Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Ready to [clears throat] go. Uh good evening. Uh Uh welcome to the meeting of the conservation conservation commission in Danvers. We operate under Massachusetts Law chapter 131 section 40, the Wetlands
Protection Act, and chapter 26 of the town of Danvers 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'll we will accept questions from the
audience. Because this is a public meeting as required by law, you give your name and address. Although we may disagree on the issues raised, all persons present during the meeting are expected to be civil to other attendees. Uh so, please respect each other's
opinion, act in a civil matter, and confi- uh confine your questions to the project as it relates to the Wetlands Act. Okay, having said that, uh we'll do a call to order. And uh Mary Haight, I know it is absent today. Uh Lorraine Drapek.
>> Here. >> Michael McCarthy. >> Here. >> Andrew McNulty. >> Here. >> Paul McNulty. >> Here. >> Michael Splane is here. Uh is that it? >> Yep. >> All right. Um
we'll go to the first item on the list, which is request for determination of applicability for 264 Center Street D DCC file number 2026-03
applicant Dorian Sulaj. >> Perfect. >> All right. Identify yourself. >> Absolutely. So, my name is Andrew Tibo. I'm a wetland scientist with Goddard Consulting. Our address is 100 Conifer Hill Drive in Danvers. >> Thank you. >> Absolutely. So, thank you for having us
tonight. I'll keep my recap brief. I know we've had a couple public hearings on the matter, but this is a request for determination of applicability. >> Right. >> Um Goddard flagged out the wetlands here in the spring of this year, and we identified two um isolated depressions that did not border on any any other surface waters.
And so, we identified them as isolated wetlands. The town's bylaw has a size threshold of a minimum of 5,000 square feet for jurisdiction. And so, the RDA was filed to bring us out to the property to take a look at this area and make sure that we agree with the delineation and to seek a determination that they were not jurisdictional
resource areas under both the Wetlands Protection Act and the bylaw. At this point, we've actually had two site walks out there. The first was um July 7th. I took a few members of the commission out there. It was a rainy day. We had a couple of us out there taking a look for a bit, and then um we were back at the hearing
on July 9th. It was a colleague of mine that was out here with you guys. At that time, we had continued that public hearing so we could schedule a second site walk to get um the remainder of the commission out there. And we had that was on July 15th. We were pretty efficient, scheduled another site walk, and we went out there. Um
that was a more robust site walk. We were doing auger samples um below some of the wetland flags. And we were also doing auger samples between the two wetland resource areas. And so we wrote our Munsell soil book out and made sure everything was accurate. And uh we left that site walk to come tonight to see current determination. So that's that's a
high-level summary, but if there are any questions on the site walk itself, the application, certainly here to take the questions. >> Lorraine? >> I guess I'm just wondering, and I know that there's no plans yet, but the current house has that runoff uh what
that goes into um >> Yes, the other point. >> So I guess what is I mean, is that house going to be knocked down? Is that something that's just going to be continued? I was just wondering what was going to happen with that. >> Yeah, it's it's a great question. Um the
truthful answer is we actually don't know yet. So what this applicant is doing is he's a new owner of the property and he we've done a lot of wetlands work in the past. He knows sort of to answer the wetland questions first. So the the request for determination was actually filed to first understand wetland jurisdiction, make sure it wasn't there
before he moves plans forward. I have not seen any plans yet, so it it remains to be seen. Um but any application that he does go forward with will have to work with the engineering department, so they'll have to they'll have to look at stormwater regardless. >> Yeah, okay. >> That it, Lorraine? >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Michael McCarthy? >> I have none. >> No questions? Paul? >> I just comment which is appreciate you taking the time to uh to to take us out there second trip. >> Absolutely. No, thank you thank you for joining me. >> so. Thank you. >> You know, it was it was a pleasure. Thank you guys. >> All right. Andrew?
>> Nope, nothing for me. >> No questions? Just uh one question. Uh what's the current distance between the two isolated wetlands at their closest point? >> About 25 or so feet would be my my guess. It would be this isn't an estimate, but about 25 or so feet, 30
feet. >> being a scientist yourself is is is it possible for that to those to migrate? >> For that to it's not impossible for wetlands to migrate over time, but what have what would have to happen is either the grade of the land would have to
change here or there would have to be a much higher water contribution to the area. Um in this case there was no presence of groundwater between that would suggest that there's any migration there. Um so it's it's case by case for all sites, but in this case they're they're very well defined. >> So as as isolated wetlands that don't
come under our jurisdiction, what uh I'll ask this for Steph. What are they allowed to do with that? Can they fill it in, dig it up? >> Um if it's out of jurisdiction, then they they just have to follow applicable zoning bylaws or anything like that, but if it's out of jurisdiction, then it's
>> They can do whatever they want with it. Yeah. I thought that. Okay. >> From our perspective, I mean they still have to get permitted for anything they do, but from a conservation commission's perspective >> That's right. Not from us. That's right. >> That's right. Yeah, they would still have to get permitted from any other applicable laws. >> Yeah. >> But nothing dealing with wetlands, more
like >> Like zoning >> Storm water, things like >> things like that. >> Storm water. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Like building permits and whatnot. >> All right, that's the uh I just want to wanted you to answer those questions. Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> I have uh no uh no further questions.
Anyone on the board? Anyone in the public like to be heard? William Bradstreet. >> Phil Bradstreet, town town meeting member, precinct one. I believe I heard you say that there's no problem in filling in this property.
Is the filling used to fill in this property restricted to a certain type of fill? You can't put construction waste, I would assume, but is are you restricted in what can be used? >> Well, we don't know that they're going to do anything with >> All right. If they do
>> Yes, they could not use any contaminated materials on site. That would be illegal. >> Okay. And you wouldn't find out if they were contaminated until after they did it, right? >> I I don't know why they would do that. >> Neither do I, but I thought it was worth asking the question. >> Does the staff have anything to add to
that? >> No, it's I And the you know that it's it's not legal. So, I mean there would be no reason for a property owner to do that. But, I mean we're talking about what ifs on a project that doesn't even have a plan on it. So, we can just we're just looking at what's in front of us tonight, though.
>> I mean they can put gravel, clean fill. Um they could plant. Um >> Skunk cabbage, what have you? >> Skunk. >> What's that? >> Skunk cabbage, could they plant that? I'm kidding. I I just thought it was worth asking the
>> there. >> I thought it was worth asking the question because I'd hate to find out afterwards that what was used shouldn't have been put there just to gain more uh surface use. >> Yeah. >> That's all. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You're working on it.
>> Thank you for the comments. Um Thank you. Anyone else >> from the applicant's side? Uh do we have someone uh >> We do have Dorian remotely. Dorian, is there anything that you wanted to add? >> Can you hear you? >> I believe he's just here to track with the process in case there were
questions. I don't want to speak for him if you want to. >> unmuted you. You're you're all set to speak whenever you're ready. >> No, I have nothing to add, but uh thanks for asking. I think Andrew covered everything. And um Andrew um knows more about this than I do, so any questions I would uh ask Andrew.
But, thanks for asking. >> Sure. >> I just wanted to check uh and see what's going on. >> All right, that's it. Uh that's all the comments. Um I'll to a motion to close the hearing. >> Mike, one second. One second. Just as a matter of record, Mike McCarthy is not
eligible to vote on this item tonight. >> Yeah. So, he'll abstain. >> Yep. Just wanted to get that in there. >> We still have a quorum to vote. >> Yes. Yes. Absolutely. >> All right. Uh thank you for that. Uh motion uh I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. >> I'll make a motion to close the hearing
for 264 Centre Street, DCC number 206 2026-03. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All right. And uh I'll entertain a motion and there'll be two motions, one for each isolated wetland. A motion to
issue a negative determination of applicability on account of the area on the plans is not subject to jurisdiction under the Wetlands Protection Act for 264 Centre Street, DCC 2026. Can I get a motion on that?
>> I'll make a motion. >> Okay. Go ahead. Want to >> So moved. >> the motion to issue a negative determination of applicability on account of the area on the plans is not subject to jurisdiction under the Wetlands Protection Act for 264 Centre
Street, DCC number 2026-03. >> All right. Just a question. Uh because it's two isolated wetlands, do we have to identify each one in the motion? >> No. The plans will be submitted as part of the decision packet, so they'll both be noted on there. >> I'll entertain a second motion to issue
a negative determination. >> But we didn't get a second. >> Did I Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Can I get a second on that? >> I'll second it. >> Paul McCarthy. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> And I'll entertain a second motion now. >> Okay. I'll just I'll read this one off. >> Go ahead. >> Uh motion this The motion to issue
[clears throat] a negative determination of applicability on account of the area on the plans is not subject to jurisdiction of the town of Danvers bylaw. So, this is the town of Danvers bylaw as opposed to the Wetlands Protection Act for 264 Centre Street, DCC 2026-03. >> Can we get a second?
>> I'll second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> And that's it. >> That's it. >> That's it. >> That's it. Thank you guys. It's a pleasure working with you. We appreciate it. >> Thanks for the patience. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Thank [clears throat] you, Dorian. >> All right.
>> Thank you. >> Next matter up is a request for a certificate of compliance to Ipswich River Road, DEP file number 14-1436. Applicant and Derek Battary, who's here for the applicant? >> Um for the record, my name's Caitlin White. I'm a wetland scientist from
Hancock Associates. I'm here on behalf of the applicant for this request to close out the permit at two Ipswich River Road. Um the permit was issued by you guys back in May 2025 for an addition. Um since then, the construction has been completed
um with no deviations from the approved site plan. Um the site is stable. A site walk has taken place with the homeowner and um staff. Um and we would just like to close out the permit um for the work that was approved. >> Yeah. And I understand staff's been out there to view the project, and it's a
it's um it's done as built as proposed. >> Yep. Site is stable. Done as built. No concerns from the staff's standpoint. >> Any questions from >> I just have a I have a general question for staff, which is do you ever include
the commission for these visits, or is it only if it's a certain issue? I'm just curiosity. >> Historically, it's been just staff that does the COC site visit with um the applicant and the applicant's representative. Um of course, if the commission would like, I'm happy to open that up to available commission members, too. >> And if you found an issue, I think you'd
involve us, of course. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Yeah. So, you went out, and there was >> Got it. >> it was done like it was supposed to be done. >> Yep. Yeah, any issues, I would definitely report that back. >> Any other questions? Public? No? And now
This is not a uh We don't need a motion to close the hearing for this. No. So, um I would uh make a uh request the motion to issue a certificate of compliance for this project to 2 Ipswich River
Road. >> Go ahead, Andrew. >> I'll make a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 2 Ipswich River Road DEP number 14-1436. >> Yeah, I'll second the motion. Motion to Can he >> He can on this one. >> On this one. Motion's been made and seconded. All in favor.
>> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. >> Thank you. >> I'm for the next project, too. >> Okay, yeah. For the next one, okay. >> I have a plan up about the next plan here. >> All right. The next one is a um request for determination of applicability for
51 Newbury Street {slash} 48 Cranebrook Drive, DCC file number 2026-04. The applicant, PEG Companies. Who's here for the applicant? >> Um for the record, my name is Caitlin White. I'm a wetland scientist from Hancock Associates here on behalf of the
applicant. Um I'll probably wait till the plan is up if that's okay. >> Sorry, my computer's running a little fast. A little right. >> Um you guys might be familiar with this project. I mean, this site it's adjacent to the Costco off Route 1. Um it's currently a long-term stay hotel.
Um Perfect. You want to keep the highlighted plan up for now? Yeah. >> This one? >> Yep. Perfect. Okay. Um so, like I said, it's a long-term stay hotel currently. Um The resource areas on site are um
Cranebrook and BVW. Cranebrook is um along the bottom of the plan. So, you have your 100-ft inner riparian zone that's in light blue and then the 200-ft riverfront area is in dark blue. BVW is plan right. Um your local setbacks are in red and
orange and the 100-ft buffer zone is in yellow. I'm getting my colors right there. Um no work is proposed within any buffer zones to BBW, but minor part of the project is proposed within the 100-ft inner riparian zone. If you can go to the other plan, Emily, that
would be great. That shows the shed. >> Oh, yes. Yeah. This one? Perfect. Yeah. Um I should have like a clicker or something. Um So, in this area right here, there is currently
a curb cut, a shed, and some pavement. We are proposing to replace that with a parking space. Um the intention of the parking space is because the entire overall site is being redeveloped into an apartment complex rather than a long-term stay hotel. With that, you have parking regulations.
Um we did our best to have all the parking outside of all the buffer zones, but this one spot is within the riverfront area. Um it is a overall a decrease in impervious impervious area, a decrease in degraded area. It's a very minor
change in use um from a shed a developed shed to a parking spot. Um prior to any earth disturbance, straw wattle will be in place, silt sacks will be in place. Um and so we feel like this project is minor enough that it could be performed without a formal permit.
Um other than that, um that's kind of the scope of work within your jurisdiction, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you guys have. But, thank you for your time. >> Where are you with regards to the no build notice there? >> Outside. >> Outside both? >> Yes. Yeah.
>> And uh this you're taking a shed down? Where's that going? >> To the dump. >> Oh. >> Yeah. It'll be off property. Yes. Yeah. Totally removing the shed. Yeah. >> And then okay. And then what? You have to pave? >> Yes. Yeah. No grade changes are
proposed. It's just making it No grade changes are proposed. No grading or anything. Um the only thing is it's becoming a parking spot. So. >> One space? >> Just one space, yeah. >> that extra space. >> We do need the extra space, yeah. >> Any questions?
Michael, no? No? >> No. >> No? >> I have a question >> Andrew? >> I have a question for Emily. Um it appears this would be exempt under the WPA and bylaw, but I did see in the bylaw that there's a minor project
permit for it looks like there's no work that's exempt within the um 200-ft riverfront area. Um or at least >> Well, that's a good question cuz why couldn't this have been done administratively, no? >> Mhm. >> No?
>> It's a great question. This is the like in talking with Caitlin, this was the application that we decided to move forward with. Um >> No? >> That may have been another option. >> But isn't that doesn't our bylaw allow for that some of those
minor things like a parking space or Yeah. All right, well. >> Good point. >> So just to follow up with your question. Go ahead. >> Yeah, so I I just I don't know exactly what the process would be. I I'm not sure what the vote would be, but I I
think the appropriate I mean I think this is enough information to issue a minor project permit, but I'm not sure if that's >> So minor project permits are issued administratively. >> Okay. >> Um so the vote tonight would just be for a negative determination which would let them move forward.
>> So we could have done it either way. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Cool. >> Yeah. >> Just wanted to double check that. >> Well, that's good. We're always we're always educating ourselves through the help of staff. >> I just have one one question um which is the the shed now I'm assuming the roof of that is impervious, right? It's metal
roof or something like that. Have you calculated what's the difference is there any difference in impervious or permeable versus non-permeable? >> We have a chart and it's like modestly less. >> Like like tens of like feet?
>> It's like we have it um down as a calculation. I think it's like decreases by 0.9%. >> Yeah, cuz it's a park. It's the shed is the size of a parking spot, right? So it can't be any significant difference if it's already a shed. >> negligible. >> Yeah. >> just was want to make sure I understood
that. >> And they're removing pavement from the corner as well. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> All right. Anyone else have a question? Anything Anyone in the public? Uh comments? No one? All right, Mr. Bradstreet, would you
like to come up? >> Phil Bradstreet uh Tell me I'm in a precinct one. The question if the shed is missing, can that area be uh paved over with something that's will allow water to go through it?
>> Like like permeable pavers or something? >> Yeah, something like that. You'd still end up with a parking spot, but something to me that would be a little more acceptable being that close to the wet ones. I don't want to use asphalt because it tends to bleed.
>> I believe it could be, but I don't think we have the jurisdiction to >> I'm just asking. >> Oh, yeah, yeah. No, it it could be. >> You know what? We could actually put conditions on uh uh even when we find a neg- a negative determination. Is that
correct? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So we're allowed to even we say we don't have jurisdiction, we're finding and but we condition >> Yes. >> But Yeah, would just like to hear the applicant. Is the rest of the parking
lot are there other permeable pavers? They're what? >> They're all proposed as asphalt. >> Asphalt? >> It doesn't exist. >> I think this is also on like a probably 8 or 10 ft uh fill. >> Yeah. >> So even if
even if there were permeable pavement, I'm not sure it would >> permeate. >> Yeah. >> Just a thought. >> Yeah. >> Considering the area that it abuts and it's sensitive if to do whatever can be done to
keep it safe. That was the reason for the question. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So what what will the surface be for the parking lot? >> Bituminous concrete. >> What is it? >> Bituminous concrete. >> Asphalt.
>> Asphalt. >> [laughter] >> All right, Amy. Any Anyone else? No? Someone um Someone want to make a motion on the request for determination of applicability for 51 Newbury Street
{slash} 48 Cranebrook Drive? >> I'll make a motion to issue an Oops, sorry. >> We need to close close the hearing. >> Just close the hearing first. >> Okay. >> If you're ready, Jim. >> What's that? >> Just close the hearing first. >> Oh, yeah. Okay, yeah. All right. Uh entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
>> I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All right. Now we're on. >> Okay. Okay. [laughter] It's okay. You're better at this than me. Motion to issue a negative determination of applicability for 51
Newbury Street 48 otherwise 488 Cranebrook Drive DCC number 2026-04 because of the work described in the request is within the buffer zone as defined as the regulations, but will not alter the area subject to jurisdiction under the act.
>> Motion's been made. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Thank you, guys. >> Okay. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Uh next order of business is minutes, I think. >> Minutes.
>> Minutes. Uh minutes from July 9th. So, uh have >> I'm going to make >> Have you read the minutes? >> Absolutely. >> minutes? >> Do my homework. >> I didn't attend that, but I watched that hearing.
And I did read the minutes as well. >> Perfect. I think you did well on the form, too, so. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, does someone want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of the >> the minutes, yeah. >> uh July 9th, 2026 meeting. >> Second.
>> Second. Motion's been made and seconded. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Okay. And anything Anything to say? >> Uh next meeting is August 13th. The cutoff date is this coming Monday, so I'm not sure what's going to come in for applications between now and then. Um
>> Nothing right now? >> Nothing yet. Actually, one one certificate of compliance so far. >> Okay. All right. Um then um if that's it, uh someone want to make a motion to adjourn? >> I'll make a motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> Second.
>> All in favor?