lot that may or may not have had some activity in the past in the buffer zone. She states on her site visit, she noticed two freshly cut trees. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Paluzzi moves to continue this hearing to the April 13, 2004 meeting, pending a site visit scheduled for Saturday, April 3, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. Seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. 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 Ian Hayes recuses himself from this hearing. This project involves the construction or roadways, site grading, drainage structures and construction of 5 single-family homes as part of a 28-lot subdivision. Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering provides an overview of the project. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 8 Brian Butler, Oxbow Associates, on behalf of the applicant provides an overview of wildlife and vernal pool impacts: · Removal of Spinnaker Court – which provides two acres of upland habitat for vernal pool animal habitation. · The tunnel has been changed to allow the movement of animals (4 feet high by 8 feet wide). · Propose discussing other measures regarding grading on the lots to discourage any passive runoff from the lawn areas. · There has been discussion about the use of calcium magnesium acetate instead of salt as a deicing agent because it is biodegradable which is a better alternative. Maxner asks a clarifying question regarding a wall and reads from the report provided by the Commission’s wildlife expert, Dr. Windmiller, that the area east of the wall is in fact suitable habitat. Butler responds that there is a mortared wall, which goes down to the ground and an animal would have to negotiate a couple of hundred feet or it will have to find that one little void to get from one side to another. He states he considered the Spinnaker Court location as the most important habitat because it is contiguous, heavily forested and seemed like the most preferential to preserve. Maxner asks a clarifying question regarding deicing. Griffin responds that the calcium magnesium acetate would be used in any area that drains to Wetland B. That pertains to about half of the roadway. Lang opens the discussion to the neighborhood group. Peter Shanahan, Hydro Analysis, Inc., states his concerns about the project: · The PH of the pool will be altered even if an alternative deicing chemical is used – it will become more basic · He is of the understanding that south facing slopes should be protected · He believes that the rate of flushing of the pool should be determined to ascertain whether the contaminants will move through that system or accumulate · Wetland A is being used a stormwater conveyance and the diversion manhole has no calculations to support the design · Some systems, such as vernal pools are extremely sensitive to additional volume and flow, pools have limited storage and would be negatively impacted by additional volume resulting in faster flow rates · He believes the infiltration from roof runoff is over exaggerated · The steep slope proposed along the side of the Eisenhower extension next to the vernal pool has a very high potential for erosion and the construction sequence calls for clearing and grubbing the site which would virtually strip the site and become a huge erosion and sedimentation problem Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 9 Lang opens the discussion to the public. A member of the public expresses concern about the pitch of the road and the fact that the Homeowner’s Association will be responsible for keeping the road safe in the winter. Griffin responds that Beverly has a very stringent restriction of 6% as a maximum slope on a roadway and the plan conforms to the subdivision standards. A member of the public expresses concern about relying on a private Homeowner’s Association to use the correct material for deicing or if they fail to clear the roads. If the calcium magnesium acetate is more expensive, what assurances are there that the Homeowner’s Association will use it? Maxner asks if the plan as proposed has the potential for adverse impacts to the vernal pool. Butler responds that he does not think the discharge will contaminate the pool where there is a measurable impact, however there will be fewer places for animals to inhabit. There is a brief discussion regarding drainage. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to April 13, 2004, seconded by Goodenough. All in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Hayes returns to the meeting. New: 5 Elm Top Lane, Robert Hubbard Maxner reads the legal notice. Attorney Thomas Alexander presents for the applicant. The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family house within the Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank, portions of which fall within the 25- Foot No-Disturb Zone. Portions of the existing house are located within the No-Disturb Zone as are portions of the proposed house. Maxner provides photos of the site from her site visit with the applicant’s engineer for members review. Robert Griffin, Griffin Engineering, explains the plan details and states that portions of the existing house to be torn down are within the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone, and the foot print of the new house incorporates some of that foot print. Squibb asks if there is enough room for machinery to reach the rear of the house. Griffin states that the hay bale line may need to be moved slightly to accommodate equipment. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 10 Johnson moves to close the hearing, seconded by Duff. Motion carries 5-2. Paluzzi and Hayes opposed. New: Essex Street – construct parking facilities and appurtenances – YMCA of the North Shore Goodenough recuses herself from this portion of the meeting and leaves the room. Maxner reads the legal notice. The applicant is proposing to construct parking lot facilities to service the new teen center already under construction, the footprint of which was designed entirely outside of the 100-Foot Buffer Zones to the Bordering Vegetated Wetlands to the north, and Isolated Vegetated Wetlands to the south. Charlie Wear, Meridian Engineering, representative for the applicant provides an overview of the project. He states the applicant filed back in March of 2000. It was approved in May of 2000 but it was appealed. The DEP later filed a Superceding Order for construction of the project. The site is not yet complete. The teen center is currently under construction and last July the applicant came before the Commission and redefined the wetlands with an eye towards constructing the facility and maintaining all of the work outside of the 100-foot buffer zone. It became quickly obvious that more parking would be needed. One of the ways to increase parking is to enter into the resource area. Matt Thyng, DeRosa Environmental, provides a brief overview of the drainage and planting plan for the site. Maxner states that in the reconfirmation of the wetland line, the Commission reserved the right to look at the Isolated Vegetated Wetlands to make sure that they don’t function as a vernal pool. Lang recommends that the Commission visit the site and opens the hearing to the public. Larry Ralph, 252 Essex Street states there are about 97 parking spaces and he is worried that too many people will be parking where they should not be parking and the affect it will have on the wetlands. He asks about the snow removal plan. Lang states that Ralph’s concern about the parking is a good point and perhaps the Commission can require some low fencing to keep the cars on the paved part. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to the April 13, 2004 pending a site visit on Saturday, April 3, 2004 at 9:15 a.m., seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Goodenough returns to the meeting. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 11 Request for a Modification to 13 Cherry Road – Aimee Parisella and Richard Bernard Maxner states Mr. Parisella called her and informed her that the grade is running in the opposite direction of the proposed drip trench. The pitch is east. The request is to flip it and do the drip trench on the other side. Ralph Parisella, father of the applicant and contractor for the project, states he would like to put the sheds (two) on cement pads instead of cinder blocks and increase the patio area. Paluzzi moves to modify the Order for 13 Cherry Road to allow the movement of the drip trench, add two cement slabs and expanded pavers. Seconded by Duff. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Orders of Conditions 12 Lawnbank Road – construct driveway, pool, walkways – Daniel & Susan Martignetti Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions: 1) Standard conditions. 2) Special Condition: In order to avoid driving over and compacting the existing lawn and disturbing the Coastal Bank resource area, a crane shall be used to lift and place the pre-cast concrete steps beside the seawall. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. 8 Hawk Hill Road – DEP File #5-833 – construct pool, gazebo and deck – Lawrence Townsend Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions: Standard conditions. The following Special Conditions: 1) Existing debris and other foreign material shall be removed from the Isolated Vegetated Wetland; 2) Should invasive plant species be found growing within the Isolated Vegetated Wetland, they shall be removed and the area replanted with native wetland plant species; 3) More than 50% of the proposed planting within the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone to the Isolated Vegetated Wetland shall consist of native species. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Lot 4 – 21 New Balch Street – DEP File #5-831 – construction of portion of dwelling and Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 12 driveway, deck, foundation drain, drywell and grading – Dana Tower, Tower Homes, Inc. Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions: Standard conditions. The following Special Conditions: 1. The seven Catalpa trees as depicted on the approved plan shall not be cut down, and shall remain in their natural condition. 2. The 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone should be noted on the deed. Seconded by Dr. Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. 569 Hale Street – DEP File #834 – two driveway crossings – Jim Monahan, Landvest Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions: Standard conditions; The following Special Conditions: 1) Prior to any construction on site, the applicant shall first try to obtain access to the subject parcels by way of the existing shared common driveway before pursuing proposed driveway construction. Should the existing shared common driveway option be successful, the applicant shall request a Certificate of Compliance from the Commission documenting that the proposed work never commenced. 2) If the existing shared common driveway option fails, the applicant shall reopen the public hearing with the Commission, at which time more detailed plans shall be submitted describing proposed driveway construction and wetland replication protocol. . Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. 5 Elm Top Lane – construct single family home – Robert Hubbard Johnson moves to issue the following conditions: Standard conditions; The following Special Conditions: 1) Prior to any construction on the proposed house at 5 Elm Top Lane, restoration and revegetation, in accordance the approved restoration plan entitled “5 & 7 Elm Top Lane, Beverly, MA Coastal Bank & Buffer Zone Planting and Restoration Plan at various scales, dated August 28, 2003” shall be completed to the Commission’s satisfaction. 2) No construction of any kind shall occur below elevation 28 along the historic “Ancient Highway” path. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 13 3) A construction sequence shall be submitted to the Commission prior to the commencement of activity, first detailing restoration of the Coastal Bank and construction of the proposed house. Seconded by Duff. All members are in favor. Motion carries 5-2. Paluzzi and Hayes opposed. Old/New Business 495 Cabot Street Squibb recuses himself from this portion of the meeting and leaves the room. Attorney Thomas Alexander states his client came before the Commission for an Order of Conditions, which was denied. Subsequently, the DEP issued a Superceding Order of Conditions, which was appealed. There have been a number of hearings before the DEP and the applicant decided to meet with the neighbors and see if there was some common ground. Over a number of Saturday meetings, the project was redesigned and the neighbors have signed an agreement, which has been filed with DEP. Elizabeth Kimball is the representative at DEP. Commission members review the plan and agree it is an improvement over the original plan and offer their endorsement. Maxner states she will call Elizabeth Kimball and advise her that the Commission reviewed the plan and has endorsed it. Squibb returns to the meeting. Cont: 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone Policy/Fee Assessment Policy Maxner states she drafted a 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone Policy and Fee Assessment Policy. She asks that the members review the policies and recommends that this topic be placed on the agenda for the next Conservation Commission meeting. Members agree to look it over and discuss it further at the next meeting. New: DEP Mouth of River Designation – Discussion & Feedback Maxner states the DEP is looking for comments from Conservation Commissions about how the Department has designated the mouths of Beverly’s coastal rivers. She informs the Commission that Hancock Associates is offering a workshop on the Mouth of River Designation. Maxner states that she would like the DEP to look at the Plum Cove area. Members review the aerial photographs provided by DEP and agree with the designations. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 14 Beaver Pond – Testing Results (Frattaroli) Maxner states that Carmen Frattaroli, resident of Beaver Pond Road, dropped off test results that he had done for Beaver Pond to the Commission. Lang reviews the results briefly and states that no toxins or other hazardous substances were detected, as he would have guessed. He explains that around this time of year there are very low oxygen levels in water bodies due to the gradually warming of spring, and often there are fish kills, or in Mr. Frattaroli’s case minnow bait does not last long. Approval of Minutes Paluzzi moves to approve the minutes dated November 19, 2003 as written. Seconded by Goodenough. Hayes abstains. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0-1. Letter from Zach Peters from the DEP Maxner states she got a call from Zach Peters from the DEP regarding a new structure on Shoe Pond that he did not notice prior. He is not aware of any type of permitting from DEP for this structure. Lang recommends sending a letter to Cummings Properties to explain what the structure is and appear before the Commission for discussion. Adjournment Paluzzi moves to adjourn. Seconded by Squibb. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. The meeting is adjourned at 11:15 p.m.