===PAGE 1=== Town of Lunenburg Conservation Commission Bob Pease, Chair Tel: (978) 582-4146 Richard Bursch, Vice Chair 960 Massachusetts Ave. Patricia Adams Lunenburg, MA 01462 Catie Childs Jack Rabbitt Matthew S. Marro, Jeffrey Viviano Conservation Administrator Michael Larouche November 17, 2021 7:00 PM . MINUTES ZOOM REMOTE In accordance with the requirements of the Open Meetings Law, please be advised that this meeting is being Audio/Video 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. This meeting of the Conservation Commission will be held by Zoom at the Link provided on this notice. ZOOM INFORMATION: Topic: Conservation Commission Time: Nov 17, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84849694985?pwd=YTJFOVR4REdKTUNPcDdJUzNzWGp6QT09 Meeting ID: 848 4969 4985 Passcode: 224690 One tap mobile +13126266799,,84849694985# US (Chicago) +19292056099,,84849694985# US (New York) Dial by your location +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 877 853 5257 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 848 4969 4985 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbSs4Fx988 ===PAGE 2=== Meeting called to order with RB acting as chair. In attendance – RB, CC, JV,ML,JR Call to Order Announcements 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. Please address all comments to the Chair. Minutes of previous meetings – October 20 Appointments/Hearings –commences at 7 PM Public Hearing Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws a public hearing o n a Notice of Intent by Jeffery Landry the installation of a tight tank at 1078 Lancaster Ave. Mark Elbag represented. Mr. Elbag outlined the specifics of the site to the Conservation Commission and its relation to the resource area and noted the most feasible solution was a tight tank. He noted that the construction outlined on the plans would be quick and light for the site. RB asked when the plan was to put the tight tank. RB ask the applicant if the erosion protection could be added two and enhanced to account for any heavy rains that may be encountered during the fall. He asked for buried and staked silt fencing. MM noted the waddles should go from 6 to 8-inch waddles to 12 inch waddles as he felt 6 inch waddles would be ineffective based on the terrain. JR agreed with the expectation of the erosion control. A motion was made to approve an order of conditions with added conditions concerning the enhanced the erosion control. The motion was made by JR and seconded by ML. The motion was approved by a role call vote 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 Kevin Hill the Construction of a single family home at 41 Country Lane Wesley Flis was present to represent the commission. He outlined the site for consideration, the condition of the site and the location of the resource areas. He outlined the location of the proposed house in relation to the wetland resource areas and addressed impacts under the rivers protection portion of the wetland protection act. He reviewed the creation history of the lot to note it predated the enactment of the river protection portion of the welding protection act. He further outlined the location of the well and septic, specifying the areas of the septic system components and where they were located. He illustrated for the Commission how the impacts shown on the plan were proposed to be as minimal as possible. JR reviewed the riverfront and the other resource areas with the applicant. It was noted by the applicant that there were no alternatives for the location regarding the riverfront and the buffer zone. JR noted he felt the applicant was asking for a waiver from the riverfront and the 100 foot buffer zone. The applicant noted the exceptions built into the river protection act. JR felt the structure should not be as large as the applicant wants. The applicant noted the provisions are in existence to protect pre-existing lots prior to the enactments of the regulations and noted the regulations do not restrict the size of a house development, however it does allow for it specifically. The applicant noted that in order to move the house farther out of the riverfront it would move it closer to the wetland resource area in the front of the lot potentially intruding into the 50 foot no touch zone. The applicant further noted that in accordance with the performance standards in the regulations, they were attempting to provide a 100-foot swath of undisturbed vegetation within the riverfront. JR noted he was sensitive to the Mulpus. The applicant expressed concern is that reconfiguring the locations of the house, would likely wind up with configurations within the 30 in 50-foot restrictive bylaw zones.. JR noted he would not be adverse to the house being turned and going into the 100 foot buffer zone the applicant then asked if the Commission was open till work being done in the 50 foot no build zone in order for the house to be moved out of the riparian zone. ===PAGE 3=== ML asked if there was a former dumpsite on this property. RB examined moving the garage closer to the front of the house. the applicant did note that there was a covered front porch. RB ask if the porch could be eliminated and there could be just a set of stairs going to the front door and if the garage was moved up about 15 feet, there could be a lot of impacts mitigated. RB indicated he did not have any issue with having an open deck located in the back of the house going into the inner riparian zone. It was noted the septic system has already been approved by the Board of Health. CC wanted to know if the trees being removed were quantified and if there was a replanting plan that was submitted with the application. The applicant noted there was no formal replanting plan. MM clarify there was no work within the 30 foot no touch zone, and as such, there was no replanting plan required under the regulations. MM noted he would like to see all the backland closed off with maybe some type of conservation restriction. MM noted based on CC’s point, there may be some small trees that might be touched and consider evaluating planting replacement along the front of the stone wall and in areas where the canopy naturally thins out. JR ask the applicant about moving the tanks that were proposed from their current location to the other side of the house. the applicant noted that he would check it. RB Noted that he would be more inclined to have the garage go into the front of the house. RB noted the house could be smaller however it likely would not be any narrow within 30 feet. Noted that JV I was having a hard time logging in and as such was wondering if the meeting should continue. RB noted he was still letting people in and people were signing in and out so it appears to be a potential localized issue to JV. Andrea Adams noted that the size of the house could be changed due to planning or zoning board of appeals regulations. She noted from the turn around to the slope slide could be changed by placing the garage underneath or by changing the configuration of the master and perhaps having any bonus or auxiliary rooms be placed on a second floor. JR building on Ms. Adams comment, his own house had the garage placed at the basement level and suggested perhaps installing an elevator. The meeting was continued to the December 1st meeting at 7:00 PM by a motion of CC with a second by JR and a unanimous vote of the commission to approve the motion CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 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 by Matthew Butterworth for the placement of a shed within the buffer zone at 188 Whalom road. No one showed for the hearing, it was continued to the December 1, 2021 meeting by a motion of CC and a second by JR with a unanimous vote by roll call to approve the motion. 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 by Randy and Jacqueline Leblanc for the placement of a shed within the buffer zone at 1390 Lancaster Ave. MM outlined the revised drawing in the information that it showed based on the site walk he and ML conducted. He noted the outline of erosion protection that was shown in the drawing and trees that would be removed with the closest tree being within 96 feet of the wetland and the other trees being completely out of the buffer zone. RB Requested that the plan be dated and signed. emotion was made to issue a negative determination by CC with a second by ML. The motion was approved unanimously by a roll call vote 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 by Bryan miner for the demolition of a screened in section of a single family home with an re-building if an addition within the buffer zone at 35 Peninsula Drive. JR noted that the house foundation was 52 feet. The screen porch is 37 feet from the water’s edge and the applicant was seeking to extend the addition closer to the lake. The applicant noted they were seeking square off the house with the addition. RB noted that under current regulation you can rebuild the existing structure however the added structure does not meet the requirement of the bylaw as it is within a 50 foot no structure zone. ML noted that he agreed without any existing slab or foundation expansion outside of the existing structure does not meet regulation. CC felt the area was already ===PAGE 4=== disturbed and had no issues with allowing the limited expansion. Jr expressed concern with increasing the impermeability of the area. Alternatives for an expansion were examined and it was determined it would be too close to the neighbors. The applicant agreed to the option of rehabilitating the existing screened in porch. JV noted that there is another option Where the applicant can totally dismantle the existing porch and move it to the opposite side of the same side of the house. the applicant decided it would be prudent to leave the structure and rehabilitate in place. Andrea Adams inquired on the zoning setbacks for the side setbacks. It was noted that there was a 10 foot side setback and it was shown there were constraints. A motion was made to approve only the rehabilitation of the existing screened in porch with the proposed addition being denied and removed from consideration by ML with a second from JR. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote. 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 by Ray Clouthier the reconstruction of an existing foot path and the placement of a temporary screen house within the buffer zone at 37 Pearl Street Ray Clouthier was present to represent himself. JR gave the Commission his estimation of what he saw on site. he also noted there was a small shed that it was determined was placed there two years prior that was UN permitted. it is a small plastic shed that is simply placed in the area and has no foundation and can be readily moved. JR noted that he and ML verified the distances listed on the plan. It was noted the only new wall structure was pictured in an exhibit less than 30 feet from the edge of wet. RB noted that he would like to see some existing evidence that the walkway was pre-existing and noted that the new interior wall which is very small can be removed so that the yard can be re graded. he also asked for the shed to be removed either out of the 50 foot zone or it could be allowed on a pre existing concrete pad that was shown in the photographic exhibits. JR examined a screen house placement versus a tent. The applicant noted he picked that particular location where the gravel pad was removed to avoid the septic system. RB noted that some minor regrading and stabilization could allow for the placement of a screenhouse in that same area that was originally gravel. RB also showed the picture that JV provided showing the original walkway. A motion was made for a negative determination to remove the wall re grade the area where the wall was and remove the side section of walkway that was going to the screen house. moving of the shed was also included as part of the motion by ML with a second by JV. The motion was approved unanimously by roll call vote. The Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting on a request for a Notice of Intent by Proctor Masonry for work at 203 Fire Road 16 for the construction of replacement retaining walls and the removal of trees affecting the current wall structure. Removed from agenda as it was approved at a prior meeting 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, utilities and a proposed wetland crossing at 101 Pleasant Street. Paul Grasewicz was present to represent the applicant. The applicant noted the proposed subdivision was taken down from 6 units to 4 to minimize the impacts on wetlands. The units are on 2 ANR lots with a shared driveway the comes down the lot line per planning regulations. He reviewed the replication area, the proposed stormwater management and the configuration of the driveway and the lots. he noted the addition of the culverts on the proposed drive to maintain the hydrology of the existing overland sheet flow connecting the wetland systems. Proposed grading versus existing grading was also reviewed. The notes and schematic of the replication area on the plans were reviewed. RB asked for a plant inventory and a replication narrative to ensure compatibility with the replication that is proposed to be planted with what is existing for the surrounding wetlands. MM inquired if the replication area was going to require removal of the overstory or if it was going to be dug out in such a way that it was going to meander around the existing canopy. The applicant noted most of the trees in the area are multi stem saplings. MM also asked if the revised plans were sent to DEP noting that he would like to see any follow-up comments if it had been submitted. The applicant noted that he would check into it and ensure it was done. RB wanted to know if the crossing was in the same location as originally proposed. It was noted by the applicant that it was moved slightly southward as the original subdivision required large radius for turning that no longer exists in this new version. The applicant also noted that the common driveway and it's required location along the property lines also dictated the ===PAGE 5=== location of the crossing and noted the crossing was less square footage and is narrower in shape. The applicant was asked to stake out the replication area so it could be examined on a future inspection. MM asked the applicant if the septic system was approved by the local Board of Health. It was noted that it is not quite approved yet but it is anticipated that it will be shortly. MM asked about the status with the planning board. The applicant noted that he withdrew the subdivision and the ANR’s were approved at the last regular meeting of the planning board. JR examine the location of the new turn around on the plans. Andrea Adams referred to a previous letter that she had written in commentary concerning this development especially highlighting sections that dealt with the wetland replication that is proposed. With consent to the applicant the meeting was continued to December 1st by a motion of JR and a second by JV. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Commission. NEW BUSINESS - 61 A release request: 5 parcels, Holman St. & Northfield Road - The Commission voted to allow the parcels to be released for purchase as it does not meet with Conservation Commission goals and objectives regarding open space. Motion was made to allow the release of the property by JR and seconded by CC with a unanimous vote to approve the motion by roll call vote. By Law review Committee Communication. Trail planning at 260 Howard Street. Old Business- Repairs to 123 Hollis Road residence MM asked for a vote of $600 for pest control and $800 for two pumping’s of the septic system to be approved by the Commission to allow the bills to be paid. A motion was made to approve the amounts by JR with a second by CC. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote. ENFORCEMENT: Violations (Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings). 615 Townsend Street MM reviewed the site history of the lot. He noted that at the end of October there was a silt event that resulted in silt heading to Pages Pond which resulted in the third enforcement order. MM ordered the landowner to install a wood shavings berm in order to prevent further erosion leaving the site at this point the wood shavings berm appears to have worked. he also noted that he was concerned there was earth removal activities commencing on the site that is not commensurate with the agricultural exemption that has previously been granted to him. MM is going to investigate the area with the building commissioner to determine whether the exemption has been violated and permitting is now necessary. He is also a evaluating whether stormwater management would be required for permitting on the local level. JR noted that the abutter Alan foster retained an attorney who provided it a timeline history on the property. he also reviewed pictures of some of the pond area showing some of the silt has still been retained however the majority of the pond is flowing clean. He also reiterated MM’s comments regarding the current earthwork that is taking place on the property. MM will send a notice to the owner that there must be erosion protection added or fines can commence if more silt goes into the pond. Allan Foster appeared before the commission and reviewed the history of the property. It was noted by the Commission that depending on what type of remediation and level of permitting will be needed, the property owner may need to hire a professional consultant. ===PAGE 6=== 441 Townsend Harbor Road Jeremy Eithier, was present to represent the owner (Nick Eaton) . JR asked for a letter from the insurance company noting the number of trees and proximity to the house that they wanted removed. Jeremy Eithier noted that there were eight loads of debris that were removed from the property which is in the process of being cleaned up. JR requested some of the material be moved through different parts of the property to get them away from the water. Mr Eithier noted he would. The Commission agreed to do a site walk during the next Saturday round prior to the next meeting. RB expressed appreciation for the placement of an underground drainage system on the plan as part of the remediation. He also suggested adding in some natural vegetation as part of the remediation. The Commission did request documentation from a structural engineer be added to the file to address the disposition of the roofs overhang. Leominster Road- Illegal Dumping activity NON 48Oak Ridge EO 205 Arbor Street NON 23 Cove Road 190 Peninsula Drive Update on trails grant – status report, if any. Certificates of Compliance Extension Permit – Committee Reports – Any Update Administrator’s Reports/action items: Administrators Determination- 135 Flynn Rd removal of 2 dead trees MM Presented the Commission with photographs of three trees that need to be removed. the Commission approved the administrator’s determination with the motion by JR and a second by CC with a unanimous roll call vote approving the motion. Open space and land and Trail use issues and strategies: Communications / public comment Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 10:13 PM with a motion from JR and the second from ML with a unanimous roll call vote to approve the motion. Meeting schedule: Next meeting is December 1, 2021 at 7:00 PM BY ZOOM PLATFORM