and so it was just their interpretation. >> The mics are on. >> We all set. >> Start it off with >> How long will it take you? >> A little a second. Oh. So, how do we start? >> Okay. We'll give we'll give you the five after and we'll start.
>> All right. Greg's >> I'll put him under the gun. >> What's that? >> I said we can't start until we're live. Right. But yes, 100%. Yes. I I agree completely. If it's not recorded, we're not doing it. If we can't record it, we're not doing it.
>> Are we live now? Are mics on? >> We're live. >> And is everything recording? >> Yes. To both. Mics are on and we're recording. >> Mics are on. We're not live. >> We're not video. Not on YouTube. Just not on YouTube.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Good evening. Welcome to the Danvers Conservation Commission. >> Speak of >> October the 23rd, 2025. Uh we operate under the Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40,
the Wetlands Protection Act, and Chapter 26 of the Town of Danver's general bylaw, the Wetlands Protection bylaw. After each 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's required by law that you give your name and your address before you speak. Although we may disagree on the issues raised, all persons present during this meeting are expected to be civil to all of the meeting attendees. This includes members of the commission, staff, abutters, concerned citizens,
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 over matters such as noise or traffic. All problems not related to the wetlands
protection act and the town of Denver's wetlands protection bylaw must be taken up with other boards. Uh just first order of business or logistics wise I guess we are having some technical difficulties. So, right now we're just on audio with no video and we cannot
have any remote input at the moment. Okay. >> Yep. They're working on it right now. >> So, we'll proceed with our first agenda item because I presume those people are present. Uh but before we start, I'm going to just roll call. Peter Wilson is present.
>> Lorraine Drape >> present. >> Mary Heights >> present. >> Michael Splain >> here. and Paul McNelte, >> which we would like to welcome as our fifth member. We've been long anticipating having a fifth member. So,
welcome Paul. Uh, and just uh further clarification, >> the uh there's one u item tonight, 46 Riverside Street, uh the notice of intent. Paul will not be able to participate in that because he's not been privy to the previous meetings on
this particular but all the others are u open starting tonight so he can't participate for those uh and a further clarification uh with some give and take with the town council >> and uh our
quorum uh status. Our last meeting we only had three members present and there was a little discrepancy as to how the voting would go. Originally, we thought that it would need to be unanimous. So, three members of the board would have to vote to accept a proposal. Uh but after
some give and take, it's been uh discovered that a simple majority of the quorum or 2:1 would mean approval. Uh so going forward, hopefully we'll never get into that situation where we have just three members. Hopefully have at least
four or five. Uh okay. Uh the first item on our agenda is a request for partial certificate of compliance for seven Hutton Street. The D file number was 414-0355. Uh the applicant is Kathy
>> Chadwick teams right now just Hello Kathy, thanks for coming. Uh and you are >> uh yeah Thorly professional wetland scientist from Williams insp. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. just give us an overview what the this whole
>> Sure. Yeah. So, this um the plan you're looking at here is an existing conditions plan uh our office prepared for 7 Hutton Street. Um there was an order of conditions uh issued in the late 1980s for the construction of this house, development of this lot and one
lot um just above it. Um the reason it's a partial is because the lots have since sold um to new owners and the other lot is owned by somebody else. So we're here tonight requesting a partial certificate compliance just for 7 Hutton Street. Um
the unique part about this one is that um us and Emily and Kathy have all tried to find some uh reference to or an approved plan somewhere. Uh it doesn't appear to exist in the town files. Uh
Kathy even reached out to the engineers um who permitted the project in the 80s and they could not find any record of it either. Um you know so we we did go through the effort of preparing this plan even though we don't have much to compare it to just to show the commission you know what's here on the
ground. Um you can see on the uh left hand side of the the drawing we have the wetland boundary that was shown on that approved plan. A little bit of a buffer um coming up to an existing lawn area which is the half uh circle line there.
Um and the from there the area slopes up a little bit and comes up to the single family house which was constructed in the in the late 1980s. um a paved driveway, uh a small deck and a stone stone parking area on the front side of
the dwelling facing Hutton Street. Um you know, anecdotally, I think when you go to the site, um you know, you can see that there didn't appear to be much encroachment beyond what I would say is, you know, the a logical place to start or stop a development. The edge of the
lawn exists right along the toe of a slope. My guess is the erosion controls were installed right there. and um they worked up from there building the house and and driveway and and whatnot, developing the site. Um you know, we went through the order of conditions. We
didn't see anything in there that um was violated or you know, that that caught our eye as a concern. Um so we submitted the request for certificate compliance noting that there did not appear to be any substantial deviations from the at least the order of conditions. So, with
that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Or >> can you show me on the map where the the second lot is? >> And these were two connected lots at one point, >> I believe. So, yes. And they were subdivided. >> I'm sorry. Could you just let us You
have to go up to the microphone and introduce yourself before you speak. That's all. That's okay. It's okay. that one. I did that one. >> It's on this side. >> We're just gonna >> Kathy Chadwick and I'm here for seven Hutton.
>> That was my dad's property that was >> will to him back in the >> would >> be in the back >> 80 uh actually I think it was in the 50s. Um, so my dad had this large par, it's not even a large parcel of land, but he was able to subdivide it into two
lots with the lot that he took, which is lot one for his sole um home that he he planned on building and he sold the other lot. >> I don't know when >> and the original require
>> the original order of conditions was issued for both lots. Um yes, the original order of conditions was to develop each lot and then lot two ended up getting their own separate order of conditions that was issued and closed out in
um 1995. But then this original one was just never >> So this original one's just been open for that that long. >> Just been open. Yeah. >> Um and so there's no original plan. So we don't know if there's an asbuilt. >> Nope. I I searched every file in town
hall that I could find. um we couldn't locate any. So the recommendation from D was to get an existing conditions plan to at least memorialize what's on site should any future development be proposed. We are saying that what is on site is final should
>> and is and is what's there now um agreeable with all our wetlands regulations. >> It's it seems to be especially with what had been proposed or what the rags were back then. So yeah, we have no concerns with getting this closed out. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. Um, that's all I have. Mike, any questions?
>> Um, well, were you able to compare the original notice of intent with what's here now? >> So, we don't we didn't have a plan to even to go off of. >> No, you didn't. >> No. >> So, when the u the order of conditions
was recorded, what was recorded with it? >> There was a plan, but then that plan had been modified and we have no copy of that modified plan anywhere. and and the original plan does not um >> it shows the structure that's similar to this but without having that modified we
can't say yes 100% this was built according to what that modified plan was because it >> yeah and >> decades of files we couldn't find it >> and whatever was built when was it built >> 90s >> the 90s >> yeah I think early 90s >> when that was built >> 1989
>> 1989 >> and there's no building permit application or anything >> there was >> there was Yeah, absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Okay, that's all I have. I think >> but the the separate lot is all closed out. >> The separate lot is still open for this.
So, this is just closing out lot one. Lot two that's on 12 Glen Street is still open or 12 Glenn Avenue is still open. >> Is there a CLC on that? >> No. >> No, >> no. For this file number at 12 Glenn Avenue, no. So, we'll be reaching out to those homeowners to get their own partial COC. So, this is just to close
out the seven Hutton portion of it. >> Okay. And is this to facilitate a sale? >> Are you Is this >> And Kathy, I'm sorry. Please go up to the microphone. Sorry. Thank you. >> Did you check the other lot to see if the plan might be with that file?
>> It wasn't. >> No. Thank you. >> So, my father unfortunately passed away August 2nd. He's not here to see this. He he we learned about this about a year ago. Um so, the plan is to eventually sell the house. that has to go into
probate. There's six kids. It's a little bit complicated, unfortunately. So, it might be there for about a year before we can sell it. I can sell it. Okay. >> As is as the uh personal representative. >> Okay, great. Thanks, Paul. Any
questions? >> Probably a dumb question, but where can you actually point out where the the wetlands are in there? The that's the 100 the dotted 100 foot tall >> there. Okay. Okay. >> And does riverfront come into play at
all? I know there's, you know, >> Yeah, there there would have been a river, I think, riverfront area here down um on the uh westerly portion of the property. It's a tidal river, but that didn't exist in the 80s.
It came in the mid 90s. >> Okay. Uh Paul, you all set? >> Yeah. Thank you. Yes. >> Lorine, any questions? >> I don't have any questions. >> Mary, >> I'm good. >> Okay. Um I mean, it seems to me pretty straightforward. So, if someone can make a motion, we'll give them their
certificate of compliance. >> I'll make a motion that we issue a certificate of compliance. >> Just just a partial C. >> It's going to be a partial, isn't it? A partial certificate of compliance for 7 Hutton Street DP file number 14-0355
applicant Kathy Chadwick. >> I second the motion. >> Uh just a quick question before we vote. Yes. >> What is the the other the parcels the other Glenn A property? >> Yes. >> So we're just splitting this but just allowing this piece of property.
>> Correct. This is releasing just seven Hutton A from the order of conduction. >> Okay. All right. Uh motion's been made and seconded. All in favor? I >> Okay. Uh, can we proceed with 80 Water Street or should we >> um Yes. Yep. I got the thumbs up from it. We should be also have to proceed with 80 water.
>> Okay. >> Oh, just a question for staff if you don't mind. How if someone uh wants to weigh in, how are they going to do that from the public? >> They they've fixed it. So, the person the person that's remote, he's up there right now, the JH on the bottom of the screen. He'll be able to come in
remotely. I'm going to unmute him right now. >> All right. Thank you. >> Sure. >> All right. Next order of business is a request for a certificate of compliance for 80 Water Street Dawn number 14-1217. The applicant is Peter McKinnon and
Emily. Was this a partial again? >> No, no, this is a full COC, but they only it's just for one portion of the work they're submitting. >> So, one particular project. Do they have a separate order conditions for the other work? >> Oh, no. They're going to be submitting a new NOI for other work on the property.
This is just to close out an expired order. >> Was the work done? >> One portion of it. It's the will be able to to review that. >> Okay. Because uh this applicant was in front of us >> within the past year or so. >> I think I can help you guys make make
sense of all the different layers that that are on this property. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, for the public record, my name is David Cowell. I'm a senior wetland s scientist with Hancock Associates here tonight on on behalf of Peter McKinnon. So, as as you're implying, um um Peter,
that this um this this property, there's been um um odds and ends of of work that he's done without a permit that were subject to an enforcement. And um we've been trying to work with him to to bring into compliance um the work that he did.
And there is a forthcoming notice of intent. It's it's long coming and I I' I regret how long it's taken, but I' I've talked to Emily and we're planning on filing that on Monday. to meet the filing deadline to to be on your hearing uh in November. Um so in in terms of of
basically bifurcating what work was done on the property that without a permit that is is subject to enforcement that needs either after the fact permitting or modifications to make it um conforming to regulations. Not only conservation commission, but there's
been there was a ZBA issue out here as well on on zoning. So, um, tonight this is a request for a certificate on a permit that he was issued in 2014. I I think it was that permitted um the construction of a single family home
addition. So, Hancock Associates did um as as built well, we did existing condition survey of what exists out there today, but that constitutes asbuilt survey of what what he had constructed. So, we looked at the 2014
permit and we had our civil engineers review the the asbuilt and determined that the addition that he did build under the 2014 permit was in fact um built according to specification and it's only that person that we're looking
to have uh the request for a certificate issued on. So, it would be a certificate compliant on that 2014 order of conditions. the other associated work that's out here. Um there was a a shed that was constructed. Um we learned that
that shed was non-conforming to ZBA. So we've since worked with the applicant to design a shed that we will be you you will be seeing in this forthcoming notice of intent that is ZBA compliant that that it was a height requirement and a setback requirement. So, um he's
in process of removing the shed that that was he he built an error and uh we are we will be looking for permission to build a different shed. Um the retaining walls out here, this is a property um um located on the Crane River where he has um I think there's like three different
tiers of retaining walls as he staggers down to the river. Um it was observed that he had done some work on those retaining walls. That was the result of an auto accident. There was a a car that actually um the accident resulted in and
I forgive me, Peter, was it your car or the the the other car that went over the fence and both they they um it went over his fence and down and and and damaged those retaining walls. So, um as and again, I don't want to get into anything that'll be subject to deliberation under
the notice of intent, but again, just updating you that retaining wall we determined was um repaired in kind um as it had been damaged. It's a stone and and mortar wall. So, we're looking to have that covered under the notice of intent as well. And he also has a a
modest um dock out here in a a gang way that goes down to it. And um it was discovered that that was never permitted. So, um we we worked with a company called Five Fathoms Consulting to assess whether or not it doesn't have a chapter 91 waterway license either.
So, we worked with Five Fathoms Consulting to look at what exists there today and see how we might modify it to meet um standards that would be expected under a chapter 91 waterways license and based on comments received from the Danvers Harbor Master. So, that's
forthcoming as well. We'd like to have that permitted. Um there there will you'll see we'll in the forthcoming thing there's there's not there's no increase of surface area but there's a few minor structural modifications to make to it to to make it conforming which we we will propose. Um and then
we're hoping to get the order of conditions and um once the commission verifies that it's approvable under the wetlands protection act and your local bylaw will pursue the chapter 91 waterway license. We're sitting on that application until we make sure that there's no revisions that would come out
of the conservation commission. So that's it in a nutshell. Tonight we're here on on the request for a certificate for the 2014 permit which we we believe through as built survey have confirmed that it was built according to specification. And um we're looking forward to to being in front of you
again next month um with this notice of intent application to um address any any modifications that he made without a permit that requires after the fact permitting from from the commission. With that, I would entertain any
questions if you guys have any for me. >> I have a question for staff at first. Okay. Um so we do have separate NOI applications. >> The applicant will be submitting a separate NOI. No, for the second but for the um for the addition that we're talking about right now. That's
>> this is this one sort of conditions for the addition. So that's >> you've been out to inspect it and >> as built is is conforming. >> Oh, okay. Uh Mike, have any questions? Um does the uh the subject of the
enforcement order have anything to do with what we're seeing tonight? >> Um no. The applicant has been responsive and has been working with us throughout the entire summer to try to get this all resolved. So, as a first step, it was this is an old expired permit. Let's get this closed out. Anything that's after
the fact and any new work is going to go on to the new NOI. >> And what's the status of the enforcement order now? >> Um, this will effectively clean up most of that and then the new NOI will address the rest of that too. >> The enforcement order was over floats.
>> Yeah. And that's being addressed in the new application when that comes in. >> Thank you, >> Paul. Any questions? >> I maybe just a general question. Is it common for staff to go out and just check the properties to to make sure the work's done? That's how it gets it done. >> Yep. All the time. >> All right.
>> For certificate of compliance, they have what they call the asbuilt plan, and they compare that to the proposed plan when we issued an order of conditions. And >> if the two of them line up, well, we're good to go. >> Thank you. >> Uh Lorraine, any questions? No questions, >> Mary. >> I'm good.
>> Uh, okay. So, so do we just word a motion against this? >> Sure. >> Yes. >> Oh, I'm sorry. It sounds like there's someone online that would like to speak, Pete. Is that okay? >> Um, okay. Who is that, please? >> Good evening. My name is uh Jared
Hawkman. I'm an attorney for the law office at one Sprag Street, River, Massachusetts, and I represent um Tom Thomas Green who resides at 82 Water Street, Danvers, Massachusetts. >> Okay.
>> And I'm appearing before you tonight to ask that the um certificate of compliance not be issued. Uh and the reason that my client is asking for that is because of all the non uh conforming structures that have been built on this
property. Um without proper permitting, without proper notice to the conservation commission, the um town of Danver's uh planning technician, Brian Cassidy, issued a cease and desist from work to be performed on this property in
on June 26, 2024. uh which has not um been honored. Uh structures that have been asked to stop being worked on uh were worked on after that. Um the applicant is uh seeking uh
to close out an order of conditions from 2014 when uh he knew that he would need another order of conditions for the additional work to be performed um based upon the original application in 2014
yet sought to do work without uh an order of conditions or with ZBA approval. Uh, I would ask that you hold this matter until that subsequent NOI is filed because there's a history with
this applicant for non-compliance. >> Okay. So, noted. Um, board members, any comments? Well, just that uh this is the first time this is before us. And when are they filing when are you anticipate you're filing the notice of intent?
>> We plan on filing the notice of intent finalizing it tomorrow for submitt on Monday to meet a filing deadline to be on your November >> 13th >> 13th hearing. >> Well, maybe we should put the order of condition the COC over until we see the notice of intent and see how they
relate. is uh >> here. What's your reasoning? What's your logic for trying to get a certificate of compliance for one piece? >> We're completely indifferent in the context that we were asked to file the request for certificate by the conservation commission in order to
differentiate that which was permitted and that which hasn't been permitted. This was at the request. >> More light on what's going on there. >> Yeah. There's no sense of urgency on our part that that this matter is resolved tonight that you issue the the certificate of compliance. It it's happy
to continue the hearing until you see the notice of intent. But this again, it was at the request of the commission to file the request for a certificate and the separate notice of intent to differentiate that which was permitted and that which hasn't. >> Okay. So, Emily, I'm going to put you on
the spot. What? But >> well, we'll make a motion to continue. No, I just I just wanted to find out uh staff's reasoning for wanting to get one cleaned up without the other one uh being talked about at the same time. >> Sure. So, this is an old expired order,
so no work can be done under this order anyway. So, this was a first step in getting the property cleaned up um and getting the deeds cleaned up on the property so that a a new NOI will be a fresh start. You're welcome to continue, of course, to do both at the same time to compare and contrast. Yeah. >> Yeah, I think we probably should.
>> Yeah, I do too. >> Okay. Uh, okay. So, if that's the question, if that's our decision, is there Mary and Lorraine go with that? [Music] >> Okay, Mike. >> All right. I I'll make >> attorney had to work and give us a a
nicely worded motion there. >> Uh, I'll make a motion to continue the um application for a COC for a certificate of compliance for 80 Water Street Dile number 14-1247.
applicant Peter McKinnon. Uh you want that to our is that to our next date or will you have your notice of intent filed by then? >> Oh yeah, that's Monday. Yep. This coming Monday. >> So when is our next meeting? 11 >> 11:13. >> 11:13. >> 11:13 then.
>> Okay. The motion's been made. Is there a second? >> I second the motion. >> All in favor? >> I >> I Okay, so we'll see you. Thank you. We'll see you in a month. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you, J. Uh, okay. Next up is a notice of intent for 46 Riverside Street, D file number
14-1440. The applicants are Adam and Genevieve Wood, and this has been continued since sometime in September. Uh, just a quick refresher from my mind, Emily, why did we continue the last
time? >> I thought maybe Bob >> because they thought it was going to need a unanimous vote, I think. No, that that I think that was before that. >> No, the last meeting. It was the last meeting. >> It was the last one. >> Last meeting. >> Why did they continue from October 9th?
>> I believe that it was because there were three members here. But you can ask the applicants of course. >> Bob, what's your recollection of >> why we continued? >> Yeah, we were concerned about the attendance. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, there were just three of us. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. >> The more the merrier. >> Let's proceed.
>> Okay. So, thank you very much. So uh you know this project started back in March when we first provided plans to the harbor master and uh the the town before we had filed our application. We talked about the locations the work along the
shoreline and the need to provide a certain length to achieve you know full title access and uh so we we've incorporated the comments in the spring before we filed and obviously we filed again uh in July. some additional
comments came up from the conservation commission regarding the number of piles and the locations and so uh the woods uh I think were very responsive always really to all the comments that have come up and they decided to go to the more expensive aluminum truss systems uh
which probably haved the number of piles to be driven in the river and it also significantly increases the span of the piles you know from pile bent to pile bent. So our current plan which is here are nine our September 4th plan you know
shows a pair of pile bents there another there there those are about 45 ft apart and I think that's really generous for uh anybody who wants to uh maneuver small watercraft outside the main channel of the river. Um, you know, I I
can't imagine not being able to negotiate your small watercraft through something that's 45 ft wide. Um, and I think that, you know, again, the we've tried to accommodate all of the requests that have come up this, uh, during the process, we were provided a copy of the
2025 dredging feasibility report that the town had commissioned from FAT infrastructure. And uh in the FAT report they make the point of uh saying you know this is an area that the city or the town might decide to widen the river in the future.
So we currently have a 100 foot channel which is shown from this blue line to this blue line out in front of the property. Um and you know we're quite a distance away from there. We're about 60s something feet away from the current channel at our closest point here. But
the FTH report discussed, well, if the town has enough money and they decide that they want to dredge the the river to a wider channel, uh it would go up to 150 ft. We would still be 100 we'd still be 17t away from that wider channel. We looked at the side slope issue and uh
determined that we would not have to move anything uh if the town went ahead with that project. Nevertheless, the Woods have committed to you on several occasions now that if the plans change such that, you know, this is in the way, then they will move it. And and so
they're they're very sincere. They don't want to uh try to uh make things difficult for anybody. They obviously have got a good design here. We've uh meet all of the regulatory criteria. We have shoreline access here of 7 feet where 5T is required. Uh we've again
tried to use very environmentally sensitive materials. the aluminum uh with the flow through decking. Uh we meet the town requirements regarding the size of the docks and the out in the river. So um again, I think we've done a an earnest job in trying to meet all
performance criteria. Uh just before our last meeting which sort of got continued, I had provided a letter with some pictures and I don't know if you've had a chance to see those, but I did bring copies of them with me and we could probably bring them up if necessary. But, you know, the existing
pier at the wood property. Uh, well, yeah, we can we can go with this one for a minute. This was a a a graphic that I included with our October letter. And what you can see here is this area here is the existing
wood pier with the floats out here resting on uh the mud. This happens to be a winter picture. So it turns out that the floats are actually tied up to the shoreline here. Uh but you know those floats uh every single title cycle are down you know hitting the mud and
disturbing and creating silt and you know not really uh beneficial to water quality. And so that's one of the reasons to to put the proposed floats out here at the deeper water. Uh so there would be no need for you know this regular mud disturbance. Um, we also talked at an earlier meeting about the
safer aspect of having a deeper uh water access. There's nobody be rushing back to get to the home because, you know, the tide's going out. We're a little behind schedule. There's no concerns about people trying to do prop dredging so that they can deepen their uh
birthing area. Um, and uh so there there's a lot of reasons to have uh regular uh water access. And really what you know what's needed uh is just or what's designed is really just enough to provide that full title access. So we don't we're not going any further than
is required to accomp accomplish that. That's consistent with the D regulations. It's consistent with the chapter 91 regulations. uh you know very specifically the the the waterways regulations say that you know you for these residential structures you should should put them no longer than is
necessary to achieve the water dependent purpose for which they are designed and that's what what we have here we have a water dependent uh boating facility here and it's only to the extent necessary. Now, if we look at the other uh peers in the area, so we've got the existing one
at 42. We're a little further from that one. You can even see how the the shallow water here uh would impact boating if you tried to use that area. This is the one that's just finishing up the permitting at uh uh with the chapter 91 process. I understand that a draft permit has been issued for that. It's
already achieved Danver Conservation Commission approval. It's certainly closer to the channel by a significant amount as compared to the wood project. Here we have these other peers on the opposite side of the river um closer to the channel again than the wood pier. Um
and uh some people had also suggested at one point in the process that there was a there's a regulation that says something like you can only go 25% of the width of the river in a linear water in a linear waterway. And that's really not a regulation in any D regulation.
There is a 1996 guidance document from the core of engineers which refers to this and really what it says is in a linear waterway and you can assume similar conditions on each side of the waterway we want to save 50% the middle area for the boating traveling public
and that would provide 25% on each side. In this particular case when we measure from our mean low water line here to our mean low water line on the opposite side we get 360 ft. So 25% of that is 90 feet. Now we're a little bit more than
90 feet here. We're about 110 I think. But over here you're less than 90 ft by quite a bit. And it turns out that actually if you go from this these uh floats or peers on this side to this side, you're over 50%. We're about 53%. So we really meet that uh that criteria
in any event. It's just that the shape of the bottom is not symmetrical on both sides of the river. And that's why um that comment I think has come up. We also um back to the pictures for a moment. We have an existing wood pier at
the Woods's property that is clearly deteriorated, clearly needs replacement. It just just is not safe. Uh I don't think it's safe to have the uh floats bouncing around in the mud every day. We also have the pictures that we provided about the deteriorated concrete seaw
wall. This is not long for the world. And so part of our project involves repairing the seaw wall here at the shoreline. The other advantage of the of using the uh seaw wall repairs is part of our pier project is it moves the pier
construction 50 ft closer to the center of the river than the current location. So right now we start back here and here we start up here. That's about a 50-ft gain uh in uh in access. Um, let's see. Uh, I want to point out that
we have no negative comments from D. We actually have a nice letter from Department of Marine Fisheries back in July after we had first filed, and they were fairly complimentary of the design. They said, "Listen, you know, you've you've met the 30-in separation between the mudline and the floats. Uh the they specified some construction techniques
that we've incorporated into the project. The slow start uh pile driving operation, avoiding grounding the barge, uh minimizing the potential for fuel spills, and ensuring upland storage of the floats during the winter season. So again, the you know, just like these floats have been moved to an up
location, these floats can be moved to an up location in the winter. There's also the possibility, and it's a common practice on the river to move your floats onto a moing so that uh so that they're in a safe location. This uh design has a hoist beam at the end of
the gang way so that the uh gang way can be lifted up out of the water and above the flood zone so that when the winter storms occur, that gangway is up and safe from harm. Um so we've got no impact on the potential uh improvement dredging. We have no impact on any
moorings. As you can see, the moorings are really quite a distance away from the wood property here. And uh again, we meet all the performance standards. So, I think that sort of summarizes our project. I'd be happy to address any questions at this time. And I know that before we finished up, Jamie wants to say a few words as well.
>> I'm happy to wait until you ask your questions. >> Um yeah, is that We'll do that. We'll do it that way. So, if you can just wait until we have questions. Um my first question is uh what's the timing on the
construction? Is the the land work going to be done first? >> Uh well I I don't think so. I think that you know the work of the seaw wall uh I think it touches the mean high water line. It requires a chapter 91 license
just like the pier requires a chapter 91 license. The chapter 91 licenses are taking you know 6 months sometimes even a year to get through the process. Uh there's a core of engineer permit as well that's required that typically happens at the same time as the chapter
91 permitting and typically takes less time than the chapter 91 permitting. So I think that we probably won't get much done during the next the next construction season given where we are uh unless uh chapter 91 for some reason speeds up their re uh their performance.
>> Okay. I mean I would like to see that as part of this project. That's what appeals to me the most. Um, and where would the float storage be? >> So, they would have the opportunity to either uh secure a moing in the river to
put the the um floats on a moing or they could bring it to an upland location or they could bring it to a boatyard. >> Okay. There's not much up space on that piece of property, is there? So this uh you can see sort of the high water line here where it hits the this I think if
you could just drag this float up a little bit further it would be out of the title cycle completely. >> Are those floats there now or when was this picture? >> They were this picture this is a 2024 picture. This was before um the woods bought the property but that was the practice at that time. >> Okay. So because I don't think they're
there now are they? >> Um >> no they're not. >> Uh okay. That's all I have for now. Let me uh ask the other members of the board what they have for questions. Mike. >> Yeah. So, Bob, the um you you meet the you meet all the
requirements you site, but you know, our bylaw is a besides that would say that um in addition to meeting the otherwise applicable requirements, you have to prove by a prepoundonderance of the credible evidence that there's no
practical alternative. uh um to the proposed project with less adverse effects and you have to show that uh the uh mitigation members uh measures would have no significant adverse impact and as I just point out
in our bylaw in reviewing activities involving the construction use and maintenance of docks and peers this commission will presume shall presume that the activity is likely to have a significant or cumulative adverse effect
on the resource area values of storm damage prevention, shellfish, fisheries, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, erosion, sediment control, aquaculture, and recreation. So, it's not just that, yeah, we tick all the boxes, but we we
start with a presumption that that this is going to have an adverse effect. Uh our harbor master has weighed in on this. Uh, I see that uh an alternative. I I like that you're fixing the seaw wall. I like that you're moving uh the
pier project closer to the center cuz that's the preferred approach, isn't it? To have it come off the center of the property. I like that it's perpendicular. Um I don't like that it's too long and I think as an alternative it it could be shorter. I mean I think
the longer you make it uh the more uh you run the risk of adverse effects on the habitat, the more you run the risk of adverse effect on the aqua uh the use of the uh the use of the uh waterways and uh frankly I think although you
check all the boxes uh I don't think you overcome and again I'll say it I don't think you overcome the presumption that uh we have to presume assume that there that the activity is likely to have a significant cumulative adverse effect on the
resource area. >> So I disagree with you and and the reason is you and I think it's just as plain as the nose on my face is that you know we have this pier that is you know 180 ft long here and it's in terrible condition and we're going to remove that
dangerous condition. Right. So, so clearly, you know, putting in a longer pier with uh deeper water access has less environmental impacts than this existing structure. And so there's a significant benefit uh to removing this. As I mentioned, you know, these floats out here land on the mud every single
time the tide goes down and therefore impairs water quality. So, we're going to have better water quality as a result of this particular design. Now, you also mentioned mitigation, and part of our project includes adding some infiltration next to the house to improve storm water management. We're
also removing about 600 square ft of concrete that's underneath the wooden deck here. So, we're going to be improving storm water management in that particular area. It does remind me that the town >> Well, that deck's not functional anyway, that wooden deck. Correct. >> Well, it's it's it's usable, but it's
not in great condition. It certainly needs to be upgraded. But my point is that there's a concrete mat underneath the deck which is preventing water absorption into the ground. And so by removing that and adding the infiltration structure next to the house, we're going to be improving the storm water performance in this area.
And that's that's another benefit of this project. So I think that you know the reduced number of piles, the better water quality resulting from this structure and what I think is really safer access to the waterways as compared to this uh to a facility that was shorter. All that would apply to a
shorter pier. Everything you said would you mention that you thought using the uh construction methods you're using or proposing now. >> We are using very appropriate construction methods but I think in your uh statement you mentioned that you think that uh we will be less safe on
the river as a result of this structure than not. And I think the opposite is true. I think this is safer for everybody on the river. Uh and again I think >> yeah you mentioned about people might not get back in the tides from the tides in time. I think people will that live on the river will know the tides.
>> Well, okay. Okay. So, is that what you're you base your safer opinion on just on the fact that you're >> speak? Uh when I'm done asking my question, uh Bob, you you had said that >> I think there's a number of I think
there's a number of safety improvements as a result of this structure. One is the removal of the deteriorated seaw wall, the removal of the deteriorated pier. And I do think having a deep water access is safer for the boers uh because you're less apt to get stuck in the mud somewhere. You're less apt to make a hasty decision because you know that
you're running out of tide time. And uh frankly, I think that uh if you're even in a small watercraft, having a a floating dock uh in the in the water as the tide is going out provides you a place to just, you know, rest for a few minutes. And so I think that these uh
this facility does improve the safety along the waterway. >> Okay. I just wanted to hear a little bit more than we're just removing that existing dock. Um go ahead. >> My name is Jamie Ma from Buchanan and Associates and I'm an environmental
attorney. The reason I so rudely uh pulled the very capable engineer for the moment is you were beginning to go back again to matters that are not wetlands protection act or your bylaw and I appreciate very
much Mr. Splain's knowledge commissioner >> I was reading from the bylaw >> indeed you were but what you were citing to was not resource area protection. I'm going to go through a few things here. I interceded because your decisionmaking
today, as you know, is heavy enough for wetlands protection act and your bylaw. A great deal of this conversation has been about use of the river and that is not what a conservation commission does respectfully.
That is what a harbor master chapter 91 DP and your rivers committee which has been meeting quite recently on that topic. So I'm going to go through a few things very quickly because I know you know your jurisdiction.
Your own agent has said this application meets all your performance standards. It is on the record of the video. The engineer has state and he appears before you all the time. He doesn't speak lightly.
This project meets all the performance standards. The Division of Marine Fisheries has said, "Thanks. It pleases us to see the floats at least 30 ft above the substrate." And even the harbor master
who wrote to you with an unfortunate desire about potential issues about the riverway in general has said this project has minimal impacts. That's the letter dated June 19th of
2025. Now I get to the part which is delicate. I saw on the video voting individuals stating their personal bias against individual docks and peers in the river.
That is not an authorized perspective for making a decision. It is also respectfully against the constitutional rights of all applicants to be treated equally in similar circumstances.
Same facts, same law, same treatment. And if you look at that, you see what you've approved lately. And I think this application comes before you on an equal basis. And in fact, they've done better as your or as the engineer has pointed out. There are many others um that did not do such a
good job as they did in providing for the Wetlands Protection Act and your bylaw. For other people here, I know you know this, but the equal protection under the Constitution doesn't mean just where people get put in terms of jail. It means decision-making by government
bodies. Everybody gets treated the same, including how they get treated here. And one is not authorized to import personal preferences for things like I prefer open water. Or I prefer longtime residents, as
somebody said, not one of you uh to newcomers. That's those are not criteria under the weather. It >> it was from a commentator, not from one of you. Um, chapter 91 is different law, utterly different. I'm hearing very
interesting and good dialogue about these topics, but I pulled back the engineer because you were getting into matters that are not wetlands protection act or your bylaw. You have the ability in your bylaw to make a decision if you want to. You passed it. What are my
dates here? Your bylaw is November 21st from town meeting of and the regs were January 11th of 2024. You towns people have the ability to vote in something about where you want peers and and docs and where you don't. That is not in your wetlands protection
act bylaw. Chapter 91 is a different law. It's like having your math teacher decide your grade in biology. If the conservation commission were to import chapter 91 issues in deciding conservation commission matters.
I just today just this evening heard the use of the term use of waterways as a potential adverse effect. That is not in your bylaw. and the desire for a shorter pier should be accompanied by some sort of technical
wetlands protection act or bylaw criteria which you have not heard from either the engineer or your own agent. Um, so respectfully, I think you have an excellent application, one that has gone
far beyond what others have. And with respect to your waiver criteria of 3.142, it meets the waiver criteria of improving the no build zone. I am a lawyer. I am not the person who informs you on how it improves it. The
application goes into extreme detail, not just off-the-cuff detail. and a very respected engineer has told you that and your own agent has said that. So I think it's best if I conclude there say thank you very much for your service and I uh I hope to hear um this is the last of we
see we see of each other on this matter. >> Okay. Thank you. Can we proceed with our questions? Mike, do you have anything? >> Well, I just I would just add that uh uh uh bylaw does say we can consider the cumulative adverse effect on the resource area, whether it's storm
damage, shellfish, fisheries, wildlife, >> aesthetics, erosion, recreation, aquaculture, sediment control. Section 4, paragraph 3. >> You are absolutely right. Those are criteria. I think the longer you make the pier, you increase the risk of of
adverse effect, just like the taller you make a building. And I'm making an analogy there. So, yeah, a shorter pier, I think, is has less adverse effect than a longer pier, frankly. >> I hear you. I think you have experts who
have put it on the record why they disagree with you on that point. >> Thank you. Is that Mike? >> Yeah. >> Any questions? >> Yes. >> Mary, >> I'm good.
>> Um, is there any questions or comments from the public? >> How you doing? Uh, my name is Rich Austinberg and I'm the owner of 48 Riverside Street. Uh, right next to Adam and Jenna. >> I remember you, Rich. >> Yes, I do. You do?
And, um, and I appreciate all the work you did for me on my my pier, which was a lot longer than their pier. Um, >> I'm just I'm here to talk. Let me let me I want to just say about the safety of the
I watch three or four times a year boats get stuck in front of my house. They get grounded because they don't use the channel. They cut across right where the end of the dock is and they get stuck in
the mud flats in the shellfish beds. that boats boats getting stuck in those shellfish beds are far worse than anything building a building a pier once. Okay. And we sit there I sit there and we laugh at them. And you say that
boat the Denver's uh Boers are responsible. They're not. They're not because I recognize these people. They're Danver's residents and they still get stuck. And and you know, like I said, it would allow a a dock of that of that length would allow people to
have to go into the channel and use the channel and not cut in front of our yards and cut in front of other people's yards and go so close to the the pier. >> And you say that because they wouldn't be able to get by the pier. They'd have to >> They'd have to go around and they'd have to use actually use the channel, which
they're supposed to anyway. >> And I honestly wish the harbor master would enforce that a lot more. I saw him very very not a lot of times this year sitting outside on the dock over here with his he's got his little uh his dock. I I see him at all. All all year
long I watch people just race up and down this river right in front of where we are because they can because there's nothing to stop them. Now, I mean, when you when when I came with my with when I came with my proposal for the pier, you
know, we had the same issues, you know, it was the shellfish bed, it was the seagrass, it was all all bunch of stuff. And it took me 4 months to to get my approval. And um I just I'm I'm I'm really being the next door neighbor, I
have no problem with this. I mean, I have more of a problem looking at the docks across the across the street cuz I know that they're not half as as uh compliant as Adam and Jenna's and um you know, I mean, so I'm just
here to support the project. Um it's not an issue. The length is not an issue and it would actually help the people on the river to use use the channel like they should be. That's all. Rich, on this picture, could
you show us uh approximately where your pier would uh >> my my pier was coming straight out this way? >> How far? >> 195 ft. >> And with floats, >> 18 pylons all the way down there with the seagrass and all that. And I have my
plans here if you'd like to look at. It was it was going to go right out here. He hasn't built >> at the end of at the end of at the end of the the at the at the last meeting we had and I sir I think it was you who came up with the most responsible
sentence was that you know when Army Corps of Engineers approves it when the state of Massachusetts approves it I mean it's you know it's they are more I'm not saying they're more better than you guys but they they know
the laws that and we approved and then after 4 months we we went through and approved it. Now I'm not trying to I'm not trying to be disrespectful but I'm saying that you know it's you know I don't know no I don't I don't I'm
trying not to be cuz I remember I remember my my struggle. So but I would love to see this. Like I said, I only I only think it would be better for the people on this side of the river to force the people to use the channel more.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Yeah. Pete Clement, town meeting member, recent three. As as the gentleman mentioned, right over in here all the time. All right. Constantly get as well as
well as the harbor master has that river marked. Probably about 20 times a year, you get boats that are stuck there on the mud. I I've I've gone in with with my own personal watercraft taking people off because, you know, the kids are crying and the rest of that. So that
that pair right there will definitely, you know, give you a little bit more um direction into the channel, but the har master does mark the channel well. And a lot of people who are going up to Danasport or, you know, any other one of
the marinas for over the winter or even in the spring or for repairs, they're always hitting getting right on getting right on that mudbank. So that that would help them out a lot. As as far as as far as the rest of it
goes, you know, you say we got to protect the shellfish. Can I ask you a question? When was the last time we dug clams and canvas, worms, or anything else? It's polluted. So, what are we saving polluted land for?
I don't understand it. >> For hopes that it will heal and be nonpolluted. I think that's part of the reason why we want all the floats from the >> I've been I've been through three dredge cycles. Okay, it hasn't healed yet.
>> I've got children and grandchildren that are going to live here and at some point you'd want to have them have a clean riverbed. So that that argument doesn't hold part with >> Okay. Okay. Let's let's go up on the other side of the river and look at what they're doing behind the the theaters
that used to be there. They're stripping all the land they're putting in in a in a landfill over there. All right. So, you mean to say that that that landfill that they're putting it in over there in that CAD cell, if you want to call it that, that ain't going to leech right back into the river. I'm telling you
right now, it's polluted. Okay. And if you go to the if you go to the river committee and you talk to them or the the Yeah, the river committee. All right. They're all they're all up in arms because because the river is so polluted. All right.
go down to the river committee and see see one of their one of their meetings and see what they're talking about. Thank you. >> I don't have a problem with that project. >> Thank you, >> sir. >> Hi, my name is Phil Sudenfield. I live
on 21 Tibbitz A and um I I I I I approve of this uh this dock. I live at 21 which is right around right around on the point here and um I see past week I saw
three boats running around. I mean you have to stay in the channel. Many people don't. Once in a blue moon where the harbor master dock is. Most of the time they're there for a short period of time, but once in a while I'll
see they'll yell at boats, get back in the channel. You got to be very careful cuz that channel is very very shallow outside of the channel. In the channel, there's no problem. So basically, you know, a lot
of the boats, if you don't know the river, you got to stay in the channel and that's a big problem. It's incredible how many boats I see run a ground. So I just wanted to >> What are the consequences when a boat runs ground other than the inconvenience
and the embarrassment of it? >> Well, the thing is if they run a ground, I've seen a lot of times they run a ground and someone might call the hopper master. Hover master comes out and they say, "Uh, how long before high tide?" I
saw it once before and the hopper master will say, "The tide's still going out." So, I saw a jet ski. They must have sat there for seven or eight hours on the jet ski, waiting for enough water to come in so they could float it to get
back in the channel. So, they wait. Are >> there fines or any kind of >> No, no, there's no fines. It's a hard no cuz you know it's a human error and uh as far as you know they run around they
sit on the mud for can be for hours and once they're on the mud depending on the size of the boat it's very difficult to pull the boats you know out especially if it's a you know big boat so uh I see a lot of boats running the ground you know because they're not
staying in the channel. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. >> Okay. Just to to to counter that, I just I don't apologize if I'm arguing with you, but the harbor master is advocating for open water there. That's his his big
gripe about these is that the length of these takes away from the recreational opportunities to use that water. >> No, he's telling he's telling Boers to stay in the channel >> as part of this application. He's he's not in favor of this. Well, I'm trying
to understand why. I mean, for >> I think I just said because he wants the recreational aspect of that water to be open, too. >> Well, I think like for kayakers and other type of small boats like that, the way the docks are designed, they go right underneath.
>> They go right underneath and it's not blocking them or anything like that. So, I'm trying to understand the logic on affecting, you know, the >> jet skis. Huh? >> Jet skis. Jet skiis should stay in the channel. >> They They shouldn't be going under docks
and everything. >> Not under docks, but what's to prevent them from going on open water? >> Yeah. Well, they can they go in the channel like all the other boats. They should be going on the channel. >> The um I'm not sure. >> And that's the thing I saw was a jet ski
that got stuck on the mud and they were there for probably eight or nine hours. They couldn't get off. So, they weren't in the channel. >> You mind if I weigh in again? >> Mike, go ahead. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The the argument that someone might be an
irresponsible boater uh doesn't hold water with me. The idea if some if I had my boat and I sat in low tide for eight hours because I tried to do some shortcut, I probably wouldn't do that a second time. The other idea that two two
of the proponents here in favor have said, "Well, it's good. The longer pier acts as like a roadblock. People are going to have to go around it." To me, that's again another restriction. >> It's to stay in the channel. >> Yeah. But not but the argument was that they won't be able to use that portion
because they'll have to go around. >> No, cuz they should I'm trying to say they should stay in the channel. You wouldn't believe how many people run and ground. You know, you say, "Oh, they run ground." >> That's a different issue. >> No, you just sort of said if they run a ground, then they won't do it again.
>> No, I I didn't. Well, I did say that because it seems it seems to me that if if uh if I was uh my boat was getting stuck in the mud >> and I knew why I wouldn't do that a second time, but I I don't that's not
the argument. And the other the two proponents had said, well, people don't um don't ride their boat correctly or drive their boat correctly, and this will force them closer into the >> in the in the channel, which is
navigable, so they won't run ground. And the thing is all the boats going up and down the river, they're either coming out to go out Beverly Harbor and further out or they're coming back from Beverly Harbor. >> To me, that's just another
counterargument that we're going to make the pier longer and people are going to have to go around it. >> No, no, they're not going to go around it. They'll stay Why? Why can't they stay in the channel? Because that's where they should be. That's why a channel they should stay in the channel. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And the thing is that's why the channel is there and that's why they have a navigational buoys. >> But you're saying a longer pier will make them stay in the channel. So a longer pier is good. That's really what you're saying. >> No, no. Well, yeah, but they should stay in the channel. They shouldn't be out cuz you wouldn't believe how many boats
are on the ground. So if they stay in the channel, it won't be a problem. >> May I speak to your point? >> Pardon me? >> Yes. Go ahead. Yeah, >> sure. >> Thank you again. Jamie Mada, legal counsel. In wetlands protection act and
bylaw terms, what you're asking is what's good for the environment about a longer pier? What's good for the environment about the length of this pier is people do not run a ground when there's low water. They stay in the
channel and the people who are on their own dock are not going back and forth in the mud flats disturbing the shellfish, mucking up the water quality. >> Yeah, but they shouldn't be doing that in the first place.
>> It whether or not they should be, they are is what I think the people who live on the river do. My only reason for standing is to put this dialogue into wetlands protection act and bylaw terms,
which is it is better for the water quality to have a dock that reaches open water than to have floats that bang around on the mud flats. which is why the division
of marine fisheries supported this and why people do seek docks instead of just moorings for example so they're not going back and forth in uncertain tides and bouncing around setting aside safety setting aside the screaming children
they get that that run around you are the wetlands protection act and the bylaw people and it is better for the wetlands protection act and the bylaw in in my opinion your agent's opinion and the engineers opinion. Thank you. >> Thank you.
[Music] >> We'll get to you, Rich. >> Pete Clement, uh, town meeting member, recent three. As as you're saying, Mike, you you think all the little boats should have a place to go. They don't need the channel. the
little boats, the the the kayaks and the rest of that. Most of the people are are sitting in there and their little kayaks. Their head is about this high, so they can go underneath all those peers. All right, they got a paddle like this. And what are they doing? They're looking at everybody's yard, looking at
the the birds and everything else. The other people who are using this waterway for what its intended purposes, the people who are using that are in motorboats. All right? So they can't go over this area except for a flood tide.
But the kayakers can at almost any tide. As long as there's water this deep, the kayak can go through. So you don't need the kayakers out here. All right? So you let let him have his pair out to here or where whichever one
it is. All right? The kayakers will stay there where they belong. All right? And the deep draft boats will be here where they belong. And what you were saying is because you know because you don't like the length
of these. Okay. Um you know that that that just forces everybody to use the channel. Well, let's let's use a road. Okay. If you're driving down the road and everybody goes around this corner and they hit a tree, what do they do?
the town will go down and paint a line to keep you off that. Well, that's what we're kind of trying to do. Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Peter. >> Again, Rich Osberg, 48 Riverside Street. Um, just to answer your question about the people who get stuck on the on the
in the mud flats. When they get stuck in the mud flats, they try desperately for the ver next 20, 30 minutes to get out of it. And they cause more muck and chaos trying to get out of it. And then when the harbor master tells them they
have to sit there and wait for the tide to come up, soon as they think the tide's up, they're revving it up. They're revving it up. They're revving it up. They're doing more damage in that those 40 minute spreads, 20 minutes from getting stuck and 20 minutes from getting out than anything. I I watch it
all summer long. And I sit on my deck with a beer in hand and I listen to the listen to the wives yell at the husbands and the husbands cursing everybody and their mother. But I'm telling you right now, and you're right, if they get stuck once, they probably won't do it again.
But it's pro it's not the same people getting stuck. It's everybody getting stuck because it's all the new people down at the at the different marinas who think that they know everything around here. Now, that one little section, like I said, that one little corner between
46 and 48 and 50, it's a problem. They it, as you know, the tide comes all the way out here cuz when I had to build my dock is it was well, the float can't sit on the water and we had to go that far just because of that. That's that is the
lowest low tide. I can't walk out there. I mean, I can't use I can't use the the the beach behind my house because it's all mud. the whole way out there. It's it would just this I mean and I'm not saying every dock that they're putting on there, you know, I'm talking about
this dock right here. As much as you think it would the smaller one, it would be more beneficial for this one just to be a little bit longer than the rest to help out that one little corner. I mean, if if you you I mean, I think
you were at you saw the corner where I'm talking about. I think when when the committee came to my house and they they were in the backyard, we saw the backyard of it. It's this one little section. I mean, it's it's not it's not impeding the whole river. It's not
taking up everybody's waterway. I mean, it it's a little corner, but that one little corner is where everybody thinks that they can go. I mean, I have kayaks and I kayak underneath all these docks all the time. It's not an issue. Even if
it's low tide, it's not an issue. So, but I mean, just just think of that when you say, "Oh, I like it smaller." You like it smaller, you're just going to let more people get in there. That's all. Any other questions?
None. Uh, okay. Before we close the hearing, I just I'm going to pull the members of the board and just have your final comments and let us know what you think. Uh, and I'll I'll start. Um, I mean, I think the reason we're here is that, you
know, the with the harbor master gave us an unfavorable opinion on this project. Um, and he's I think he bases it mostly on the the recreational use of the water that is is compromised by these longer docks. Um I
think 40 Riverside is that the one that we approved uh recently and there was no harbor harbor master comment on that and I don't understand why. Um that being said we do not have a regulation that says that limits the length of the
docks. And that's kind of where I have to draw the line is that we pretty much have to go by what the regulations say. So, as much as I don't feel comfortable about this uh the length of this talk, I feel I have to vote yes because we don't have a regulation that says it can't go
that far. Um, and that being said, just understand that the harbor master's comments will be forwarded with the chapter 91 application and uh I mean it's just another hurdle you have to get over to get that uh to get
permission to build that dock. Um, so I guess that's how I think. So Mike will give you a chance. >> Um I don't know that we need to have a specific length regulation. Um I think we can use no regulation I think is
>> the the idea that um again we presume that the activity has a negative effect. We're supposed to even allowing that they meet u the other applicable requirements. uh that I still feel that the
notwithstanding what some of the neighbors have said that the longer pier uh increases uh risk of uh disruption to the habitat to to recreation and to all the things that were listed here shellfish fisheries wildlife habitat
aesthetics erosion I just uh sediment control aquaculture and recreation so they're all things that we need to consider I think considering all those and the potential adverse effects. Uh I'm not in favor. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh Lorraine, what do you
think? >> Yeah. So, um I've been on this committee for a year and a half, but I'll tell I will divulge. I'm a nurse practitioner by profession. I've heard a whole lot of big things in here that pertain to health. Um but none of them pertain to
you. You've done a tremendous amount of work. you have done everything that I mean I can't think of another thing that you could possibly do. Um there are issues here but there are bigger issues I think maybe that have to be dealt with somewhere else on the town level. So I
would vote yes for you >> Mary. Um my background is um environmental so I understand that the hover master has a lot of concerns but from a wetlands
protection act perspective that's not what we're here for. So um you have my full support and I appreciate your patience as we work through this process. That's it. Okay. Is there any further
public comment before I close the public hearing? None. Okay. If someone make a motion, we can close the public hearing. >> I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I second the motion. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I'm sorry. Sorry. Please make sure you just read the address and the D file
number. Just >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Um, I make a motion to close the public hearing for 46 Riverside Street, DP number 14-1440. >> I second the motion. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I.
>> Okay. Next, we need vote on a waiver to allow work in the 35 no disturb zone at 46 Riverside Street in D file number 14-1440. >> Someone can make a motion. I make a motion to grant a waiver to allow work in the 35- ft no disturb zone for 46
Riverside Street DP number 14-1440. >> I second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> I make a motion to grant a waiver to allow work in the 50oot no build zone for 46 Riverside Street D number
14-1440. >> I second. All in favor? >> I >> I make a motion to issue an order of conditions for 46 River Street side street D number 14-1440
with additional conditions as discussed including comments from the Department of Marine Fisheries and conditions from the harbor master. >> I second. >> Okay. Just before we vote, were there any additional conditions that we we
came up with? >> No. >> Nope. There were none. It was just to include the the DMF comments and the harbor master recommendations. Um Okay. >> Or the harbor master if it's approved his four criteria which have already been shared with you. >> Um do we want to read those aloud? >> No.
>> The harbor master and the DMF comments from I said a few ways back comments I'm clear on. I'm perhaps saying the harbor master. So this was the the hard master comments from September 10th that I had sent over. It said if it's approved um >> he just wants
>> numbers displayed and so forth. >> Should we read those into the record? Can we go ahead then Emily? >> If you want reference it by date that's sufficient. >> Sure. Yes. It's the September 10th um master comments and >> Yes. Go ahead.
>> Is that just these four? Yes, those four were his recommendations. If it's >> you just want me to read them. >> Yes. See, I read them through for the record. Yeah. >> Call me if you want to. I I have the letter. >> Oh, okay. Perfect. Yeah. Okay. >> I'd still like it read into the record. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. I can read it.
Uh let me see. What's the title? >> You say the hover master comments. >> Um I'd like to add in the hobberm comments. Number one, structure identification. The water dependent structure shall display the property address and chapter 91 license number
conspicuously on both the fixed pier and float in perpetuity. These markings shall be clearly legible in 3in block letters. Number two, foreshadow access. The proposed structure must not interfere with
legitimate pedestrian access along the foreshore. Pedestrian access shall be maintained at all tide levels. If unrestricted passage cannot be guaranteed, the stairways on both sides of the deck shall be installed to ensure
public access. Number three, navigation and mooring protection. The structure and its use shall not encroach upon designated or customary navigation channels, mooring fields, or areas
traditionally used for public recreation, such as swimming or sailing. The seawward end of the dock, including maneuvering areas, shall be cited with adequate setbacks from boating channels,
mooring areas, and adjacent structures to ensure safe passage under all wind and wave conditions. The impact of the proposed structure on navigation by vessels under sail or or power must be
thoroughly evaluated. Number four, dredging compatibility. Where the proposed structure may extend into a future dredge cut, no fixed piles or peers shall be permitted that could
obstruct dredging operations. Now, we're not reading in his initial comments about his op. No, >> these were it's these were his comments where if this is approved, if condition is issued, then he was asked he was asking that these would be included in it.
>> Well, I know, but he also uh provided uh his >> his comments >> his comments and you haven't read those in. Are those going into the decision? >> Order of conditions? No, it's if it's approved, these are the four conditions. Well, I know, but are we forwarding his He was asked to report on it and he did.
Are we forwarding that? >> Are we making that part of this? >> No, just his four conditions. >> And why not? >> Because these are the four conditions that he asked for. If it's approved to please include these >> I think his his others are comments, not really. >> Well, we discussed we talked about it.
Uh I mean, you said it yourself. One of the reasons you were concerned was the harbor master >> but his but that's that's advice. >> Yeah, I know. >> It's not >> it's not part of the order of conditions. >> It's not part of the order. But is it being forwarded
>> that to I'm sure you're being forwarded to who? Like the harbor master will take his comments and share them throughout the chapter 91 permanent process if he would like to, but that's outside of us. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. Okay. So, the motion's been made and seconded.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I no opposed. >> So, it's a 3 to one vote. So, the motion does pass and you are uh just be aware there's what three threeear limit Emily
after three years come back. >> Done within three years. Please come back to see me before it expires and you'll be able to get an extension. >> Thank you. Good luck. Good luck. >> Oh, do you have a card? Thank you. >> I'm out of the office tomorrow, but I'll
be in touch next week. Thank you. Happy delight. >> Yeah. Well, yeah. You had a different perspective out there, right? >> It was. >> Jeez, we lost our crowd. >> Yeah. Well, that's good. All right. Next up is a notice of intent for 36 Sherwood
A D file number 14-1443. The applicants are Daniel and Hillary Gordon. And is someone here to represent >> Hillary? I'll pull your plan up for you here. One sec. >> Thank you. Hello. My name's Hillilary
Gordon. I live at 36 Sherwood AV. Um so I have four kids. So, we're a large family um aging from 2 to 9 years old. Um and we are hoping to add an addition in the next within the next
year. Um and um also down the road since we all have to do it within a three-year time frame, I'm hopefully planning to add another addition. Um it's like an in-law suite for my parents that live in Canada in hopes that they'll come visit
me more. Um but that's down the road. But I'm not even sure if I'll do it within the time frame just with the >> that's that's not part of this application though. >> Um >> or is it? >> It is. Yeah. >> So that's one of these two. >> It's both of these. So um this is the one I'm I'm applying for them both. Um but this is the one we're doing within
the next year hopefully. I just went to ZBA approval on Tuesday. And then this one we will do hopefully within the next three three years. But if we don't, I know I have to apply again. But I'm just giving me myself the option, >> okay, >> in order to do it if we do have the
financial means to be able to. >> Um, so I did hire Bill Manuel, but he's not here um this week. Um, but he kind of gave me some instructions on what to say. Um, so we do need to file um NOI because the additions are in the no
disturb and no build edition. Um, but as he did the math, they're both well under the threshold. Um, so the additions are only 4.2% 2% and the 10% no build threshold and then the 1.5% and the 20%
uh no disturb threshold. Um we're going to take out um this mat and these pavers um and put in a whole bunch of uh mitigation like pollinator shrubs and plants that are helpful for bees and animals.
[Music] >> Um I think that's all I have. So, >> so is the mat right now impervious? >> Yes. >> So, the water just runs off into the the river or any which way? >> Yeah. >> And you're replacing with pavers, you said.
>> Um, no, the mats. This is all just going to be um mitigation and um this is the mitigation and this will just be lawn. Oh, >> okay. Where's the pavers you were talking? >> Um, these are the current papers, too. So, these are current that were taken away. This is a little fireplace that was there when we got the house. So,
this is all the papers and the mat and we're not building anything there. We're just This is the shrubs, the mitigation shrubs, and the rest will just be lawn. >> Okay. And that when I drove by there, there there was a shed somewhere on the
the side. Is that in this plan at all? >> Um, so I think my husband said since it's a um Yeah, there's a there's a shed I think right here, but it's like it's attached. So, I think he said something. I don't know, >> but that's outside of the scope of this
project. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh, and I'm just looking. >> So, we're going to You're asking us for for waiverss in two different areas. Could you just point those out on the drawing for us? >> Yeah. Um, so this is the one I want to
do within the next year. So, this is just a playroom to add more space for my children to play. And then this is a covered patio. >> Um, so it just have pillars here in a cupboard. And but um the waivers are for distance from the the riverfront. Can you just point those out?
>> Um >> if you if you can see my mouse, I can show you the 35 foot right along here. >> Oh yeah. So here's the 35 no disturb zone >> and then the 50 is >> and what's going on inside the 35 just
the taking out that mat and the pollinate area growing. >> Yeah. And then just right to here is where the in uh the covered patio is. >> And that's within the 50 foot. >> Yeah. Where's the 50 foot emblem? >> The 50 foot is right where the most is.
It's just past the pergola. >> That dotted line is the 50 foot no build zone. >> And the encroachment in that area was met the criteria. >> Yes. Yep. Met the criteria for the waiverss. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. Uh Mike, you
have any questions? Well, just um you know, maybe Emily can see it better than me. How much of the work is being done? What work's being done in the 35 and in the 50 respectively? Emily? >> Sure. So, on the plan, this um let's see, the pollinator garden along here,
this darker area on the plan, that's within the 35 and the 50. And then the >> is that coming out or going in? >> That's um as you can see on the right over here, or on the left, I'm sorry. It's a 3- foot wide or Yeah. 3 foot wide mitigation pollinator garden um with a block retaining wall.
>> And what does that mean? You mean for like butterflies and things or bees or? >> Yeah. So, there's a list of suggested plants over here on the plan for what will go into that garden. And then along the back here, the mat and the papers are coming out. And this is where
riverfront area restoration and mitigation is proposed. >> And the applicant will work with staff as to what gets planted there. >> Yep. It's the the suggested plantings are here. Um and they're all what we typically see for pollinator gardens um in mitigation areas.
>> Yeah. And I just ask the applicant. So what is the mat exactly? >> Um it they my sons just play um street hockey on it. >> Oh. Oh. >> Yeah. >> It's like astro turf, right? >> Yeah. >> Like that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And that's coming up and then
>> Yeah. We're h we were happy to take it up immediately, but Yeah. >> And the fireplace is coming out. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And the the rooms you're doing, they're actually outside of the 35 and the 50. Correct. >> Right. I think you only encroachment in the 50. Is that perish?
>> Yeah. >> Um >> I don't see any problem with that. >> Okay. Is the pergola covered >> the Yeah. >> So it's got a roof. >> Yeah. >> And I'm still new with this. Is that considered um impervious and that has to be taken to a point or is it >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> So the all the math that's done around permeable non-permeable that now is >> non-permeable. >> Yeah. >> Takes that into consideration. >> And then what's this? What will you use on the surface where the pavers are going to where that where the fake grass is going to come out?
>> Um just so just the pollinating pollinator shrubs and then it'll just be grass. >> Yeah. Lawn. >> Yeah. >> On the pergola. What kind of roof does that have? I I I always think of pergola as >> it's just the the joist. It's just joist, you know, that run. >> Isn't it like that?
>> Um, I was hoping to just have it continue with the roof. It's just going to look like shell. >> Um, I would think so. >> Well, let just ask a follow-up question to that. Where does the the runoff the water the rain runoff go to?
>> Maybe a Bill Manuel question. Um but we have I think I um >> does it say it on the drawing anywhere there? I mean sure public there but they have um they do need a storm water permit from engineering. So they've already applied for that. So that will address um storms too.
>> Well that'll be addressed through storm water. >> Yeah the storm water permit um is needed. So they've already spoken with engineering about that too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So that if the engineers are comfortable with it that's fine. Paul, any other questions? No. Lorraine, any questions?
>> No. No questions. >> Mary, >> I'm good. Thank you. >> Are there any questions from the public >> online? >> No one's online. >> No. Okay. Uh, okay. I mean, I think we all feel good
about this. Is that a fair thing to say? >> Uh, okay. So, the first mean to vote on is the motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll make a motion. Make a motion to close the public hearing for 36 Sherwood Avenue, D number 14-1443. I second the motion.
>> All in favor? I. >> Uh, next up would be a motion to grant a waiver to allow work in the 35- ft no disturb zone. >> I'll make that motion. Make a motion to grant a waiver to allow work in the 35- ft no disturb zone for 36 Sherwood
Avenue, D number 14-1443. I second the motion. >> All in favor? I >> I >> uh Next up is a motion to grant a waiver to allow work in the 50 no build zone. 50 foot no build zone. >> I make a motion to grant a waiver to allow work in the 50oot no build zone
for 36 Shuret Avenue D number 14-1443. I second the motion. >> All in favor? I >> I make a motion to issue an order of conditions for 36 Sherwood Avenue, DP number 14-1443
with additional conditions as discussed. >> I second motion. >> Were there any additional conditions? >> No. >> None. None. >> Okay. The motion been made and seconded. All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. just uh I'm sure you heard that there's
a three-year limit on these uh that we encourage you to come back for a certificate of compliance. >> Okay. >> And if you're not done in 3 years, you can come back to us and we will grant you a one year >> one year. One year. >> Thank you very much. Make sure you before it expires. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Uh okay. Next up is uh >> old and new business. Uh the first is minutes from our October the 9th, 2025 conservation meeting. And just a quick thing, you'll be able to vote on these. Okay. >> Okay. Just want to make sure that
everyone knew that. >> Oh, no. No. >> Um, are we all good with those minutes? >> Yes. >> Okay. Someone can make a motion. >> I'll make a motion to accept the minutes from the October 9th, 2025 conservation commission meeting. I second the motion.
>> All in favor? >> I. Okay. Emily, is there any other pressing business that we need to be aware of? Um, no other pressing business. Next meeting is November 13th. So, the way the calendar falls, we have an extra week in between the meetings. Um, I'll be getting the information out
to you all. The cuto off date is Monday. >> So, I do anticipate a couple of applications coming in between now and done. And I'll have all that information out to you, um, hopefully by the end of next week, so we'll be ready to roll. >> Okay, good. And uh I received an email from Resilient Danvers Commission and
their committee and they're having um a presentation on November the 5th and I think Emily forwarded you guys that email yesterday. >> Yes. >> So that's it's November the 5th during the day. So I can make it to others that have to work. I can understand why not.
But if you do want to be there, it's an open invitation to anybody. >> And what's it about? I think I read it, but I can't remember. >> It's a I think they call themselves Brazilian dams. Emily, >> pull it up. Um I know you sent it. I can look it up. >> They're just trying to >> It's a what?
>> I thought you had to register for that. >> Um it's you just have to RSVP to let them know that you're going. Um >> they want to know your name. It's it's about um climate change and impacts that it's taking on the environment and then the ways that Danver is working to address that plans
for the future and >> how we're all working together. >> I went to one of those three or four years ago with the town department heads and it was pretty informative. So if you can fit into your schedule, I'd say it'd be a good take and the thing that thing that convinced me is they said refreshments will be
served. So whenever there's food, I'm there. Um okay. Yeah. Can we have a motion to adjurnn? >> I make a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. All right. >> All right. Good job, everybody.
>> All right. Good job.