Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Buffer Intrusion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danvers conservation commission continues after‑the‑fact ADU hearing at 86 Elliott Street, orders plan revisions
Summary
The Town of Danvers Conservation Commission on May 14 continued the Notice of Intent for an after‑the‑fact accessory dwelling unit at 86 Elliott Street after finding substantial intrusion into the 35‑ft and 50‑ft wetland buffers; the applicant agreed to revise plans and return May 28, 2026.
The Town of Danvers Conservation Commission on May 14 continued an after‑the‑fact Notice of Intent for 86 Elliott Street after finding the proposed accessory dwelling unit encroaches on protected wetland buffers and requires plan changes.
Applicant Majlinda Vaka told the commission construction began after she received a building permit and that she was "unaware a Conservation permit was required." She said she hired a wetland scientist after being notified and described the ADU as a 900‑square‑foot two‑bedroom unit over a garage. Staff Planner Emily Beatrice said an intermittent stream runs through the property and both a 35‑foot no‑disturb zone and a 50‑foot no‑build zone apply; she provided estimated impacts of about 2,287 square feet in the no‑disturb zone and 3,296 square feet in the no‑build zone.
Commission members pressed whether the drainage ditch should be classified as a stream and asked what alternatives were analyzed. Commissioner Mike Splaine questioned the legitimacy of the stream classification; Commissioner Peter Wilson noted prior enforcement cases upstream and that the entire property sits within the 100‑foot buffer. Vaka said water flows only during storms and that the yard has been maintained as lawn for decades; she also said GIS maps did not show wetlands and that she had spent roughly $50,000 already on the project.
Engineer Adel Shahin (participating by Teams) told the commission the project's stormwater report met the 10 state standards and described mitigation measures including a permeable driveway and an infiltration trench for roof runoff; he said the building would be slab on grade and estimated about 10–15 feet to the stream edge.
Commission Chair Mary Haight expressed concern about soil stability and the risk of bank collapse near the work, and several members said they were frustrated a building permit had issued without Conservation Commission review. The commission found the plan could not be approved as submitted and advised the applicant to shift the building and driveway further from the stream.
A motion to continue the public hearing on DEP File No. 14‑1450 to May 28, 2026, was made by Peter Wilson and seconded by Mike Splaine; a separate motion to continue the Enforcement Order for the same file to May 28 was made by Mike McCarthy and seconded by Mike Splaine. Both motions were recorded as passing (4 in favor, 0 opposed). The applicant agreed to revise plans and return at the continued hearing.
Next steps: the applicant will submit revised plans addressing buffer intrusion and setback/location changes before the commission reconvenes this item on May 28, 2026.
