===PAGE 1=== Town of Lunenburg Conservation Commission Mary Wilson, Chair Tel: (978)582-4146 Bob Pease, Vice Chair Richard Bursch 960 Massachusetts Ave Jeffrey Viviano Lunenburg, MA 01462 Michael Larouche Ashleigh Denio Chris St. Germain Conservation Assistant Jenny Pewtherer February 7, 2024, 7:00PM, ZOOM REMOTE Minutes Roll Call: Bob P., Rich B., Jeff V ., Mike L., Chris S., Mary W., Jenny Pewtherer and Sophie Dorow - Administrator Call to Order at 7pm Announcements- Mary welcomed Jenny Pewtherer as a new Commissioner. Jenny noted that she worked for Weston Nurseries for 9 years as their IT manager and is now an IT manager for a landscaping construction company that does a lot of stormwater plans. Public Comment- Richard Parsons (70 Horizon Island Rd) – asking for permission to cut 3 trees, one of which is dying and he is concerned they may fall on his house. He originally contacted the office in August and had 1 site visit from an interim administrator. Richard screen-shared photos of the 3 trees, which are about 70’ tall. Mary replied that she thought his request had come before the Commission and he should have received direction to submit an RDA. Richard stated he could not find a form for an RDA but found a Notice of Intent form. Mary replied that Richard should contact Sophie directly to continue the process and Sophie advised him to email her with questions. She noted that she has updated the website with forms and instructions. Minutes of previous meetings – 12/20/23, 1/3/24 and 1/17/24 Motion: Rich B., Second: Mike L. To approve the minutes of 12/20/23. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. Motion: Rich B., Second: Bob P. To approve the minutes of 1/3/24. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. Motion: Bob P., Second: Mike L. To approve the minutes of 1/17/24. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. Certificates of Compliance for 120 West St. – Bob Hannigan (Hannigan Engineering) – Sophie reported that she did a site visit 3 weeks ago and she previously showed photos taken by herself and Donna Molet prior to the snowfall. The photos show the extension on the house in relation to the wetlands. Bill Hannigan screen-shared the site plan, showing the proposed addition to the right side of the house and has submitted the as-built plan showing the completed addition. He noted that their site review showed everything has been stabilized for quite some time but the Certificate of Compliance was never submitted for request, which is why he is present. Sophie screen-shared the site photos, showing crushed stone along the foundation as noted on the plan and the proximity to the wetlands. A measurement was taken from the ===PAGE 2=== corner of the house down to the buffer zone and it is outside of the 50’. Another photo showed a bare spot near the house and Sophie noted that it is an area which does not get a lot of sun. Mary asked Sophie for her recommendation and she replied that she did not see anything concerning. It has been stabilized for quite a while and is all set for a Certificate of Compliance. Mary asked for questions from the Commissioners but there were none. Motion: Chris S., Second: Jeff V . To approve the Certificate of Compliance for 120 West Street. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. Bill H. asked when the certificate would be available and Mary asked Sophie to contact him after the Commissioners have Docu-signed it. Bill thanked the Commission for their accommodation. Appointments/Hearings NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS – Mary noted none were scheduled due to issues of posting notices but that has been resolved for future meetings, with notices posted to the Ledger. 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 an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation by Kevin O’Brien at 390 Howard Street. (DEP 208-1304) (Continued from 1/17/24 to 2/7/24). Kevin O’Brien and Matt Marro present. Mary noted that on a previous site walk there were wetland flags missing and snow had prevented a new site walk. Matt Marro reported that the flag situation has been remediated and staked out. They tried to do site walks between meetings, but a foot of snow prevented them. He noted that the Vice-Chair suggested they could obtain a certified letter from the surveyor, certifying that all the flags had been put out and areas staked per the Commission. Matt stated the surveyor, Mr. Rheault, will submit that letter. Bob P. said he had sent a letter to Matt and Jamie Rheault with a compendium of all the aerial photos of the site since the last delineation in 2008 up to the present. The photos show extensive excavation and clearing of trees, around 2012/2013. He also sent 3 photos of wetland flags hung on dead herbaceous vegetation. Bob was advocating that the Commission request the surveyor/engineer submit a letter stating that all of the wetlands flags have been survey located and note their degree of accuracy. He added that he would like to see that letter in advance of another site walk. Mary recalled that they had discussed having a 3rd party review for this site. Bob replied that the 3rd party review is essential and there has been a lot of modification to the site since the wetlands were delineated in 2008. He added that the applicant appears to be asking them to adopt the wetlands delineation from 2008 but the applicant should have a 3rd party re-delineate the wetlands, to show whether wetlands had been disturbed or new wetlands created due to the disturbance activities since 2008. Matt and Kevin stated they have no objection to that. Kevin noted that they had discussed having a site walk between Christmas and New Years, but that did not happen. He asked if they have a peer review done, would the Commission also need to go out. Bob stated he would like to see what the peer reviewer has to say and then decide whether to go out for a site visit. Rich B. noted the Commission would hire the peer reviewer and has the right to do a site visit anytime. They need to make sure it is flagged properly so their agent can go to review the application as submitted. The agent would report on any discrepancies or variances found on the site and give it back to the applicant to re-delineate and resubmit the updated plan. Kevin replied he has no problem with a peer review or a site visit but needs to know the time frame and how to decide on the peer reviewer. Rich B. noted that in December, Matt M. said the applicant has the right to choose a reviewer from a list supplied by the Commission. He added that they should put together a list of reviewers. Bob P. noted that Richard Harris, the Interim Land Use person, reached out to 3 companies for peer reviews. Graves Engineering could not do it because they do not have a wetlands delineator and another company had a conflict but ===PAGE 3=== Oxbow Associates gave a quote. Bob added that the applicant would need to give money to the office for the review and the office contracts with the 3rd party reviewer. Matt said they have an issue with Oxbow’s bid because it encompasses a scope of work which is outside the scope of the ANRAD, which was to certify the bordering wetland line. Oxbow’s scope went beyond the wetlands flags to including vernal pools. They would like to have more names since the other 2 companies were unable to do the review and also to talk about the scope. Matt and Kevin asked to talk to Mr. Harris and continue the hearing. Bob noted that Town Counsel stated that the 3rd party reviewer works for the town- not the applicant. Matt pointed out the 3rd party reviewer would determine if the wetland line is accurate as presented by the 2008 plan and review the paperwork- looking at other items would be outside of the original scope. Bob replied he would agree with Matt if the aerial view in 2024 looked exactly like the view in 2008. There has been a tremendous amount of alteration there and they may find disturbances to the wetlands and/or new wetlands. Rich B. asked if they are limiting the scope of work to just the delineation as it appears on the plan. Matt replied if anything comes up outside of the ANRAD, it would be open to a NOI, would not be certified and would be investigated. The only thing that would be certified would be the line or the adjusted line if the reviewer finds more wetlands. Any other resource area found not bordering a vegetative wetlands, would make them subject to investigation under a NOI. Bob read from the MACC handbook about reviewing a wetlands border under an ANRAD and that they should look over the entire parcel. Matt said he does not disagree but it would be outside of the scope to look for vernal pools- it is just to certify a boundary. Kevin confirmed that the Commission was ok with them talking to Mr. Harris and they will discuss at the next meeting. He understands they need to look at the whole property and they are not doing anything down by the riverfront. They are just trying to get the line set so they can start working on what they will be doing out there. Rich B. stated that once the line has been certified, they will need to file an RDA for any work done in any wetlands and Matt agreed. Rich added the by-law also includes vernal pools. Mary asked for a vote to continue. Motion: Rich B., Second: Chris S. To continue the hearing to 2/21/24. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. New Business: Lake Shirley Improvement Corp. Annual Report- Joanna Bilotta, Dominic Meringolo (Solitude) and Wendy Gendron (Aquatic Restoration Consultants) – Joanna noted that Dominick and Wendy run their chemical treatment and water management program at Lake Shirley. Wendy stated that her company works with Lake Shirley to make sure they maintain compliance with their Order of Conditions and as a 3rd party reviewer to ensure there is little or no impact to non-target organisms. Wendy screen-shared the Annual Report. She noted that the 2022-23 winter was not a desirable year for drawdown and average drawdown was 0.6 ft. Heavy rain was an issue but there were no fish kills reported. The refill was completed early on 3/12. With a few exceptions, they maintained clarity above 5”. She noted that the upper north basin has poorer water quality than the other 2 because that is where the main tributary comes into the lake. Wendy shared graphs comparing Secchi Disc readings for the last 4 years. She also shared a graph for measurements of temperature and dissolved oxygen, which showed the lake maintained good readings above the state required 5.0mg/L. They are generally concerned about rising lake temperatures at all lakes. Wendy stated phosphorus levels are important to control and higher levels encourage algae growth. Lake Shirley’s phosphorus numbers were good, with some elevation in the upper north basin. Nitrogen levels were moderate to slightly elevated at the bottom. Measurements of phytoplankton showed lower algae numbers in July but more elevated in August with higher density of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) in the lower basin. Although elevated, the numbers were lower than those requiring treatment. Wendy noted that the end of season plant survey showed a net decrease in species richness, with 4 species of native pondweeds not observed, although possibly in other areas. They observed less of the native Robbin’s pondweed and coontail, so they do not treat in areas that they are ===PAGE 4=== observed. A higher presence of non-native European naiad and fanwort was observed, which was concerning because they are impacting the natives even with treatment. Mike L. asked if Lake Shirley had any invasives removal programs in mind and Wendy replied they do not have any hand-pulling programs now. However, if they did observe a new concerning species introduced, they would go after it aggressively to prevent spreading. Dominic gave a review of the herbicide treatment with Tribune and Nautique in mid-July when they treated 56.5 acres out of the 350 acres of the lake. There were no adverse effects on fish. The plan for the 2023-24 winter is to target a 6’ drawdown, continue monitoring water quality and a mid-season survey in June/July with treatments as warranted. They are also seeking an extension of the Order of Conditions (OOC), which expires soon. Joanna noted that when they started the treatment program in 2008, they would start the survey in June, but now Lunenburg wants them to go in July, which is when Dominic is busy doing treatments. However Joanna noted that Shirley adopted their own Order of Conditions in addition to Lunenburg’s OOC. In the past, they would treat the first week of July, but if they need to meet with Lunenburg and Shirley, it will move treatment to the end of July/early August when things are at their highest. Dominic clarified that if the survey for specific criteria is done in June, they may not see the cover in biomass that they would see later in the season. He suggested if they do the survey at end of June/early July, they could treat in mid-July. Mary asked what data they needed to collect and would want them to come to a meeting prior to treatment. Wendy stated they survey 60 points to collect data on the plants they are going to treat and create a treatment map. The problem is they would need to come before Lunenburg’s and Shirley’s Commissions and there can be delays. She suggested that if he can submit a report instead, it would save time with the scheduling. Jeff V . suggested having the Administrator look over the plan. Bob and Rich B suggested they could cut down on the number of days before a meeting for submittal of the plan but the plan should be reviewed by the Commission before they do a treatment. Sophie screen-shared the letter from ARC requesting an extension of the OOC and Wendy screen-shared the existing OOC. Rich B. noted that as long as the OOC is active, they can act on them in perpetuity but it needs to be listed on the agenda as a hearing. The current OOC expires in Fall of 2024 and the extension would be for 3 years. The request for extension will be on a future agenda. 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 Stefan McSweeny for the construction of a single family home and associated site work at 255 Sunny Hill Road. (DEP 208-XXXX). (Continued from 1/17/24 to 2/21/24) – No representative was present and Bob P. stated they have a running disagreement with the DEP about considering land that is not under their control. Also they will not be back until they get a DEP number. Mary noted that they had requested to do a site walk with a wetlands scientist but that has not happened yet. Ken Paton asked to make a comment but the hearing could not be opened until 2/21/24 per the agenda. A motion had been made by Mike L. and seconded by Chris S. but it was unmoved due to the date issue. 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 Steve Powell for the construction of a single family home and associated site work at 171 Arbor Street. (DEP 208-1308) (Continued from 1/17/24 to 2/7/24). – No representative was present and Bob P. noted they had received communication from the applicant’s engineer, stating they have reduced the number of lots from 4 to 3, due to the turtle habitat. A revised plan was received and Bob suggested a continuance, with the Administrator contacting the engineer. Motion: Mike, Second: Rich B. To continue 171 Arbor Street to 2/21/24 and ask the Administrator to reach out to McCarty Engineering to ask what’s up. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. ===PAGE 5=== Sophie stated that she found the revised plan in the Google Drive and she would contact the engineer. 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 Determination by Timric Realty Trust for construction of a single family home and septic tank at 20 Kilburn St-Lot 1 (Continued from 1/17/24 to 2/7/24). Greg Roy (Dillis & Roy), representing the applicant, apologized for the continuances over the past few meetings because they were waiting for DEP numbers. He screen-shared a map indicating the 3 lots and a site plan for Lot 1. There is an existing driveway to 2 houses further in and the house will be located to the right of that driveway. A septic system will go into the left of the existing driveway. Greg indicated the 100’ buffer line and stated a small area of the septic system grading would be within that zone. Also a portion of the driveway will lie between the 50’ and 100’ buffers, with an erosion control barrier to the left of the new driveway. They are filing this lot as a RDA because there wasn’t any direct impact to the resource area on the border of vegetated wetlands. They have submitted revised plans addressing the concerns raised at previous meeting. There were changes made per the Board of Health, relating to Title V and adding more detail to the plan. They have located 2 catch basins on Leominster Rd. and have shifted the driveway accordingly. Greg noted that per the Commission, they have updated the erosion barrier to include silt fencing. He added that DEP commented that the Commission should not act until Lots 2 &3 received DEP file numbers, which he felt was not the case, but they did not argue with it. John Carroll (803 Leominster Road) spoke as an abutter and noted that he has brought to the town’s attention a flooding issue at the bottom of his driveway. He stated that he complained to the town 8 years ago and they put the catch basin in. There is also another one 50’ away. He had talked to DEP and believes the catch basin was put in improperly. He suggested that the town should push back at the applicant to get it fixed this time. Rich B. commented that he wanted to make sure the last speaker was not trying to impugn Greg Roy, who is one of the best engineers with deep roots in the community. John said he did not intend to do that and apologized. Joan & Phil Hoyt (39 Kilburn St.) – Joan commented that she is very concerned about the Commission voting on this lot before the other 2 lots are discussed. She noted the flooding issue on Kilburn St. is excessive and if they or the town does not clean out the catch basin, the water can go across the street, a few inches thick. She has seen accidents where people have skidded and gone off the road when water is there. Joan asked the Commission to look at the whole project before voting on the first lot. The lot on Kilburn St. has only one location for a house on a hillock and is surrounded by water. Susan Rowe (710 Leominster Rd) lives across from Lot 2 and wanted to add to what the Hoyts said about water on the road. They have a catch basin at the end of their driveway which is a hill. There are a lot of hills there and that water dumps into the area that they propose to build on. It is very dangerous when it freezes and it is always wet across the street where Lot 2 is. Bob P. said he assumes the last 2 speakers were not talking about Lot 1. He noted this lot is a hillside and fails to see how there could be standing water on it. He acknowledged there is a water problem on Leominster Rd. coming off the hills across the road and there is not adequate drainage on the road. He does not see the nexus between the water issues on the road and the RDA for this lot. John Carroll stated he has videos of water streaming down the road, flooding his driveway. The 2 catch basins are there because of the water and this will put additional hydraulic load. It doesn’t address the catch basin at the bottom of his driveway and this is an opportunity to get it fixed. He noted that the catch basin was clogged for a long time but the town appears to be doing better on maintenance now. Mary noted their jurisdiction is the wetlands, resource areas and the buffer zone but asked what about stormwater. Rich B. believes a single-family home is exempt from most stormwater regulations and the Commission’s authority is for the effects of stormwater on the wetland resource area. He feels for the neighbors but it is outside of their jurisdiction to dictate a wetlands permit based on road effect. Instead, ===PAGE 6=== the neighbors could go to the DPW, building inspector and zoning officer. Bob said the problems in the road have nothing to do with this application, regarding their authority. Mike L. asked if the driveway would be impervious or one that would absorb some of the water. Greg Roy replied that it will be a paved driveway and he agrees there are issues with water on Leominster Rd. He noted that in regard to wetlands protection by-laws and regulations, they would only get involved with stormwater management if the development had more than 4 lots. They do need to get a driveway permit through the DPW and there could be an opportunity to install some stormwater pertinence. However there is no regulatory authority for the Commission in this process- the DPW would be a better option. John Carroll- stated that the storm drain is discharging into the wetlands and he questioned if the proper permits were in place. Mary replied that would be a separate project. Greg Roy said he understood the concern but noted that the town may have filed under an emergency order which has more flexibility and he does not have any visibility on how it was installed by the DPW. Motion: Bob P., Second: Rich B. To approve a negative determination for this Request for Determination of Applicability. Discussion: Mike L. suggested hearing the other 2 applications before they vote on this one. Chris S. said he would want to vote on each of them individually-not as a whole. Mary noted that Mia McDonald (DEP) suggested looking at this lot in the context of the others in case there was something that puts some interdependencies in there, but based on what she has seen, that is not a concern for her. Roll Call Vote was unanimous 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 Timric Realty Trust for construction of a single family home and septic tank at 20 Kilburn St-Lot 2. (DEP 208-1316) (Continued from 1/17/24 to 2/7/24). Greg Roy (Dillis & Roy), representing the applicant, stated he emailed the revised plans and Sophie screen-shared the site plan. Greg noted the lot has frontage on Leominster Rd. and has wetlands system at the bottom of the slope. The house, grading, driveway, and associated appurtenances, with the exception of a sewer line, will be located outside of the 30’ no-touch and 50’ no-structure offsets. This lot requires the septic leaching field to be located on the other side of the wetlands because there are not adequate soils or space near the house. The lot was submitted to the Board of Health, which issued several comments for updates and notes which they have done on the revised site plan. They also updated the plan with the correct silt fencing and straw wattle detail per the Commission. They are proposing to cross the wetlands with a temporary cut to install a 2” sewer force main from the pump chamber to the distribution box. They have located on the site plan all the canopy trees in the wetland and 30’ no-touch zone. Greg noted they are not proposing any tree removal in those areas and it would be just temporary disturbance in the wetland for the trench. The force main will be placed in a sleeve so that it can be removed for replacement in the future without disturbance to the wetland. The site plan also includes wetland replacement notes, with specifications for restoring the wetland to its existing vegetative state. They are not proposing any modifications to the contours or grades in that area. The DEP comments were as follows: 1) alternatives for the installation of the leach field - Greg noted one suggested alternative to the trench would be drilling under the ground but the cost would be significantly higher. With the trenching option, the soil removed would be translocated and reused for restoring the wetland, along with native wetland seeding and some native larger shrubs. The installation process will take only a day or two. 2) floodplain elevation – Greg stated the floodplain in this area is zone A on the FEMA maps but it does not have an elevation. They have conservatively estimated it at 364’ and there is no area lower than that on Lot 2. The lowest portion of the wetland is at 407’. He added that although there is no floodplain there, it does not mean it is a dry site and noted the wetlands as well as ground water on the site. 3) Commission may want to consider planting and spacing plan in the ===PAGE 7=== proposed riverfront- Greg noted there is no riverfront there and that is a typo. They have provided a replacement plan for the wetland disturbance. 4) Commission may want to require 2 year monitoring period and replanted area must achieve a 75% survival rate in order to be certified compliant. Greg said their plans include a 2 year monitoring period per the regulations. 5) If additional development is proposed on the parent lot, the Commission may want to consider the project as a whole and require stormwater mitigation. Greg noted that there are no other suitable locations for development and would agree to include a finding in the order that if future development over 4 lots were possible, it would require stormwater management, but at this point this development does not trigger stormwater threshold. 6) Commission may want to include permanent memorialization fixtures such as split rail fencing, boulders, and signage to prevent further encroachment beyond the limit of work. Greg noted that landscape boulders are included in the plan to delineate the 30’ no disturb zone. Mary asked to have access to the drawings off-line and suggested having Sophie contact DEP regarding the typo of riverfront in their comments. She is also concerned that the boulders are too far apart. Chris S. asked if there is any issue with the D-box or leaching field, would it require them to go back through the sensitive area. Greg replied they have set up access easements through Lot 1 and would not go through the wetland. The Commission discussed the spacing on the boulders and agreed with 25’ apart and Greg replied that the applicant would be fine with 25’. Rich B. asked if they have a schedule for how long the wetland will be disturbed for installing the force main and how many days for it to be revegetated. Greg noted the plan does not specify the time on the plan, but they do not object if the Commission wants the work done within a specific period of time, such as 7 to 10 days. Rich suggested the construction take place within 1 week and regraded /revegetated within 7 days after construction, so it is not an open trench for an uncontrolled time. Greg agreed and he suggested the contractor supply them with a construction schedule. Rich also suggested they do an inventory of the plants currently in the area to be trenched and put them back after. Greg replied that they could do that with the larger shrubs but it could be difficult with the small herbaceous plants such as the ferns. Rich agreed that the herbaceous plants would come back quickly but they would want the shrubs replaced quickly to prevent invasives from getting in there and Greg agreed. Bob suggested Greg submit a revised plan with the closer spacing of boulders, along with added verbiage on the timeline and plantings. Susan Rowe (710 Leominster Rd) asked about the standing groundwater in regard to building there. Mary noted that a wetlands scientist has flagged the wetlands prior to the engineering work being done. The Conservation Commission also does a site visit. Susan noted that where there is a lot of standing water in areas that may not be wetlands and Mary said that may be true but the Commission’s jurisdiction is restricted to wetlands, which are scientifically marked. Greg agreed to a continuance to 2/21. Motion: Chris S., Second: Mike L. To continue this hearing to 2/21/24. Roll Call Vote was unanimous 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 Timric Realty Trust for construction of a single family home and septic tank at 20 Kilburn St-Lot 3. (DEP 208-1317) (Continued from 1/17/24 to 2/7/24). Greg Roy (Dillis & Roy), representing the applicant, noted that this property fronts on Kilburn St. and the parent property is 20 Kilburn St., which is why all 3 lots are noted as 20 Kilburn St. Sophie screen-shared the site plan. The wetland system is located at the base of the hill, which is part of a very large wetland system. Greg stated the site plan has been updated per comments from the Board of Health. Regarding the Commission’s comments, they updated the silt fencing/wattle detail, the grading will be kept outside of the 30’ no-touch to lower the height of the boulder wall, added elevations for clarity and located the catch basin across Kilburn St. The DEP asked for comments about the unelevated floodplain area to be added to the plan, showing the floodplain coincidental with the 364 contour, well upgradient of ===PAGE 8=== the wetland areas. DEP suggested the Commission may want to have demonstrated how work will be done so close to the resource area while giving protection for perpetuity, with additional plantings and set- backs. Greg stated the plans show complete compliance with the 30’ no-touch, 50’ no-build zones and the Commission’s by-laws. Thirdly, the Commission may want to add a note in the Order of Conditions that future lot development may trigger stormwater management. Greg noted there is no future development planned on the parent lot. Lastly, the DEP suggested Commission may want to add permanent memorialization fixtures and Greg stated the landscaping boulders are noted on the plan. Greg noted that there have been a lot of comments regarding water and stormwater. Once they meet the regulations, managing wet sites falls on the developer and design engineer. They are mitigating construction on a wet side by grading and the positioning of the house. He added that all the work on this site will drain away from Kilburn St. and most of the lot will slope down to the wetlands. Mary asked to have the boulders tightened up to 25’. Rich B. asked if the erosion control is the limit of work and Greg replied correct, as well as on Lot 2. Bob asked to have that noted on the plan. Greg confirmed that his measurements are the minimum set-backs allowed. Phil Hoyt (39 Kilburn St.) – asked Greg if the water on the site is running back into the wetland and Greg said that was correct. Motion: Bob P., Second: Mike L. To approve this Notice of Intent, with the condition that the applicant submit a revised plan, showing the boulders at 25’ and specify that the erosion protection is the limit of work. Discussion: Rich B. asked if the boulders make a wall and Greg replied the 2’-3’ boulders will contain the slope. They will be a permanent demarcation and they will supplement with smaller ones in the gaps. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. NEW BUSINESS: Topics unknown 48 hours in advance of meeting - none Gas for Pollinator Habitat- Mary stated the DPW allowed Mike L. access for gas so he could mow at the Habitat. Mary suggested using the Hawes account for budget support. Motion: Mary W., Second: Mike L. To apply the $117 spent on gas to the Hawes Account for the purposes of providing budget support. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. OLD BUSINESS: Update on Title Searches- Bob reported that he will be meeting with Town Counsel to discuss the title searches. Mary suggested adding the no access property off Howard St., near the Northwest Town Forest and Bob replied the property is very far along in the tax title process already. 32 Cortland Circle (detention pond) - Sophie said it is on the agenda because the person overseeing it voiced some concerns and had wanted to attend a meeting, but Chris S. noted he had changed his mind. Mary asked to strike it off the agenda until the Homeowners Association comes back. 780 Northfield Rd-Culvert- Sophie stated that she had not reached out or visited the site yet. She suggested doing a friendly enforcement. Motion: Bob P., Second: Chris S. To authorize our Conservation Administrator to issue an enforcement order to Jim Lattanzi to resize and lower his culvert and to hire a wetlands scientist to delineate any wetlands impact there. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. (Jeff logged off at 10:54pm) ===PAGE 9=== MS Sharepoint/One Drive Login Validation- Mary reported that everyone can login and Bob noted he could only access it through Sophie’s email. Mary suggested having IT do some training so everyone can use it on different platforms. Jenny added that she can help with this because that is what she does. MACC Classes- Mary stated that anyone who wants to take classes should send the list to Ashleigh, with cc to Sophie so they can get a P.O. raised. Also a Conference is coming up the first Saturday in March, with lots of classes. Virtual classes will be available the month of March. Update if any on encroachment issues at: 950 Chase Road- Shed Removal- Bob will talk to Town Counsel about this. He suggested that after they do the Raino cut and they have another $20K in the Timber Rights account, they should pay for the removal of this shed. Until then, they should probably board it up. Bob said King is planning on doing the Raino cut in June. 315 Lancaster Ave. – Contact Owners- Bob reported a letter was sent in January but the 1/11 near map shows that nothing has been moved. He has asked Town Counsel to send another letter. Administrative Determination: Extension Request Permits: 960 Mass Ave Notice of Project Change: Order of Conditions: Certificates of Compliance: 176 Elmwood Rd-Site Walk Holman St Lots 3 & 4 ENFORCEMENT: Violations (Enforcement Actions and Hearings) 205 Sunset (Beers lot) 10 Mass Ave 1168 Mass Ave Rear Emergency Certification: Open Space and Land Use: Grants Update (LCC sponsored, award year 2023) Grants Update (LSR sponsored, award year 2022) Conservation Land Improvement Hollis Road Residence: Lease Agreements & Tenant Responsibilities Property Maintenance – Mike reported that he received a text from the tenant last Friday that she had no heat and there was water in the basement. He called Cam’s Heating for an emergency call. Mike also talked to Chris Ruth (Facilities Director) who said he had gone there and noticed 6” of water in the basement and the relief valve on the boiler was stuck open. Cam’s Heating reported that it was not the boiler, but an issue with the holding tank which failed. Chris Ruth gave permission to replace the hot water tank and it was installed on Monday. The heat was back on Friday but she did not have hot water until Monday. Cam’s Heating will send an invoice for $3,100 for replacing the tank. Rich B. said he had only received one other invoice and believes they are getting sent to the town. Mary suggested the invoices should go to the LCC office. Bob said that now there is a Facilities Director, the tenant should ===PAGE 10=== contact him if she has no heat or water and the bills go to Facilities Director also. Mike stated that the Fire Department came in to remove the 6” of water and he was not sure if they will get charged for that or not. Mike reported that the temporary roof patch appears to be working and Chris Ruth said they will get a number in the spring to do work on the roof to address that issue. Motion: Mike L., Second: Rich B. To approve a $3,200 purchase of a replacement hot water heater for the 123 Hollis Road property from Cam’s Heating. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. Committee Reports – Any Update Open Space Stormwater - Motion: Bob P., Second: Mary W. To nominate Jenny Pewtherer as the representative to the Stormwater Committee. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. Jenny accepted and Mary will notify Renee. Communications/Public Comment: Motion: Rich B., Second: Chris S. To Adjourn at 11:15pm. Roll Call Vote was unanimous to approve. Respectfully submitted, Jane L. Ranley Minutes Clerk