Welcome to the Danvers Conservation Commission. We operate under the Massachusetts General Law, chapter 131, section 40 of the Wetlands Protection Act and chapter 26 of the Danvers of the Town of Danver's general bylaw, the
wetlands protection bylaw. After the applicant presents his or her request and the board has had time to ask questions and discuss the project, we will accept questions from the audience. Because this is a public meeting, it is required by law that you give your name
and address first. Although we may disagree on the issues raised, all persons present during this meeting are expected to be civil to all other meeting attendees. This includes the members of the commission staff abutters
concerned citizens and property owners and project applicants. We also request that you confine your questions to the project and only as it pertains to the wetlands act. We cannot handle nor do we have jurisdiction regarding such things
as noise or traffic. All problems not related to the Wetlands Protection Act and the Town of Danver's wetlands protection bylaw must be taken up with other boards. [clears throat] And again, welcome to the Danvers
Conservation Commission meeting for July 9th, 2026. Uh my name is Mary Height and we're going to take attendance. Uh Lorraine Drap, >> present. >> Paul McNelte, >> present. >> Michael Splain. Peter Wilson
>> here. Michael McCarthy, Andrew McNelte, >> present. >> Um, and then just to let everyone know, Andrew McNelte has viewed the past meeting and has signed the Mullen form and will be voting this evening with everyone. Um, item number one is the
request for determination of applicability, 264 Center Street, DC number 20263. The applicant is Doral Design and Construction. Hello.
Hi, my name is Ghalf Street. Um, as an update to this project, the commission recently site with my colleague Andrew. Um, theation was accurate by the commission uh those
who attended. Um, at this point we'd like to request a >> determination uh on >> All right. Um, does anybody on the commission have any questions or comments? >> Sure. Um
where did this originate that there were there there were uh wetlands of some form on the land on the property? >> Yeah. Um they mapped by mass mass mapping although there are no map connections to the property. Um the area
is mapped as wet and the remediation uh found wetlands on site but they are isolating wetlands under the act and they fall below threshold. >> All right. So are are we are we agreeing that we have no jurisdiction over this or
>> that's what the commission would be voting on tonight is if you're in agreement that um that the two isolated vegetative wetlands based on the criteria are not jurisdictional under the wetland protection act and under the local bylaw is what you'd be voting on >> and do we
so if we find adversely to this application we would still have jurisdiction over these isolated wetlands. Yeah, it's if you if you think that these are jurisdictional, then you would make a positive determination or you could um
alternatively ask for a peer review to be done to confirm. >> Okay? Cuz after the site visit, they saying no big deal. Um but then I went and read the Butters uh emails and you know there's some concerns there mostly
with >> one neighbor was concerned about the the flow of water. I think the other neighbor was more concerned about clearing the land, >> which is um so I mean my my thinking is that I don't want to give away our jurisdiction because we don't really know what the
property owner's plans are for this. Uh I understand that they're saying that [clears throat] zoning would not allow uh multiple uh houses or buildings on this property. Is that true? >> Yep, that's correct. Even an ADU,
>> an ADU would be allowed. >> I thought that Brian said it was two. That could be two properties or am I mis meme remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember memoring that I think he >> said the so and we're not deciding if we want jurisdiction or not. We're deciding if
they meet the definition. [clears throat] >> So it's it's not a do we feel like having jurisdiction sort of thing. It's a do we have sufficient evidence to accept what he's saying or do we not have sufficient evidence? >> And with regard to the abutters, I like
I always ear on the side of wanting to take everyone's concern, but I agree with what you said. They either fall under the requirements of our jurisdiction or they don't. >> So, we don't really have any, you know, say in the matter if it does not fall
under our jurisdiction. And I think they would have to be 5,000 square feet. Is that right? >> To fall under the local >> to fall under our jurisdiction. So if they're not larger than 5,000 square feet, we don't have a say in what happens to that property. And um we
can't protect that space because it doesn't fall within our legal bounds. But practically speaking, this is I think just so I'm clear. If if we agree that these are two isolated wetlands, then there would be no further jurisdiction from this organization.
>> Correct. >> And it's just I think the question is are we comfortable with that? um based on the evidence that's been shown. I I I don't I wasn't at the site visit so I really can't comment on that. But I do think that uh that that is to me if we
decide that it is too isolated vegetated wetlands uh there's no further jurisdiction from the group as long as you understand that that might be the right answer but as long as we understand that. So >> so I had a question about that butter uh [clears throat]
concern as well. I believe it was um whoever's on the corner uh abuing the larger of the isolated wetlands. So J Judith, I forget her name. Um her concern was that she had recalled having
to go through the permitting process in the back in in the past. Um and clearly there's no other resource areas on her lot. Um so were we able to dig up any of that and see? I tried to find that. It
was a file from ways back. Things have, I think, changed a bit over time. >> 1990s. >> Yeah. It was a quite an older file on the property. Yeah. >> And so none of the other parcels have had to file anything based on
>> I didn't check each surrounding parcel to confirm for sure. >> I tried to, but also had a tough time digging that up. So, so Emily, just to clarify, you were on the abuing lot where the person made the comment via the email and that they had to go
through some sort of permitting process. You couldn't find anything on that. >> Um, let me take a look. Just give me one quick second. >> And there were two comments. One, the woman that spoke last time, she was actually the concern about the other property across the street, >> if you recall. That's 2 267. I don't
remember the address right now, but that was her concern, which I think was was addressed. But they're right. There's a second butter comment on there isn't a butter comment on this particular property. >> One second. >> This might take a quick second. I'm
going through We have a spreadsheet that has every file here. >> So during the site visit, were you or another scientist able to get out to >> meet on site?
>> Okay. Yeah. burned on. >> And so on the site there is a noticeable change in elevation between the two depressions. Yeah. >> Is what you saw? >> Yeah. >> Okay, great.
>> And they were properly flagged >> and I felt like I've been on a lot of site visits. I felt that their wetland scientist did a really nice job explaining everything, talking about the vegetation, the type of soils he found in different locations. >> And so they were able to show you the
soil between the two areas. >> I I was just going to ask that question. I don't remember him. He had the >> I don't know if he showed the soil between the two, but >> he never really talked about the soil >> in the report that he gave. I don't know if you guys were able to access that. I think everybody had it online. And I
think within that report, he talked about the soils and what they were. I'm not 110% that the space between the two would also be a different soil, but I think the soils that were within those uh wetland areas um weren't that it was
like really really down at the bottom of the um the space and it was also there wasn't a lot, >> right? >> But you might know a little bit more about the soil piece. So mainly found in the central portions of these depressions
too and we have some concentrations foundation kind of up in the edges that you see there. Um which is why we flag that compound. Uh but at the bottom of it those
uh live pretty well Where is the BM that you were discussing between the properties? >> Yeah. >> Between the the two wetlands areas. Yeah. >> It's located on You see how this bumps
up here? >> Kind of extends like this and right there. And >> can we see the picture? I don't know who's controlling this. >> Yes. But just a couple sheets up. I
think there was a picture of the >> one sec. Oops. >> I was surprised there wasn't a better picture of the upland area between the isolated wetlands because that's really the biggest concern I have. I I measured it out. If there were a connection between
these wetlands, it would be 6,000 square ft. So >> Oh, I see. That would put us >> back into. >> So, which one of these photos is the berm between the wetlands? >> I can scroll further if you need me to.
As I recall, it really wasn't much of a burn. There might have been a little rise in the soil. >> Was that >> Oh, yeah. [snorts] I think that's all of them. >> I believe that that was all of the
photos in the packet. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. Did you say back to these ones? Sorry. It's a little tough to hear. >> Okay. Sorry. located. You can start to see like from here going this way.
Um it was less so um it was less so the fact that there was like there was no defined connection between these two. uh channelization like definitation
would constitute a surface water conse >> well unless there's hydric soils between >> yeah but that would be but umation and my recent Okay. And I think the smaller of the two
wetlands that was further into the forest from the street, I think that that was um obtaining a lot of water that was coming off the roof because there was an underground pipe and that so like that second wetland was I mean
it might have been taking in some water but a lot of that water I think was probably coming off the house. >> That was the first one. Mary, there's the one closer to the street. >> Oh, was it closer? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
[clears throat] the the the drawing of the wide up again, please. >> Sorry, I'll go back to that. Sorry about that. One second. >> The property to the as we as you were
looking at the house behind the house to the left of the house was a good probably a 15t hill. >> Hill. >> Yeah. >> Uh so all that water is coming down and I think it's one of the neighbors objection is where's that water going to
go? So, uh, and from what I saw of that piece of property, these were just two low spots. Uh, so, you know, they're going to collect and they're going to have some, u wetlands characteristics. Uh, so, you know, I'm inclined to say it's
not a big deal, but just that the the neighbors are saying about the water. I just don't want to give away our jurisdiction too quickly. I mean, if if someone comes along with plans to to build a nice big house here or if they want to subdivide, we we have to reserve
the right >> to say, "All right, we want to study this a little bit more." I think if we give a negative deterine determination of applicability, we're kind of washing our hands of the whole thing and they can do whatever they would like on that law. >> And I don't think we're ready to do that yet. At least personally, I'm not
>> like I see that as, you know, not being within our our rights as a commission because it either meets the 5,000 square foot standard or it doesn't. And like I feel the same way
that you do. I would love to be able to say that for the neighbors, but we are not here for the neighbors and we're not run by the neighbors. we're run by the guidelines that we're given. And as much as I feel the same way, the reality is
um we either agree with what's been tagged and discussed in what we saw and I think you have knowledge of that. We either can agree to that. Um, if we choose that that's not what we think is
we can't say that because of what we think about the neighbors because the only way we could say we're going to not accept what they require what they want are requesting is to prove that those two wetlands are in fact indeed larger
than 5,000 square ft. That's the only in in my opinion and I can double check with you. Unless it's larger than 5,000 square ft, we don't have jurisdiction. >> So, just to give you some my thoughts, I wasn't at the site visit, but I was here
at the last meeting. Um, >> in the comments I made last time, I think we'll be fairly consistent, which is so this is a piece of, if you will, pristine property right now. There's been nothing that's happened there. And I just feel as though where the and there's no dispersions on on your on
your folks or you or your folks, but where the applicant is the group that's providing the information, I come down on the side of doing it some kind of a peer review. I just think when you have, you know, the applicant providing this information and for us having to be able to explain it going forward that to be
able to say when this, especially when it's new, like if you were pristine, there's nothing there now. We would like to have a peer review. We're not saying that this is wrong. is just saying that it gives an opportunity for a third party uh to look at it. That's kind of where I'm parked from the standpoint of
explaining this down the road, how we got to this point. >> My my two cents uh on it now. So, >> so with the peer review, how does that work? [clears throat] So that is um what I would do if the commission votes tonight that they would like to have a peer review and the applicant is in
agreement with that um then what I would do is put out requests for proposals to three different environmental companies, let them know what we're looking for, send them the application and the information that is requested and then they'll get back with their um estimation of costs and timeline and then we'll I'll work with that firm or
um or group to get the peer review conducted. And then as soon as we get the results, we'll obviously share that with the applicant and review that at the next hearing. So that's >> Do they basically review the documentation? They don't have to go out and reffl [clears throat and cough] I felt the documentation was pretty solid with
descriptions, but I I can understand wanting the peer review. Um >> if those Yes. at the time that I was there.
Um just so that is there any question on the itself or is it a question? I think it's a question of expertise where the board is not able to go out
here and look at the conditions themselves in a way that would really make that decision final. um >> um installed before we receive just so you guys can answer questions.
>> I'm not super familiar with that process. I don't know if >> Yeah, I mean if the applicant and the commissioner open to it, we could certainly schedule another site. So, we would continue the hearing for tonight um without requesting the peer review quite yet and just continue in order to
do another site visit and then um this would be back on the agenda for the meeting on July 23rd. I I think if you're amendable to that, I would love to just run out there and and take a couple pokes in the soil in that area in between, which normally I I I
would not be so concerned, but if you just connect the four flags where it's separated, then you get over 400 ft. So that's what I would be concerned about. Just the just right where Yeah. If you were to just draw straight lines right there,
that's enough to bump it over 5,000 square feet. So that's where I'm feeling like it's worth being picky here to >> Mhm. >> So Emily, is that the the sole criteria that determines if we have >> jurisdiction or not?
>> There are other jurisdictions under the local bylaw. There's but the first one is the first threshold is 5,000 square feet. Um if it's under then Oh yeah, go ahead. Sorry. >> I also want to know it's not just in terms of what I'm
as well as you just need the hydric soils to prove that under normal circumstances there would be hydrophic vegetation. So if an area is clear >> that is not true.
>> All right. >> I wouldn't say this unless >> so in a disturbed area with no vegetation >> that's separate. an area. >> Okay, cool.
>> I'm fine with that approach. I mean, I'm good going out. I mean, if it's quick, we can do it. >> So, I mean, it's up to the commission, the applicant if you want to say site visit or if you want to move forward with the peer review or if you're ready to vote tonight. Basically, >> a site visit is a better idea. >> I think it would save the applicant a
lot of a lot of time. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that that would be okay >> if you guys feel like you want to do that. >> That's okay. We have to schedule another site visit before July 23rd so that we can Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. >> I'm sorry I wasn't able to make the
>> the previous site visit. So that's Yeah. So >> yeah, >> Emily, since I will not be able to be here on the 23rd, I think I would just encourage you to en encourage Mike Splain. >> Definitely get there because >> I'll make sure that I can coordinate this to get um Paul, Andrew, Mike, and
um Mike and Mike. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I won't be here either. >> Okay. >> So what happens? What I'm just curious. So um we visit the site and we look at it and we say, "Oh my, you know, we come down." Yes or no. like it's clear it is or isn't. Is there a written report? Is it just gets presented back here at the
meeting? >> Um it's so we would do the site visit and then kind of similar to what we're doing tonight. We did the site visit earlier this week and then here so the commission can discuss it make a determination. So ideally after that site visit when we come back on the 23rd that's when the commission >> it has to be here in the commission. I'm just that's I guess is my question. The
decisions have to be made here in this form. >> Yep. It has to be a um in [clears throat] a public advertised form on a posted agenda in order to make that decision. And there was a really nice document that um your wetland scientist put together that was um and it was in
our um the original. >> Yeah, it was really thorough I thought. So it would be good to take a look at that ahead of time. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other questions? We good? All right.
So, this is here and is there anybody in the public that would like to speak? >> I know Dorian, I see you here online. Is there anything that you wanted to add in as the as the applicant or as the property owner? >> No, I there's no no comments online and
>> All right, we're good. Um, and we don't have any other questions. already did that. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um, Dorian has his hand raised. Uh, Dorian, if you can let me see if I can unmute you here. >> Uh, all right, Dorian, you're all set. If you could please um, can you guys hear me?
>> Yes. >> Hi. Um, good evening. Uh, so yeah, I'm Dorian. I am the property owner. Um, and, um, I guess my question is, what's the reason of the second site visit? because I think we had the same discussion last time and we agreed that we would have a site visit. I mean this
are stamped drawings by engineers and you know it's it's not me who put these drawings together. I paid obviously a special company which is what they specialize on and these are the findings that they found. So are we saying that these are not correct? I thought that was the reason we went to the site and
visit this week and we uh had an agreement that you know everything seems legit. So now is does that change? Um I'm not really sure why the second site visit that's why we pushed it last time. >> Yeah. Um just so I can answer for you.
Um the reason for the second site visit is not all not all the commission members or a majority of the commission members could make it to that site visit >> and feel comfortable voting on this feeling. >> All right. I mean, if that's what you
guys think needs to be done, then um I'll um we'll push to next week. I mean, whatever you guys think. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Dorian. >> Thank you. >> Um was there anybody else? Are we all
good? All right. >> Um can someone make a motion to continue the hearing for 264 Center Street? I'll make a motion that we continue that the hearing for 264 Santa Street uh Danver's Conservation Commission file
number 2026-03 uh until our meeting on July the 23rd. >> Is there a second? >> A second. >> In favor? >> I I >> All right, you're all set. Thank you so much
and thank you for being understanding. [clears throat] >> Um I'll get >> Stick around. I'll show you the where it >> if you stick around. I'll show you the Wetlands Protection Act where it explains the indicators. >> Yeah, >> that's okay. I need to get home. >> Thank you guys. Good night.
>> All right. Thank you, Joanne. >> Bring that to the site visit. >> All right. So, we're good with that. >> And we're good to go on. Has everybody here read the um >> absolutely >> the minutes? >> Good.
>> And we're ready to vote on the June 25th minutes. >> Um could I get a motion to accept the minutes? >> I move to accept the minutes from June 25th. Sorry. >> Second. >> Yeah, that's right. >> 2026. >> Could I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> All right. And do we have any new business? Um next meeting is July 23rd. We have this RDA that's going to be continued and then another RDA and a certificate of compliance. So, we'll have three applications for that evening. Um, and
>> what's the next RDA? >> Um, it is for 51 Newbury Street. Um, which also goes by 48 Crane Brook Drive. Um, it's a the um I believe that it's a hotel now, but it's going to be
switching over. um they got their approval from zoning and it's a small area that is currently a shed that they need to remove and put down a little bit of paving >> Mhm. >> on it. So one parking space. >> Okay. All right.
>> All right. >> Are we journed? >> Uh yeah. Can we get a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> All in favor? Bye. >> All right.