Loading...
2004-07-27 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Conservation Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: July 27, 2004 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Lang (Chairman), Tony Paluzzi (Vice Chairman), Linda Goodenough, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Eileen Duff, Ian Hayes and William Squibb (arrives 7:35 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. Certificates of Compliance 8 East Street – DEP File #5-56 – Graziano, Heaney & Small, LLP Maxner states in January of 1981 the Commission issued an Order of Conditions for the construction of a single-family home to Tom Scully. Mr. Scully never started the project and the Order expired. Scully later sold the property to Daniel Finn, who was issued a new Order of Conditions to build a single-family home, which he did and received a complete Certificate of Compliance for the project. The property is now being sold and the attorney found the original Order during the title search and wishes to close the first Order out with a Certificate of Compliance. She explains that this request is an administrative procedure to officially close the Order. Lang asks if there are any questions from the Commission. There are none. Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 8 East Street DEP File #5-56, seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. 240-250 Elliot Street, DEP File #5-665-Marciano Bass River Trust Maxner states the Commission issued an Order of Conditions in August of 1999 for the Bass River commercial/retail complex for work involving expansion and resurfacing the parking lot, renovation and addition to and/or rebuilding existing building within Riverfront Area, Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank and filled tidelands. She explains that through the Chapter 91 process, the Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 2 of 14 applicant had made changes to the plan but never went forward with the work and withdrew the application in October of 2002 and re-filed under an RDA and did portions of the work under that Determination. The Order was never closed out with a Certificate of Compliance and the applicant is now selling a portion of the property and wishes to close the Order out. The work was never done under the Order, and Maxner states she will have the Certificate reflect that. Paluzzi moves to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 240-250 Elliot Street, seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Recess for Public Hearings Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearing, seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Notice of Intent 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 Peter Ogren from Hayes Engineering appears on behalf of the applicant and explains this project involves construction of a 21,000+ square foot manufacturing building, parking and associated appurtenances within the Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland and Isolated Vegetated th Wetland and within the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone. A site inspection was conducted on June 24 th and the applicant requested a continuance from the last meeting to July 6. Ogren states Dr. Gary Sanford was retained to investigate a possible Vernal Pool on the site. Dr. Sanford found that there were species there, although not abundant and not a great diversity. The plan was redesigned to help arrest the Vernal Pool issue. Ogren states the Vernal Pool is not a naturally occurring Vernal Pool. It is a Vernal Pool that was created by the excavation of gravel. He states there has been a lot of dumping of debris over the years and he offers to clean up the area. Ogren states Dr. Sanford has filed a report that talks specifically about the value of the Vernal Pool and he would like Dr. Sanford to be able to deliver the report to the Conservation Commission. Lang states he would like to see the flags around the wetland. Ogren responds that he will be sure all of the flags are out and numbered. Dr. Sanford provides a review of his report. He finds that the project would hinder potential migration of wood frogs at one location but there are adequate migration pathways elsewhere. The Conservation Commission members agree to schedule another site visit on Tuesday, th September 7 at 6:00 p.m. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing for 150 Sam Fonzo Drive to September 14, 2004 pending a site visit on September 7, 2004. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 3 of 14 Request for Determination of Applicability New: 93 Hale Street – Luana Little Maxner reads the legal notice. Peter Brennan, Environmental Pools, explains that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing single-family house and install in in-ground pool at the rear of the dwelling within the Buffer Zone of Coastal Bank (seawall) and stone channel Bank of Lawrence Brook. Brennan provides an overview of the pool portion of the project. Lang asks about the excavation process. Brennan responds that all excavated materials will be taken off site. There will be no backfilling as he wants that pool to blend into the existing topography in order to achieve maximum aesthetics and least amount of disturbance. Little provides a brief overview of the addition. She explains that it is an expansion of the kitchen, which is a galley style and more room is needed. She states that there will be a full foundation and Thomas Carnevale will be their builder. Lang asks if the addition is within 100 feet of the seawall. Maxner responds that it is, and approximately 67 feet from the edge of the brook, which is a stone channel. Maxner states the applicant initially was proposing the addition, which was well out of the buffer zone to the seawall and 67 feet from the edge of the intermittent stone channel stream. She determined an RDA would suffice. When the Little’s filed with the Conservation Commission, the pool was added by the pool contractor. She explained that she recommended since the applicant was filed, the pool be added to the plan and have the Commission review both under the same application. Goodenough states that if proper conditions are placed on the project, a Determination of Applicability should be sufficient. Lang asks if members of the public have comments or questions. There are none. Duff moves to close and issue a Negative #3 Determination of Applicability for 93 Hale Street with the following conditions: · Erosion controls shall be installed around the perimeter of work. · Stockpiling excavated material out of the Buffer Zone. · Applicant shall have a pre-construction meeting with the Conservation Administrator prior to the start of work. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 4 of 14 New: 3 Carleton Avenue – John Stilwell Maxner reads the legal notice. Maxner explains she issued an Enforcement Order for this property for unauthorized work within the Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland and the Commission required Mr. Stilwell to file an application. The applicant is proposing to raise the grade of his side yard to create more usable space and install a fence along the perimeter of the yard. Stilwell provides a brief overview of the proposal. Maxner asks if Stilwell is positive that he is on his own property for the work. Stilwell responds that the property was surveyed and he has permission from his neighbor to slope down to the normal grade from where it is within the first three feet of his neighbor’s property line after the fence is installed. Paluzzi moves to close the hearing and issue a Negative #3 Determination of Applicability with the following conditions: · Erosion control shall be installed and remain until all surfaces have been stabilized with growing grass. Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Notice of Intent Cont: 4 Cavendish Square – construct in-ground pool and appurtenances – Michael Bernfeld Johnson recuses himself from this hearing and leaves the room. Bill Manuell appears on behalf of the applicant and provides an overview of a revised plan and bullet sheets, which illustrate the changes made to the plan in an effort to meet the performance standards for the No-Disturbance Zone: · The applicant has offered to have a Purple Loosestrife Mitigation Plan for the life of the permit and has expanded that to also control all of the invasive multi flora rose. · The decking has been reduced. · The shed has been removed from the wetland. · The amount of pool decking in the No-Disturb Zone has been reduced. · The amount of driveway in the No-Disturb Zone has been reduced. · The applicant is offering to the Commission to convert lawn to indigenous plantings in two locations for mitigation (470 square feet) and the removal of a concrete slab (268 Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 5 of 14 square feet). Duff asks what the size of the pool is. Manuel responds that it is 587 square feet. Squibb arrives. Duff asks if Bernfeld has considered making the pool smaller. Bernfeld responds that he has considered all other of the aspects except for making the pool smaller as making it smaller will not make it worth his time or money. Manuel states the ratio of mitigation vs. encroachment is compliant with the Commission’s policy (1 to 1 ratio). Bernfeld states he has addressed the seven criteria for mitigation and hopes this will clarify his efforts to meeting the criteria for encroachment into the No-Disturb Zone. Lang states he thinks the applicant has changed the project to a great degree and he is pleased personally with the revisions. Paluzzi likes the idea of including the removal of multi flora rose. Squibb agrees and is pleased to see the shed removed from the wetland. Hayes states that the revised plan is much better than the last plan but he is bothered by the fact that the pool is right up against where the intermittent stream is. Manuel responds that there is 15 feet to the actual bed of the stream. Goodenough states the plan does address many of the Commission’s concerns and is supportive of these revisions, but would request more permeable pavers in the driveway. Bernfeld has a clarifying question regarding the location of the shed and ask if he can place it in the corner next to the pool. Lang states he could support Bernfeld’s request if he put the roof drainage was directed into the French drain, so there is no increase of run off. Bernfeld agrees to that stipulation. Members have no issue with moving the shed. Lang asks if members of the public have questions or comments from the Commission or the public. There are none. Paluzzi moves to close the hearing. Seconded by Squibb. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Johnson returns to the meeting. Cont: 60 Middlebury Lane – reconstruct retaining wall/remove trees/replace wooden deck – Peter Magliaro Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 6 of 14 Maxner explains the project involves several activities, which fall within the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone which include: extension of the driveway and removal of trees, addition of a rear patio, repairing existing retaining wall and installation of a fence. She states that the Commission conducted a site inspection July 22, 2004 at 7:00 p.m, and hopes that it acquainted members with the site. Mr. Magliaro provides an overview of the project and the revision to the plan to show where the base of the retaining wall will begin. Lang states that the revision was necessary as the first plan was not explicit enough for someone who would not have seen the site or discussed the project with the applicant. Paluzzi states that the slumping of the slope is obvious and is placing the Magliaro’s deck in danger, as signs of slippage of the posts are evident. Goodeough appreciates the applicant’s willingness to clear the wetland of dumped debris and thinks that it is appropriate mitigation for the encroachment into the No-Disturb Zone. Lang asks if there are any further questions from the Commission. There are none. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. There are none. Paluzzi moves to close the hearing. Seconded by Goodenough. 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 Maxner states the Commission received a letter from the applicant’s engineer requesting a continuance to the first regularly scheduled meeting in October. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing for 2 Boyles Street to the first regularly scheduled meeting in October. Seconded by Goodenough. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Cont: Off Boulder Lane – DEP File #5-815 – construct multi-use age-restricted Housing development with roads, utilities – Miles Group, Inc. Maxner states the Commission received a letter from the Wetland’s Consultant requesting a continuance to the September 14, 2004 meeting. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing for Off Boulder Lane to September 14, 2004. Seconded by Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 7 of 14 Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 330 Hale Street – clearing of trees – Peter Nash Maxner reads the legal notice. Maxner explains the applicant cut trees down within the Buffer Zone to an Isolated Vegetated Wetland without authorization and at the last meeting the Commission requested a Notice of Intent be submitted along with a replanting plan. James Oday from CEC Land Surveyors appears on behalf of the applicant. He states the applicant started to cut trees as part of a project to construct a single-family home. Since then, the 100 foot buffer line has been staked and respected. He explains that the house itself is out of the Buffer Zone. Dr. Johnson asks if there is a replanting plan to make up for the cutting of trees. Oday responds that there is no replanting plan. Dr. Johnson states there should be a proposal prepared for at least replanting some of what was removed. Lang agrees with Dr. Johnson’s comments and thinks the applicant should be required to replant that area. Duff recommends imposing a fine on Mr. Nash. Goodenough explains to Oday that the subject wetland was part of a filing by Endicott College and the Commission worked hard to protect it by asking the College to remove a proposed parking lot adjacent to it. Oday states that Mr. Nash came from Dorchester and probably had no idea he needed permission to cut the trees. The Commission requests that a replanting plan be prepared and will put this item on the September 14, 2004 agenda. Lang recommends that the applicant provide a construction sequence if he plans to blast at the site. Maxner requests that the applicant quantify the number of trees that were cut within the buffer. Paluzzi moves to continue the hearing to the September 14, 2004 meeting. Seconded by Goodenogh. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 675 Hale Street – construct utilities corridor – Dr. Robert Seamans, Jr. Maxner reads the legal notice. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 8 of 14 John Dick, Hancock Asssociates, provides an overview of the environmental impact of the project the applicant is proposing to construct a private utilities corridor for water and sewer connection within the Buffer Zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Bank to Intermittent Stream and Isolated Vegetated Wetland, he states that the IVW is less than 5,000 square feet and not jurisdictional. A portion of the corridor will be going underneath the existing railroad crossing by way of horizontal directional drilling involving a jacking pit and receiving pit. The work will be performed mainly within the existing private right of way and portions will be within the 25-Foot No-Disturb Zone. Dick explains that the bank of the intermittent stream was not delineated as it is more than 100 feet from the work, but that the associated BVW was flagged. Vaclav Talacko, Hancock Associates, provides an overview of the engineering aspects of the project. He states all residents on the far side of the railroad is served by a waterline that was installed around 1899 to 1910 and it has come to its useful end. There is no real fire protection for the homes in this area as the waterline is inadequate. The proposal is to extend the water line from Hale Street, under the railroad and to a hydrant just outside the buffer zone. He explains that the jacking pit will probably about 28’ x 12’ and 10’ deep at the entry site and probably 12’ x 12 at the exit site. Maxner states that the Beverly Ordinance and Regulations have jurisdiction over IVW’s that are 1,000 square feet in size. Dick states that he did indeed forget that there was a smaller size thresholds under the Ordinance. Maxner states that the Buffer Zone to the IVW should be called out on the plan. Dick agrees to place it on the plan. Lang ask if there will be future hook ups to the water. Dick lists the following residents that will potentially hook to the water and sewer: Seamans, Vogels, Godshalks, Updike and the Cutlers. Lang asks if members of the public have any questions. There are none. Lang asks if there are any questions from the public. Mr. Godshalk, abutter to the project states that three of the six families are represented at the meeting, and all the families have been working on this for about a year and are in favor of the project. Paluzzi moves to close the hearing. Seconded by Duff. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Orders of Conditions Cont: 4 Cavendish Square – construct in-ground pool and appurtenances – Michael Bernfeld Paluzzi moves to issue Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 9 of 14 1. Prior to any work commencing, any remaining silt fence and hay bale material, left over from the previous project (DEP File #5-706), shall be removed from the resource area. 2. Prior to any other work commencing on site the wetland restoration area shall be constructed and reviewed by a member(s) of the Conservation Commission or the Conservation Agent. The restoration area shall be constructed as outlined in the Notice of Intent and shall be monitored by a professional wetland scientist as outlined in the Notice of Intent. 3. The purple loosestrife eradication program shall be initiated immediately after the issuance of the Order of Conditions, and shall be on-going, at least once per month in the growing season. All plants shall be hand-pulled from the wetland, bagged and removed from the site. 4. Prior to excavation, the perimeter of the proposed pool shall be staked out for review by the Conservation Administrator and excavation contractor. 5. The applicant shall be on site during excavation of the pool and shall contact the Conservation Administrator immediately thereafter to schedule a site inspection to observe the area. 6. No excess soil shall be stored on site. No temporary stockpiles will be within 10 feet of the edge of the wetland and all temporary stockpiles shall be protected against erosion. 7. Dewatered groundwater shall be free from sediment and shall be directed toward the southeast street side of the property. 8. Crushed stone or other pervious material shall be used for the 70 square foot westerly portion of the proposed expanded driveway. The roof runoff from the proposed shed to be located at the northeast corner of the lawn 9. adjacent to the pool shall be directed to the French drain. The motion is seconded by Hayes. Johnson abstains. All members are in favor. Motion carries 6-0. Cont: 60 Middlebury Lane – reconstruct retaining wall/remove trees/replace wooden deck – Peter Magliaro Johnson moves to issue the following conditions: 1) Standard conditions; 2) Special Condition: The applicant shall remove all debris and foreign material from the Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 10 of 14 wetland prior to construction and contact the Conservation Administrator for her review. The motion is seconded by Paluzzi. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. New: 675 Hale Street – construct utilities corridor – Dr. Robert Seamans, Jr. Paluzzi moves to issue the following conditions: 1) Standard conditions. 2) Special Condition: Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit a plan adding that includes the Buffer Zone to the IVW. The motion is seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Old/New Business Cont: Request for Minor Modification, DEP File #5-847 – James Daley Maxner explains an Order of Conditions was issued for an addition to an existing single-family house within Riverfront Area and Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank. The Commission visited the property to look at the two trees that the applicant wants to cut down and the applicant is seeking a minor modification to the Order for removal of the trees. Paluzzi moves to approve the Request for Minor Modification to DEP File #5-847, with a Special Condition requiring the applicant to replant the area with native shrubs. Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Maxner states that she will send a list of native shrubs suitable for that area to the applicant. New: Request for Extension, 218 Hart Street - DEP File #5-650 – Christopher Welles Maxner explains an Order of Conditions was issued for a pond restoration project at 218 Hart Street. The Commission granted a one-year extension last June, but the applicant has just now retained a contractor and is requesting another extension to the Order for one more year. Maxner states this will be the last extension this Order will receive and if the applicant does not finish the project within the year, the applicant will have to re-file. Lang states that this is a worthwhile project and is in favor of granting the extension. Johnson agrees. Paluzzi moves to issue a one-year extension the Order of Conditions for 218 Hart Street, DEP File #5-650. Seconded by Johnson. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 11 of 14 Cont: 24 Meadow Road – Enforcement Order – James Pica Maxner explains the Commission issued an Enforcement Order 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 removed the outer walls of the stone foundation, leaving the wooden bridge in place and the side of the stone foundation supporting the bridge. At the last meeting, Mr. Pica spoke with the Commission about possibly modifying the EO and members decided to revisit the language contained in it. The members agree that the language in the Enforcement Order was reasonable and decide to let the EO stand. Pica states he disagrees and asks what he can do to appeal this decision. Maxner informs Pica that he has the right to appeal the decision to the Superior Court but the Commission cannot advise him on how to proceed as it is a conflict of interest for the Commission to do so. Pica states he should not be responsible because he did not dump the materials. It was in that condition when he purchased the property. Lang states that it is his right to appeal but the Commission is not prepared to modify its decision. Cont: 23 Linden Avenue – Lou Ellen Viel Maxner explains that Ms. Viel was doing work on her “seawall” without authorization from the Commission and appeared before the Commission at the last meeting. The Commission visited the site on July 22, 2004. Lang recommends that Ms. Viel get some professional advice from a contractor regarding how to proceed on this matter. Viel asks if she has the option to file. Lang responds that she can file but he does not think the Commission would approve armoring the bank, and does not think DEP would approve it either. He explains that the only reason it is allowed is if a property is in danger. He states Viel can apply for an Order of Conditions with the Conservation Commission for the rocks and if she does not like what happens with the Conservation Commission she can appeal the decision with the DEP. Goodenough explains that this was a big violation of the local Beverly Conservation Wetlands Ordinance, state DEP Wetlands Protection Act and Chapter 91 laws. She thinks that in order to get in compliance, the rocks must be removed. Viel asks if she would be doing more damage removing them. Maxner states that there is no way Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 12 of 14 of determining the condition of the bank prior to the dumping of the rocks, so that is not an easy question to answer, but suspects that the rocks can be removed with out causing damage. Duff recommends that Viel speak with a professional engineering firm for expertise regarding how to satisfy what the Conservation Commission is asking and at the same time correct the problem. Viel states that she does not have the money to hire engineers and lawyers. Lang states that it is costly to live on the water, and the problem still remains and must be rectified. Maxner explains the Commission can vote to issue an Enforcement Order requiring Viel to remove the rocks by a certain date. Viel can appeal the decision to the Superior Court. She repeats the Commission members’ recommendations for Viel to come in with a professionally engineered plan to prove to the Commission that she in fact needs the seawall and the engineer has developed a plan saying so. Maxner explains that is the only way that the Commission will allow Viel to keep the rocks there. She explains that here are two choices, the Commission can vote to issue an Enforcement Order tonight saying move the rocks or they may allow Viel the ability to go seek professional advice for a professional plan proving to the Commission that she needs a reinforced seawall. Lang states he does not believe that the property is in danger, but is willing to allow Viel to consult with a professional. Viel agrees to discuss this matter further with a Professional Engineer and will update the Commission at the September meeting. Goodenough recommends that the Commission send a letter to Viel confirming the discussion at the meeting. Maxner states she will send a letter and attach a list of engineers for her to call. 245 Dodge Street, DEP File #5-836, Minor Modification – Henry Bertolon Bob Griffin presents for the applicant and explains that an Order of Conditions was issued for Mr. Bertolon’s property for an addition, swimming pool and other site work. Mr. Bertolon has decided to abandon his septic tank and connect to city sewer up along Dodge Street. He will be connecting to the manhole located directly across from Morningside Drive, which is located directly next to Alewife Brook and Bordering Vegetated Wetland. The applicant is seeking a Minor Modification to the existing Order to incorporate this work. Lang asks how far the work will be from the BVW. Griffin states it is approximately 30-35 feet, and explains that the work will last about a day. Paluzzi moves to grant a Minor Modification to the Order of Conditions issued for 245 Dodge Street, DEP File #5-836. Seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 13 of 14 73 Lothrop Street Maxner states Janet Clements contacted her because portions of her seawall are beginning to deteriorate. Maxner invited Ms. Clements to the meeting so that the Commission could advise her how to proceed. Ms. Clements shows pictures of her seawall and portions that are being undermined. She wanted to speak to the Commission to make sure she was proceeding lawfully. Lang recommends that Clements have an engineer file a Notice of Intent for this work and asks Maxner to send her the necessary paperwork as well as a list of engineers. Route 128/Mass. Highway Maxner explains that work had been conducted at the culvert under 128 between MacArthur Road and Bass River Road that carries flow from the Bass River. Mass Highway enlarged the culvert on the Bass River Road side to a 24 inch outlet due to severe flooding upstream. Goodenough and Maxner conducted a site inspection with the project supervisor, Brett Lossian, and requested that a Notice of Intent be submitted with a replanting plan. Unfortunately the Environmental Engineer just got back from vacation and was not able to prepare the NOI. In speaking with him, he wants to avoid filing a NOI and submit a scope of work plan and replanting plan for this project. Maxner asked him to come to the meeting but he is unable to attend. Maxner states she wanted them to submit a Notice of Intent because they triggered the threshold of 50 feet of linear bank, where it would require Wildlife Habitat Review. The engineer seemed very reluctant to do so. Goodenough agrees with Maxner and states there were no erosion controls and it appears they just bulldozed 50 to 60 feet from the bank. Maxner recommends issuing an Enforcement Order requiring a Notice of Intent. Goodenough moves to issue an Enforcement to Mass. Highway, seconded by Hayes. All members are in favor. Motion carries 7-0. Vitale Site Restoration Project Maxner states a Major Permit Certification Application for the Vitale Site Restoration Project was submitted to the State and a copy is available in the Planning Department for review if Commission members are so inclined. Culvert Inlet – Route 127 Maxner informs members that Mass Highway intends to repair the existing stone culvert and Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes July 27, 2004 Page 14 of 14 reopen the culvert at the Route 127 Pond location near Rene Mary’s house. She explains that the granite block/stone culvert inlet on the east side of the road will be fixed at the first available opportunity based on weather and low water levels. This will involve only replacing the block and is considered routine maintenance work, which is exempt from review. She is confident that Rene Mary will alert her of anything that goes wrong on that job. Adjournment Paluzzi moves to adjourn. Seconded by Squibb. All members in favor. Motion carries 7-0. The meeting is adjourned at 10:15 p.m.