Loading...
2004-07-06 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Conservation Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: July 6, 2004 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Lang (Chairman), Tony Paluzzi (Vice Chairman), Linda Goodenough, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Eileen Duff, William Squibb and Ian Hayes 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. Request for Determination of Applicability New: 2 Fosters Point – Eileen Lang Lang recuses himself from this portion of the meeting and leaves the room. Maxner reads the legal notice. Ms. Lang is present and explains she is looking to reconstruct and expand the front porch on her house and explains that the house is within Riverfront Area. Paluzzi asks if there is an existing porch now. Lang states that a large porch was removed from the front of the house during the initial renovation of the house and that a concrete walkway was also removed. She adds that the porch will be supported by 4 sono tubes and underneath the porch will remain dirt. Squibb asks is a roll of should be on site for the debris. Lang states that there may not be enough material to warrant a roll off, but agrees to have the debris taken off site on a daily basis. Paluzzi asks if there are any more questions from the Commission. There are none. Hayes moves to issue a Negative # 2 Determination. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 2 of 16 Lang returns to the meeting. New: Cabot Street – Ronald Nadeau Maxner reads the legal notice. Mr. Nadeau explains that the Commission wanted him to file to move the fill on the site and surround it with hay bales. Paluzzi asks what he will move it with. Nadeau states he will probably use a front-end loader. Hayes asks how long the stockpiled material will remain on site. Nadeau states that he will hopefully file a new Notice of Intent very soon for constructing a house on the site and he plans on using the fill for grading. Squibb asks how big the lot is. Nadeau states it is approximately a quarter acre. Lang asks if there are any further questions from the Commission. There are none. Paluzzi moves to issue a Negative # 3 Determination. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 12 Morningside Drive – Peter O’Connor Maxner reads the legal notice. Mr. O’Connor explains he is seeking to install an above –ground pool and reconstruct and expand an existing deck off the rear of his house within the Buffer Zone to BVW. He explaisn that the pool contractor will dig down about 6 inches and layer the area with sand for leveling purposes. Maxner explains that she conducted a site inspection and made a very conservative estimate as to where the wetland line was located. She and O’Connor measured from that line and the pool will be approximately 37 feet from the edge of the wetland. Hayes asks what type of equipment will be used and how far is the deck from the wetland. O’Connor states that they will use a small bobcat for the excavation and that the deck is on the opposite side of the pool nearest the house. Paluzzi asks if the excavated material will be hauled off site. O’Connor states that a majority of the material will be taken off site, but some may be used for leveling the pool footprint. Hayes asks what will be underneath the deck. O’Connor states it will remain dirt. Maxner states that during her site inspection she noticed left over hay bales next to the wetland, Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 3 of 16 probably from when the subdivision went in and asks that they be removed. O’Connor agrees to remove them. Lang asks if there are any further questions from the Commission. There are none. Johnson moves to issue a Negative # 3 Determination. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 15 Goodwin Road – Mariann Henry Maxner reads the legal notice. Lisa Rosand of Decked Out Design presents for the applicant. She states the project involves constructing a deck off the rear of the house, which will be supported by sono tube footings. She states that a small porch exists off the side of the house, which is within 25 feet of the brook. Paluzzi asks if the brook is perennial. Maxner explains that the house is within Riverfront Area and the existing porch and one of the new sono tubes will be within 25 feet of Chubb Brook. Hayes asks what will be underneath the deck. Rosand states it will remain dirt. Goodenough states that according to the Commission’s Regulations, this project seems to meet the waiver criteria for encroachment into the No-Disturb Zone, as there seems to be no other alternative to place the deck as there is an existing porch, and that the addition of on sono tube footing will have no adverse impact on the resource area. Members agree that this is a very minor project with no negative impacts on the resource area. Lang asks if the Commission has any further questions. There are none. Johnson moves to issue a Negative # 2 Determination. Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Ms. Henry requests that she be called when the permit is ready, as she would like to pick it up. 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 Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 4 of 16 Cont: Bridge Street, Lot 5A, 17, 18A, 18C – construct two single-family homes, etc. – Curtis Jones Carmen Frattaroli, attorney for the applicant, states that there was a site inspection held on June 24, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. He states that Bob Griffin will review changes made to the plan. Griffin explains this project involves improving upon an existing right of way off of Bridge Street and constructing two single-family homes within Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland and Isolated Vegetated Wetland. He states that he never got a chance to speak to Mike Collins, but went ahead and incorporated his comments into the plan, which consisted of adding two additional catch basins at the base of access drive near the houses, the water main has been changed to an 8 inch pipe and the sewer manhole will be approximately 3 inches above grade. He also states that based on Ms. Maxner’s suggestion, a level spreader has been added at the discharge point of the drainage pipe. He explains that a Storm Septor is replacing the particle separator and the westerly house has been moved 10 feet to the west to accommodate room for the Storm Septor and catch basin. Information required by the Planning Board has also been added to the plan with regard to the Bridge Street entrance. Hayes asks if the driveway surface between the houses will be paved. Griffin responds yes. Hayes asks how often the Storm Septor and catch basins will be cleaned. Griffin responds that they will be inspected quarterly during the first year, but probably will only need cleaning every 2- 3 years thereafter. Griffin explains a couple of trees will need to come down to accommodate the utility trench coming from Virginia Avenue (18-inch oak, 10-inch oak), but that there is a 24-inch oak that will be saved. Hayes asks how long the utility work will last. Griffin estimates that it will take about 1 to 2 weeks. Paluzzi asks how the sewer installation will be coordinated with the utility installation. Griffin states that scheduling with the utility companies can be tricky and coordination with them depends on their schedules. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. John Costa, 4 Brisby Circle, Derry, New Hampshire asks a clarifying question regarding the 25 foot No-Disturbance Zone and the 100 foot buffer zone. Lang responds that a 100-foot buffer zone is an area where that activity comes under the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction. You would have to get in front of the Commission to get permission to work within 100 feet. The 25- foot No-Disturbance Zone is a no work zone, which is designed to protect the interests of the Ordinance. He explains that the applicant needs to meet certain waiver criteria for getting permission to work in the No-Disturbance Zone. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 5 of 16 Jeff Bessie, 202 Bridge Street, a direct abutter of the property provides a letter for the Conservation Commission. He provides the following comments: · Bessie states he and other neighbors have been concerned about development in the area for many years. · He requests that the Commission deny a waiver for the project. · The proposed access road is partially owned by Mr. Delano and questions how the applicant has the basis for going through somebody’s private property. · Over the last 20 years various people have tried to develop property behind Bridge Street and access has been denied on four different occasions. · He outlines many reasons why the Commission should deny a waiver. Lang states the Commission does not determine whether the lots are buildable or make decisions regarding right-of-ways. The Commission is responsible for enforcing the Wetlands Protection Act and wants to keep the discussion to what is within the Commission jurisdiction. Frattaroli states he has researched the Right of Way and he is satisfied that Mr. Jones has the right out to Bridge Street. Frank McGee, 6 Kathleen Drive, provides historical information regarding this site. He expresses concern about flooding. Griffin explains that runoff will be directed to the BVW not the IVW to the east. Lang asks if there will be an increase in runoff as a result of this project. Griffin responds that there may be an increase in runoff into the wetlands, but states that this project is not subject to the Stormwater Policy. He explains that the applicant has attempted to address runoff by using dry wells for roof runoff. Maxner asks what the capacity of the dry wells. Griffin responds that he has 500-gallon drywells. Maxner asks how big the yards will be for the rear of the houses. Griffin states that the west house will have about 20 feet of lawn along the edge of the No-Disturb Zone and the east house will have about 10 feet. Myra Herrick, 31 Cressy Street, expresses concern about the wetlands and the affect development will have on wildlife. She also expresses concern about the number of accidents at this section of Bridge Street. She is strongly opposed to this project. A member of the public states he has water problems and is opposed to the project. There is discussion regarding saving trees near the houses. Griffin states that the applicant would be willing to consider saving some trees on the house lots. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 6 of 16 Lorrraine McGee, 6 Kathleen Drive, states she cannot imagine any more fill in the area and thinks the flooding will be much worse as a result of this project. 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. Paluzzi moves to close the hearing. Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motions carries 7-0. Cont: 150 Sam Fonzo Drive, Lot 1C, DEP File #5-844 – construct building with associated parking lot, utilities, landscaping and grading – S & D Real Estate Trust Maxner states she received a letter faxed from the applicant’s engineer requesting a continuance. Paluzzi moves to grant a continuance to the next regularly scheduled Conservation Commission meeting on July 27, 2004. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Cont: 4 Cavendish Square – construct in-ground pool and appurtenances – Michael Bernfeld Johnson recuses himself from this portion of the meeting and leaves the room. Bill Manuell presents for the applicant and explains this project involves constructing an in-ground swimming pool and associated appurtenances within the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland bordering on and Intermittent Stream. The applicant is proposing to widen the driveway and remove existing pine trees. The applicant is proposing to construct a 10’ X 12’ shed within the BVW. As mitigation the applicant is proposing to “convert 460 s.f. of upland to vegetated wetland” located within the existing BVW. Manuell explains that the applicant is proposing to remove purple loosetrife and removing fill from the wetland area to mitigate for the shed and intrusion into the No-Disturbance Zone. He recalls the site visit conducted on June 24, 2004 and states issues regarding dewatering were discussed which will be directed toward the street over the lawn at the front of the house. He explains that dewatering will most likely not have much sediment in it as the sides of the pool must be kept in tact to receive the gunite. Hayes states he would have a very hard time supporting this plan and could not rationalize filling wetland to make room for a pool shed. He is concerned about the cumulative impacts of the project, and feels that the pool is too close to the wetland. Maxner asks if the applicant has considered an above ground pool. Mr. Bernfeld states that above ground pools are prohibited as part of a deed restriction within the subdivision. Squibb states that he could not support a shed in the wetland, but recognizes the extent of Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 7 of 16 mitigation, which is a positive thing for the resource area. He asks the dimensions of the pool. Manuell states it is 18 ‘ x 30’. Goodenough is not supportive of this plan and could not approve the shed either. She is very concerned about the cumulative impact of this project. Duff states that this property may not be suitable for a pool and thinks that the applicant is asking for a lot of waivers from the Commission. Maxner states that the Commission seems to be looking for a more environmentally friendly design and the applicant should look into removing the shed from the wetland and maybe moving the pool farther away from the wetland. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. A resident at 6 Cavendish Square states she is concerned about the loss of privacy and flooding potential. Lang states that the applicant clearly does not have support for the proposal tonight and suggests that the applicant look at some more alternatives and come back with a revised plan. Manuell requests a continuance. Paluzzi moves to continue the public hearing to the July 27, 2004 meeting. Seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Johnson returns to the meeting. Cont: 2 Boyles Street, DEP File # 5-816 – Manor Homes at Whitehall Maxner states she has received a letter fromt the applicant’s engineer requesting a continuance to the July 27, 2004 meeting. th Paluzzi motions to grant a continuance to the July 27 meeting. Seconded by Duff. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 36 Cliff Street – construct and maintain floats – Richard Gagne Maxner reads the legal notice. Gagne provides an overview of the project. He states he has spoken with the Harbormaster and he does not have a problem with the proposal. Gagne is proposing to add a 4-foot by 20-foot section of float and replace two existing moorings with permanent pilings in the Bass River and Land Containing Shellfish. The applicant has forwarded his application for a Chapter 91 license Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 8 of 16 and is in a conversation with the Army Corps of Engineers about this project. There is approximately 20 square feet of disturbance to Land Under the Ocean and Land Containing Shellfish for the placement of the piles. Gagne states the Army Corps of Engineers is disputing the state DEP 10a Application, which allows the Harbormaster to authorize bottom anchored floats. The Corps is saying that they have jurisdiction beyond mean high water and the existing one (which have been approved for eight years) are not legal because they were not authorized by the Corps. Maxner states she thinks it may be a benefit to taking the moorings out seeing that they get dragged back and forth along the bottom during the winter months. Lang asks if there are questions from members of the public. Resident of 26 Cliff Street asks if the pilings could ever be used commercially. Gagne responds that they cannot be used commercially by law. Lang asks if the piles will be driven. Gagne states he will try to have them driven and is hoping not to hit shallow bedrock, and if that happens he may reconsider even doing the project. He states the company North Shore Marine will be doing tests for driving the piles. Lang asks if the Harbor Master has been consulted. Gagne states that he has gotten his approval from the Harbor Master. Johnson asks is there are shellfish in the area. Gagne states yes, mussles, clams and seaworms but no one fishes there. 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. Paluzzi moves to close the hearing, seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 60 Middlebury Lane – Peter Magliaro Maxner reads the legal notice. Magliaro provides an overview of the project and he states he is proposing several activities, which fall within the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone, which includes extension of the driveway and removal of trees, addition of a rear patio, repairing existing retaining wall and installation of a fence. Maxner states she visited the site several weeks ago and a good section of the backyard is Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 9 of 16 beginning to slump and erode over into the wetlands. There is erosion occurring there and she thinks it is worthwhile to reconstruct the retaining wall and looked at the general area where they are going to extend the driveway. She explained the waiver process and Magliaro mentioned that he is willing to clean up some of the leftover debris in the wetlands. Lang states that a site visit may be beneficial. Duff agrees and would like to see how close the wetland is from the work. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Paluzzi moves to continue this matter until July 27, 2004 pending a site visit scheduled for July 22, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 109-123 Water Street – installation of underground high-vacuum fluids extraction system – Tuck Point Condominiums Maxner reads the legal notice. Paul McManus from EcoTech, Inc. and Larry Lassard from Lassard Environmental appear on behalf of Tuck Point Condominium complex. McManus explains the applicant is proposing to install underground high-vacuum fluids extraction system to assist in the remediation of impacts from petroleum contamination in the soil and groundwater. This project is part of a Phase II Remediation Implementation Plan and is carefully monitored by DEP. McManus states that before the condos were there the property was a bulk oil and chemical storage facility. The condominiums were built on top of the remnants of that facility. There was a liner and vents put underneath the buildings so that vapors from residual contamination would not get into the occupied buildings. However, work done by Lassard Environmental has determined that there is substantial contamination in certain locations remaining on the property. There is a petroleum product floating on the groundwater on the property. Larry Lessard explains that they hope to utilize the South Essex Sewer district system to pump treated groundwater out off the site. Lang asks how the groundwater would be handled if the Sewer District does not grant permission. Lessard states that it would have to be re-injected into the ground. Paluzzi asks where the existing recovery wells are located. Lessard states that these wells are perforated pipes that are below the surface of the groundwater and they have wooden covers on ground level within landscaped areas. Hayes asks if any oil has leaked into the harbor and how long the remediation will take place. McManus responds that there was a time in the past where there was a sheen. Since he has been on the project, that has not been observed. He states that the remediation treatment system will be about two years, but that the construction phase to set up the system will be a matter of weeks. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 10 of 16 Hayes asks what volume of water gets processed. Lessard explains the flow rate is about 10-20 gallons per minute and thousands of gallons a day. Squibb asks where the equipment will be located. McMannus explains that building # 123 toward the rear near the sewer man hole. A treatment shed will be erected so that the equipment can operate safely on a concrete pad surrounded by a sand berm with sensors to detect spills. Lang asks when the last time the well were operated and if there are any indoor air quality issues for the condominiums. Lessard states that the wells were installed in the late 1980’s and the air quality was addressed by another consulting firm but no issues were found to his knowledge. Lang asks if there are any further questions from the Commission. There are none. Lang asks if there are questions from members of the public. There are none. Paluzzi moves to close the hearing, seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Old/New Business Cont: 24 Meadow Road EO – James Pica An Enforcement Order was issued for the construction of a stone retaining wall deck structure and dumping of yard waste and grass clippings in Bordering Vegetated Wetland at 24 Meadow Road. The Commission conducted a site inspection and determined that Mr. Pica must remove the yard waste, and remove the outer walls of the stone foundation, leaving the wooden bridge in place and the side of the stone foundation supporting the bridge. The Commission gave Mr. Pica until the end of September to have these actions completed. Mr. Pica wanted to come back and speak to the Commission about what he has been ordered to do. Pica asks if there is an alternate way he can save the structure for a future garden shed type use. He states he is willing to replicate. Lang states he thinks the concern is that if there is a garden shed there, that gasoline will be stored there. Pica states he would leave his lawn mower in the garage. Maxner advises the Commission that this fill in the middle of the wetland and the Commission just turned the Bernfelds away because the members did not want the shed in the wetland. She cautions the Commission to be consistent. The stone structure fill is also taking away compensatory storage so it is sending the flow elsewhere. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 11 of 16 Pica states that they did not put fill there. Maxner asks if he was the contractor that built the house. Pica states yes. She asks why he was not aware that there was dumping of fill in the wetlands when he was probably on the job site day to day. Pica responds that when he bought the lot, there was a huge mound on the lot and what was behind it was there when he purchased the lot. Hayes agrees with Maxner that the Commission needs to stay consistent and this was an unauthorized structure in the resource area. Pica states the grade is the existing grade from before and he was one of the last houses built there. Lang states he does not think it is the responsibility of the property owners to remove fill if it was there before they owned the property. Johnson suggests that the Commission revisit the language in the Enforcement Order and dicuss it further at the next meeting. Hayes states he is not in favor of a shed but is willing to listen about replication if the proposal is something significant. He expresses concern that every time the Commission grants exception in any case, the door is open for other exceptions. Maxner states the applicant should seek professional help regarding replication. . Goodenough states that she would consider it alternatives if the wetlands are functioning as they are supposed to be functioning due to the Hawk Hill development. Lang explains to the applicant that if he wants to leave the structure in the middle of the wetland, the Commission needs to get something back. He recommends that he speak with a professional regarding replication and states that the Commission will revisit the Enforcement Order and discuss it further at the next meeting. New: 3 Carleton Avenue – Enforcement Order, John Stillwell Maxner states she received an anonymous telephone call informing her that there were possible wetlands filling at 3 Carleton Avenue. Maxner visited the site and observed a couple of large piles of soil to grade the lawn, which is next to BVW. A portion of the fill may possibly be into the corner of the wetland. Stillwell states there definitely is no fill in the wetlands. Maxner states Stillwell is definitely in the 25-foot No Disturb Zone. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 12 of 16 Stillwell states he has a three part plan. He states his yard grades down and it will still grade down but he wanted to flatten the area for usable lawn space for his daughters, perhaps put up a swing set, reseed and loam and put up a fence along the property line. The grade will still exist, but it will exist further away on the property line so it will maximize the yard space. Lang informs Mr. Stillwell that he must file Notice of Intent outlining what he described to the Commission, being mindful that he did work in the 25-foot No Disturb Zone and will now need to get a waiver for that work. There are certain criteria that he must fulfill. Maxner informs Stillwell that he must prove to the Commission that there is no other way to do this project without going into the 25-foot No Disturb Zone. Maxner will send Mr. Stillwell a Notice of Intent package with the waiver criteria. Lang states this matter will be placed on the next meeting agenda on July 27, 2004. New: 23 Linden Street – Henri & Helen Viel Maxner states she observed a bobcat excavator sitting in the front yard of 23 Linden Street. She explains upon further investigation, it looked as though the owners were doing some work on and adjacent to the Coastsl Bank, as there were large boulders piled on the beach side of the bank. Maxner sent Mr. & Mrs. Viel a letter instructing them to cease and desist from any further work and come to the meeting to receive more instructions from the Commission. Lou Ellen Viel states that her parents have passed away and she now owns the property. She states has put some rocks on the bank because her bank is sinking and she was going to level it off and put rocks on the banking. Lang informs Viel that is an illegal activity without a permit. He explains that she needs to prove that the bank is in danger of eroding and her house is in danger as a result. He explains she must file a Notice of Intent or a Request for Determination of Applicability. Duff states she would like to look at the site and condition of the Coastal Bank, and thinks this violation may warrant fines. Goodenough would like to look at the site before the Commission makes any determination about fines. A site visit is scheduled to take place at 7:30 p.m. on July 22, 2004. 330 Hale Street – Peter Nash - Discussion Maxner states she received a phone call from an abutter about cutting of trees in the Buffer Zone to an IVW. She conducted a site inspection and observed between 30-40 trees cut down. The Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 13 of 16 property abuts the Endicott College property where the IVW is located next to where the college was proposing the parking lot for a new dorm. Some of the trees were well over 1 ½ feet in diameter (mostly pine trees) and some were less then 50 feet from the wetland. Maxner wrote to Mr. Nash and instructed him to immediately cease and desist from any further work and come to the meeting to receive further instructions from the Commission. Nash states he spoke with his engineer and he asked if he could cut down trees. The engineer informed him that he could cut down trees. He did not know that he was so close to the wetlands and apologizes. Maxner states she spoke with the engineer today and she informed him that the Commission would be looking for some type of restorative planting. Lang states a Notice of Intent should be filed accompanied by a restorative planting plan. Maxner recommends that Nash have his engineer call her and she will provide him with some of the checklists and fee schedule and other relevant paper work. 32 Cliff Street – Minor Modification to DEP File #5-847 – James Daley Maxner states Mr. Daley was before the Commission a few weeks ago for an addition at 32 Cliff Street and received an Order of Conditions approving the project. Mr. Daley is requesting a Minor Modification and would now like to take down two pine trees at the edge of the seawall at the rear of his property that he would like to take down. The trees are in the 25-foot No-Disturb Zone. Paluzzi states he would like to look at the trees prior to approving this request. Squibb agrees a site visit is appropriate. A site visit is scheduled to take place on July 22, 2004 at 7:45 p.m. Order of Conditions Cont: Bridge Street, Lot 5A, 17, 18A, 13C – construct two single-family homes, etc. – Curtis Jones Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions: · Standard Conditions; The following Special Conditions: 1. A site inspection shall be held with the Conservation Administrator and the Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 14 of 16 prior contractor/engineer and/or the applicant to any work on site, for the purposes of flagging trees that will be saved. 2. In addition to the proposed hay bales and silt fence erosion control structures, geo-textile fabric, or other comparable material, shall be placed over the sloped area to the rear and the side of the proposed houses after clearing and grubbing has taken place to ensure slope stabilization. 3. The Isolated Vegetated Wetland shall be investigated during the Spring of 2005 for Vernal Pool function by a qualified professional. Findings shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission for review as soon as they are available. 4. The proposed No-Disturb markers (4’ x 4’ x 6’ plain granite markers) shall bear plaques with the following language “No-Disturbance Beyond This Point Per Order of the Beverly Conservation Commission”. (see approved plan dated July 12, 2004 for location of markers.) 5. After installation of the utilities, six (6) fruit bearing bushes (i.e. high bush blueberry or other wetland tolerant species) shall be planted along the edges of the existing right of way. 6. The Stormceptor and catch basins shall be maintained and cleaned quarterly during the first year, and annually thereafter.The Storm Septor and catch basins shall be inspected quarterly the first year and yearly thereafter. The motion is seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 36 Cliff Street – construct and maintain floats – Richard Gagne Johnson moves to issue the following conditions: · Standard Conditions; Special Conditions: · Spoils from the driven piles shall be taken off site and disposed of properly. · Moorings and chains shall be removed from the river. · The applicant shall notify the Commission if the piles cannot be driven. The motion is seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 109-123 Water Street – installation of underground high-vacuum fluids extraction system – Tuck Point Condominiums Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 15 of 16 Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions: · Standard conditions; Special Conditions: · The handling and disposal of all hazardous materials shall be consistent with State and Federal Regulations. · If the South Essex Sewer District denies the applicant access to its sewer system for pumping treated groundwater, the applicant shall come back before the Commission for an amended Order of Conditions for alternative groundwater disposal. The motion is seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Open Space Residential Design Ordinance – Discussion Maxner states Scott Houseman is looking for a letter of endorsement for the draft ordinance from the Commission and any input the members may have is welcomed. The members state that they are in favor of the Ordinance and will provide their comments by email within the next few days. Maxner will provide feedback to Scott Houseman when she meets with him and John Thompson. New: Tall Tree Drive – Conservation Land Access Maxner states there is a property owned by the city, which has approximately 8 feet of frontage on Tall Tree Drive. She has spoken with Ward 4 Councilor Kevin Hobin and Dave Gardner (Open Space and Recreation Committee Chairman) regarding making the access visible and inviting from the street. Members agree it would be worthwhile making this area more accessable to the public. Maxner states she will work with the Open Space Committee on this project. 7 Margaret Avenue – Enforcement Order Maxner states the Commission issued an Enforcement Order requiring that the applicant get the resource areas delineated. She explains she has spoken with Mr. Britton and he has contracted with Hancock and it is in the process of getting the area delineated and surveyed. Approval of Minutes Paluzzi moves to approve the February 24, 2004 meeting minutes, seconded by Goodenough. Hayes abstains. Motion carries 6-0-1. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 16 of 16 Adjournment Johnson moves to adjourn, seconded by Paluzzi. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. The meeting is adjourned at 11:00 p.m.