===PAGE 1=== Town of Lunenburg Conservation Commission Bob Pease, Chair Tel: (978) 582-4146 Kenneth Jones, Vice-Chair 960 Massachusetts Ave. Richard Bursch Lunenburg, MA 01462 Catie Childs Carl Luck Jack Rabbitt Matthew S. Marro, Jeffrey Viviano Conservation Administrator Michael Larouche, Associate MINUTES April 21, 2021 7:00 PM In accordance with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, please be advised that this meeting is being recorded and available for viewing over the Lunenburg Public Access You Tube Channel The Town of Lunenburg, in response to the COVID-19 (Corona Virus) is currently following the guidance from the Lunenburg Board of Health, Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the CDC regarding the virus and steps communities can take to prevent the spread and all town facilities are currently closed to the public. In accordance with the Governor’s Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G. L. c. 30A, § 20, all public meetings are being conducted remotely. This meeting will be able to be found on the Lunenburg Access YouTube channel within 24 hours after the meeting. To Participate Remotely on Zoom members of the public may use cell phones, tablets or computers with audio and video capabilities. The Zoom Meeting ID is 844 0856 4373 Town of Lunenburg is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Conservation Commission Time: Apr 21, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84408564373 Meeting ID: 844 0856 4373 One tap mobile +19292056099,,84408564373# US (New York) +13017158592,,84408564373# US (Washington DC) Dial by your location +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 877 853 5257 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 844 0856 4373 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kce4D4gLWX ===PAGE 2=== No participant ID is needed, just press # when asked. All participants who are not members of the commission or staff will be muted by the chair. Computer and app users may use the “raise hand” feature to request to speak. To access the raise hand feature, open the participant list by clicking on participants. To raise your hand, click on the button at the bottom of the participant list. The chair will call on you and unmute you. Telephone audio users may dial star (*) 9 to request to speak after joining the meeting. Members of the public must give their name and address before they begin speaking. Please direct all comments to the chair. If you have trouble accessing zoom or have general questions you can send an email to lcc@lunenburgonline.com during the meeting. Emails containing questions or comments that are to be read aloud at the meeting must be signed with full name, address and phone number. Please be aware that if you are using video, other people will be able to see you and that anything that is broadcast will be recorded. The agenda lists all the topics which may be discussed at the meeting and are those reasonably anticipated by the Chair. Votes may be taken as a result of these discussions. Not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items not listed may also be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by Open Meeting Law. Each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted by roll call vote. Call to Order Announcements All members present except CL called to order at 7 PM by BP Public Comment Comments are to be limited to 3 minutes and on a subject matter under the direct jurisdiction of the commission. Comments about current agenda items are to be made during the comment period of the specific agenda item Minutes of previous meetings –March 3 and March 17 2021 and April 7 2021 Minutes March 17- motion to approve by KJ and a second by CC with a unanimous move to approve the motion. Appointments/Hearings –commences at 7 PM Appointment: Hearing/Forum for the benefit of the public. The Lunenburg Conservation Commission, under authority granted by Massachusetts Gen eral Law Chapter 40, Section 8C, is revising the rules and regulations governing the use of Lunenburg land and waters under its care and control . The Conservation Commission will hold a public forum/hearing for considerations of revisions to commission land use policy. The supporting documents are available for review at the Conservation Commission office by calling 978-582-4146 ext 431 by appointment. Emailing a PDF is also an option on request by emailing lcc@lunenburgonline, the meeting is scheduled for April 21, 2021 at 7 PM BP reviewed the question and answer document that was posted on the commission web site. Andrea Adams asked what is geo chasing. BP Answered Bill Mish- volunteered to help with the site. Andrea Adams suggested putting a ,message on the conservation commission website. Andrea Laford fire arms possession permitted for only hunting on the 2 properties ? BP allows possession of firearms and cited an example of concealed carry. Jane Duvall asked if the area was open space not subject to commission control were fire arms allowed? BP noted there were no regulations on the BOS land and permission to discharge a firearm was allowed. It was also asked if the Hunting Hill parcel and the small town forest abut each other? BP noted no both parcels are abutting the Townsend parcels and it was noted that you would have to go through a private parcel to get to the two or around the Townsend parcel. She also reviewed the portion of the regulations concerning tree stands. She asked about how the process ===PAGE 3=== would work if it was off hours from the office being opened. BP noted that the police had noted to him and MM during a meeting, the police will be enforce the regulations as well. It was also noted that the Environmental Police could also come down to enforce. Bob Walton of Whalom Road asked if the new regulations would prohibit the possession of firearms? The answer was not the possession just the use. He noted for various reasons for concealed carry and supported the commission allowing concealed carry. He also confirmed the two parcels that the commission were considering allowing hunting. He noted that he respected peoples right to hunt. He noted where he came from in New Jersey where hunting is prohibited, there were problems with deer populations and felt adding the parcels was a good controlled method of allowing it. Todd Whittier of 519 Burrage Street. He noted the full page ad from the ledger that speaks to the non binding resolution and would the passing of that resolution then require the conservation commission to ban firearms as the petition states? BP noted that it is a non binding resolution and the sole authority under law to pass land use regulations. Katy Adams noted that the Regulations on possession and hunting be separated and be 2 separate topics as they are two substantially different things. She spoke to the citizens petition and that it is a method of what the towns people are trying to communicate. She also why we were working on the regulations now. JR explained that the commission has been working on the regulations for a long period of time. He noted that the communications on this matter reflect a 6 to1 ration against hunting. He compared the non binding resolution to an appeal on a commission ruling during normal process. Mark Bursch thanks the commission for all of their work. He noted that he had lived in town for over 50 years and has hunted as a child on a number of conservation lands and asked why the original regulations in 2011 struck down hunting. BP noted that he cannot answer the question as research showed a lack minutes or other record showing a hearing or a vote. Mr bursch asked if the commission had obtained other parcels since the regulations were in place, and BP noted yes there were other larger parcels obtained . Richard Bursch noted that the lack of documentation and noted in his research there was no mention of passing the regulations on any agendas or minutes or and there was only one mention of a draft set of regulations and cautioned that there is nothing showing the regulations as exist were ever even voted on. Todd Whittier reiterated that the full page ad misrepresented the actual facts and that the hunting community wants their concerns represented. Jane Duvall noted that the part of the regulations that troubles her is that on the April 7 meeting that RB made a comment that all of the emails on the website file he did not see a compelling reason why the regulations should not pass and wondered why he made the comment. RB noted he didn’t want to go into another discussion and that he had elaborated on his reasons at the April 7 meeting and among those was that there were many other larger parcels of land that would not be open to hunting (17) that people could hike on. He also noted that many of the land that was private to hunters has been lost. He noted that the there are 250 licenses for hunting in town and there were 110 emails and there was a lot of the townspeople that did not participate. JR pointed out that in addition to the properties owned by conservation commission, and there are other parcels not under control of the commission that were also under control. He reviewed data concerning hunting accidents. Andrea Adams based on her research she noted that the commission should be very wary of prohibiting possession and that state agencies do not prohibit possession. The two issues are distinct and separate. She noted that the regulations proposed were very specific and differentiated. She noted that the regulations would help to clarify this. BP noted that the commission did verify with town counsel and they have been vetted three or four times. Andrea Laford on Pleasant Street noted a comment about the number of hunters is a known ===PAGE 4=== quantity and versus the number of people who wrote emails objecting that number may not reflect. She noted that there are residents that live near the properties that would be affected. Tom Alonzo noted that if the current land use policy concerning firearms possession had been vetted by town counsel and the town has the ability to prohibit. He also noted that there was not an issue that brought out 100 people to write on in his experience in his tenure with the town. He also noted that he would argue that there are also other places outside of Lunenburg borders that would allow hunting that hunters could go to. Michelle Taylor 250 Howard Street feels there is no compelling reasons to increase firearms hunting and noted there was no evidence brought forward of over population and also noted that there was a subdivision at the Northwest town forest being proposed. Chris Martin at 981 Northfield Road had noted a lot of statistics presented at the meeting and wanted to know if there was any statistical information how many people use the hunting hill conservation area where there is hunting allowed and hikers and hunters and hikers apparently coexist? Bp noted that we have no data on who uses the conservation lands and that the commission has no control over the Hunting Hills area due to agreement with the state. Dennis Fortune on Robbs Hill Road noted that there are certain times of the year you can hunt and that deer season was limited. He noted that conservation lands are for everyone and everyone should be able to use the land for different purposes. Todd Whittier Noted he hunts on hunting hill and robs hill three seasons and his children also use the conservation area. He noted response to Tom Alonzo’s comments that as a taxpayer why should he go out of town to use the lands. BP noted that the deliberations are scheduled father on down the agenda and noted that there may not be a final vote as the full membership was not present. JR asked if the Chairman was considering a vote without waiting for the town meeting? Bob Walton noted in response to JR is that one of the problems with the article was that it lumped possession and hunting and that the petition would not really guide the commission on both issues and that the resolution was non binding. Lynn Mann 463 Burrage Street agreed with bob Walton’s and Katy Adams Comment concerning the resolution. With no further public comments the chair closed the public hearing. Public Hearings Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Bill Ferrebee will be held. Work proposed is the replacement of a septic system within 100-feet of a wetland resource area at 9 Boutwell Street. The supporting documents are available for review at the Conservation Commission office by calling 978-582-4147 ext 431 by appointment. Doug Smith representing the applicants. He noted that it was an existing two bedroom home that has a septic that did not pass title V and that the system replacement was designed as was optimal due to limitations of the lot. He kept the design of the system within 44 feet from the wetland and noted that there was no work within the 30 foot no touch zone. RB asked if the system went before the Board of Health. Doug Smith noted that it has not completely went through the board of health process. PB recommended that we should continue the hearing until the Board of Health process was completed. Andrea Adams asked if the distance from the well was to prevent septage from, going to the well. Doug Smith noted that it was to meet the title V offset. A motion was made to continue to the May 5 meeting by RB and a second by KJ with a unanimous ===PAGE 5=== motion to approve. Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Christopher and Suzanne DeGeorge will be held. Work proposed is improvement of access to Lake Shirley and control of erosion within 100-feet of a wetland resource area at 48 Pearl Street. Chris Anderson was present to represent the applicant. He oriented the commission to the site, the slopes of the land and the relation to the wetland (Lake Shirley) He noted that there is an elevated deck system to replace a portion of the stairs to alleviate the stated concerns as the stairs were in disrepair and was prohibitive to access the lake area. The concrete block area was slated to be replaced with a naturalize stone. He also noted that the retaining walls made of timber were decayed and would be replaced. The grading would be adjusted to allow for the controlling of erosion. He noted that upon completion of the work there would be stabilization of the site with grass. He noted that the applicant was requesting access to the area of the lake bed during drawdown due to the limitations on site of the steep slopes of the rear yard. He also noted that only small vehicles would be used. He did note that there was no DEP comment and that he would agree to a continuance if the commission wanted to walk the site. BP reviewed the photos that CL had sent to the file. JR asked MM for his input MM noted that his main concern was the removal of the trees and the severe erosion issues are intertwined and agreed with Mr. Andersons recommendations for the site walk and also stated that an arborist may be worth consulting? KJ noted that he agrees with the aide for a site walk and asked that the trees to be removed and replanted be marked and staked out. BP read CL’s remarks in writing into the record. (on file at commission office ) JV asked of sono tubes would be used for the stairs. Chris Anderson said yes sono tubes would be used. Mr Anderson noted that he would facilitate having an arborist report. KJ asked if any of the work would be prior to drawdown. Chris Anderson noted that the stairs and plantings can commence. BP asked if we could continue the hearing until May 19. The applicants agreed. RB moved to continue the hearing until May 19. KJ seconded and the commission voted unanimously by roll call vote. The site visit was set for May 15. Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by MA Pleasant LLC will be held. Work proposed is construction of a six lot subdivision , Roadway, util ities and a proposed wetland crossing at 101 Pleasant Street MM noted that there is no DEP number issued currently. David Plunkett and Treavor Fletcher represented the applicant. Treavor Fletcher noted that the planning board hearing has not commenced and there is no comment received as of yet from the reviewing engineer. He explained the project proposal and the orientation to the wetland. He noted that the work was proposed to the limits of the 30 foot no touch zone. Out lined the specifics for the wetland crossing and replication. He outlined the methodologies of the stormwater system and its calculations. He out lined the locations of the main storm water basins and how they would operate. ===PAGE 6=== JR asked if there was a stream running near the property and asked if there was riverfront. MM clarified where the riverfront was. RB noted that there was a 2 to 1 replication rate required under local regulation. He also noted that a detail of the crossing and replication should be submitted. BP asked Mr. Plunkett if there was something he would want to say. He noted not at this time. BP noted as the process progresses they would like to see the area staked out for a site walk. RB noted that the commission should get the reviewer documentation from the reviewer. Andrea Laford on Pleasant Street noted the pond that was located on the property and wanted to know if the pond would be affected. The answer from Mr Fletcher was no. MM noted the comments from DPW on the commission application portal and that a copy of such was available for review by the commission. BP noted that pond was not marked clearly on the plan and asked if it would be added to the plans. Mr Fletcher noted that would not be an issue. Andrea Adams representing her mother Beatrice Adams noted she thought it was a very aggressive proposal for a parcel of property that has a lot of wetland issues and that there should be revisions to minimize site work and would be examining the site plans as the revisions come into play. She will submit further comment to MM and the applicant for distribution. RB asked of there was another complete set of plans on file or if there was a revision of layers that could be turned off to allow for specific attributes. He also asked if the wetland and buffer zones could be remarked in color. Mr Fletcher will provide a list of layers on the plans for the commission to review. The meeting was continued to the 19th of May by a motion by RB and A Second by CC with a numinous vote to approve the motion. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing on a Request for a Determination of Applicability for work at 73 Peninsula Drive by Daniel Murphy will be held. Work prop osed is the removal of trees within the buffer zone. Dan Murphy representing himself. His proposal is to take down trees on his lot and he is worried that they may come down for his house and the neighbors. He noted that there was no sun on the yard. JR noted that he felt not all of the trees not come down and felt that there was a need to call in an arborist . JV felt that only 4 or 5 trees could come down and noted that the removal of all of the trees would leave a gap of trees along the shoreline. JV shared picture of the site with the commission. Mr. Murphy offered a site walk to the commission. RB moved to continue the meeting to May 19. JV seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion by roll call vote. Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, the Lunenburg Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing for a Notice of Intent by Cynthia Ritchie for work at 137 Flynn Road to build a natural stone wall along the waterfront to protect against future erosion of the edges of the land and beach. Continued to May 5 by a motion of RB and a second by CC with a unanimous vote to approve the motion by roll call vote. ===PAGE 7=== Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, the Lunenburg Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing for a Notice of Intent by Empire Management Corp for work at 757 Chase Road for the demolition and reconstruction of a Commercial building with gradin g and parking Continued to the May 5 meeting by a motion of KJ and a second by CC with a unanimous roll call vote to approve the motion. Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, the Lunenburg Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing for a Notice of Intent by Joann Magurn for work at 238 Fire Road 16 for the construction of a single family home with a drive way crossing. Brian Butler, Joann and Butch Magurn present to represent. Magurn 238 Fire Road 16 Mr Butler noted that the Superseding Order of conditions was issued and he reviewed the contents of the superseding order of conditions. He noted that the DEP had issued essentially a standard superseding Order of Conditions. RB had recalled asking about the retaining walls and noted a colored update he sent to the meeting binder illustrating the retaining walls . He reviewed the colored drawing with the commission. He noted areas of substantial filling within the 30 foot no touch zone. He noted the commission has been consistent in previous filings concerning work within the 30 and 50 foot zones and noted that the retaining walls and the fills would violate the wetlands by law. Mr Butler noted that the walls were in proximity to the flood plain and would ask for a variance. He noted the wall was in place to allow for the sloping for the garage. He noted that the wall on the other side could be removed. Butch Magurn noted that the east site is necessary and the west side he has no issues removing. JR noted that he and CL walked the site again and that the drive way will cut into the top of the esker and noted that some of the trimming had begun and wondered why it had been done. He noted that the docks are not on the plan. He asked of a coupe of members could come down to the site so he can show them the site. He was also concerned that there would be a return visit by a future owner and that there could be more of the trees to asked be removed. He noted that the alternative site would have the same amount of material removed. He also asked why there was a refusal to not subdivide. He also noted that the alternative looks like a good site for a potential subdivided lot. He also noted that there was a comment made at the last meeting by the applicant for the full board to be present. JV had walked the site and noted he is familiar with the lot and asked if the wall to the east could be eliminated or moved further back? Butch Magurn noted that it is possible. Butch Magurn noted that the fire department recommendations on the driveway width is not a mandated requirement. RB asked that an updated plan be drawn reflecting the walls so it could be referenced as a condition of approval. Brian Butler addressed JR’s comment about the grading between the two alternatives and that contrary to his comment there was a high order of magnitude of grading volume and that the alternative would require substantially more earth work. Based on a comment from JR. Mr Butler outlined the snow removal of the driveway. JR was concerned that there could be flooding out. JR noted that he felt there was a potential to 1000 trees to be removed. He was counting very small diameter trees. Mr Butler noted there was no mature trees that were proposed to be removed. He disputed the number that Mr. Rabbitt out forth. Butch Magurn noted that there was no proposed tree removal along the driveway and it has been that way through the entire process for the last year. He felt it was inappropriate for past issues that have been address to be repeatedly drawn up . ===PAGE 8=== A motion was made to continue the meeting pending a revised plan showing the wing walls removed and the hay bales on east side moved up to demarcate a limit of work. JR seconded. The Commission voted to approve the motion to continue to the May 5 meeting by roll call vote. Joann Magurn noted that they would not be willing to make further changes to the plan after the wing walls are modified and that as previously stated the docks will be considered in the future as a future filing after the completed construction. Old Business: ENFORCEMENT: Violations (Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings). 90 Ruth Street- second letter will be sent with a potential fine 9 valley to be removed 615 Townsend Street – compliant with timelines 48 Oak Ridge Letter to be sent due to non response 205 Arbor- Still awaiting to hear back from DEP Mass Ave Highway project- MM still trying to communicate with DOT Crawford Street OOC- MM noted that the work is going to be starting this season 70 Oak Ridge- MM had reviewed a draft as built that the engineering crew is finalizing an it appears that the work is compliant with the OOC. Old Business- Deliberation of land use policy RB motioned to approve the final draft of the land use policy as submitted with the revised land use permit by MM. JV seconded. JR noted the comments and that 61 comments were against the hunting and that there was an ad in the ledger with 110 signatures is against and that there is a non- binding resolution pending for town meeting and that the particular base of people are the users of the land. It was clarified that BP had stated that the trails grant would fund 150 land signs and that the land use regulations passed would dictate the contents of the signage. CC is not comfortable with voting without CC present and that she would like to wait to hear the debate on the town meeting and would like to set the vote for May 5. JV noted that there is a current motion on the floor. KJ noted that having a full board to vote on the motion is important and that he may be working May 5 and at what point are we going to vote. He felt that town meeting would likely result in the same statements that have been already made. RB noted that we have 6 members here and that if there were 4 votes in favor that it would not change the result if CL was here or not. Andrea Adams had a question for the commission and given covid and the use of zoom and asked if the remote participation by zoom would allow phone? BP noted yes. ML noted that he was more of a process person and noted that to hear everyone’s opinion would make the commission seems more transparent? He noted that CL could be reached potentially by phone. The vote was KJ CC JR no and RB JV and BP yes ..the motion failed and would be taken up again on the 5th of May. ===PAGE 9=== New Business BP met with the residents at old stage coach road and they noted they want the gate to be placed in a manner that would stop any turn around on the residents driveway Update on trails grant – status report, if any. Certificates of Compliance Extension Permit – Committee Reports – Any Updates Administrator’s Reports/action items: Administrator’s determination – Open space and land and Trail use issues and strategies:  Forestry Planning /Encroachment on town open space ( draft plan discussion) Update on Rayno/Hollis Communications / public comment Adjourn Motion to adjourn by CC a second by JR and a unanimous vote by roll call vote. The meeting adjourned at 10: 45 PM Meeting schedule: Next meeting is May 5, 2021 at 7PM ===PAGE 10===