# conservation-commission — 1 documents, concatenated for reading and search # # This is a CONVENIENCE BUNDLE, not a source. Every document below is # published separately and byte-identically; cite the individual file, # whose path is given in each header, rather than this bundle. # Index of all boards: https://lunenburgbudgetproject.org/minutes/INDEX.txt # The town's own scanned original is linked per document. ======================================================================================== DOCUMENT : 2020-12-16-minutes-6258.txt BOARD : conservation-commission DATE : 2020-12-16 KIND : minutes OUR COPY : https://lunenburgbudgetproject.org/docs/minutes/text/conservation-commission/2020-12-16-minutes-6258.txt TOWN PDF : https://www.lunenburgma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_12162020-6258 ======================================================================================== ===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 NOTICE OF MEETING December 16, 2020 7:00 PM In accordance with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, please be advised that this meeting is being recorded and broadcast over the Lunenburg Public Access channel. In response to the COVID-19 (Corona Virus) and 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 broadcast live through local access cable, on Facebook Live on the Public Access Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/Lunenburg-Public-Access-Cable- 157427270975305/) and 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 85983711878. Topic: Conservation Commission Meeting Time: Dec 16, 2020 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85983711878 Meeting ID: 859 8371 1878 One tap mobile +13126266799,,85983711878# US (Chicago) +19292056099,,85983711878# 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 D.C) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 859 8371 1878 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kf1rRssY4 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 ===PAGE 2=== 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. MINTUES- meeting called to order at 7 PM by BP with all members in attendance except CC. 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 JR had informed the commission of wintertime botany courses. CL expressed gratitude for comments that were sent in by residents. BP noted that a letter sent in to the newspaper noted a statement the commission would be meeting on December 16th with no public input. He noted that if there were more major changes he would post them and advertise for another public hearing. Phyllis Luck read a statement to the conservation commission expressing her opposition for a change to land use policy to allow hunting. BP noted that any discussion tonight was not a public hearing as it was to allow discussion by the commission. Major changes would result in another advertised hearing. Minutes of previous meetings – October 7, 2020 CL motioned to approve. JR seconded and the commission voted to approve by unanimous vote, November 4, 2020 CL moved to approve, JR seconded and the commission voted to approve by unanimous roll call vote. and November 18 2020 JV motioned to approve the minutes KJ seconded and the commission voted unanimously by roll call vote and December 2, 2020 JV moved to approve the minutes. KJ seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion by roll call vote. Appointments/Hearings –commences at 7 PM NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS : Pursuant to MGL ch. 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws , the conservation commission will hold a public meeting on a request for a determination by Jason Martin for work at 45 Parmenter Street consisting of the addition of a mudroom and the repair/replacement of a retaining wall by the driveway and stairs. ===PAGE 3=== John Benoit appeared before the conservation commission and explained the proposal in detail relative to the dimensions shown on his submitted plans. He noted that the concrete retaining wall to be modified is in the front and side of the house and not within the 30 foot no touch zone. There would be no expansion of the existing footprint. The existing walk way will be removed and loomed and seeded. JR asked if there wo uld be new sono tubes required. It was stated that yes there would be due to the new lineup of the tubes and that they would be out of the 50 foot zone. RB asked if there was a siltation barrier included. BP noted that it could be added as condition of the issuance of a negative determination. A motion for a negative determination was made by CL with the condition that erosion protection be issued with the haybales along the 30 foot buffer zone line staked. JR seconded and the commission voted unanimously t o approve the motion by roll call vote. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Pursuant to MGL ch. 131, s 40 as amended and the Town of Lunenburg Wetlands Protection and Municipal Bylaws The following continued hearings/meetings shall be considered: The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by David and Kiley Boivin for work at 81 Maple Parkway for the replacement of a septic system. Steve Sears from David Ross and Associates was present to represent the applicant. He oriented the commission as to the location of the system and the wetland resource area. The system is currently in failure. The current system is 35 feet from the wetland currently and the new system has been maximized to 51 feet away, however the grading is within the 50 foot line. A motion to approve was made with the condition to move the shed out of the 50 foot no touch zone by JR with a second by JV with a unanimous vote to approve the motion. The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Jeff Stone for work at Lot 1 50 Page Street for the Construction of a single family home . The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Jeff Stone for work at Lot 2 50 Page Street for the Construction of a single family home . Both lots were continued to the meeting on January 20, 2021at 7 PM due to changes made by the applicant that has not been complete with the first lot by a motion of JR. CL noted that the house locations should be staked. MM noted that he spoke to the engineers and they will be marked for the next meeting. Cl seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. Lot 2 was continued by a motion of JV and a second by KJ to the same date and time with a unanimous voted to approve the motion by r oll call vote. The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by John Fournier, 25 Pearl Street ,for the construction of an extension to a deck , demolish and rebuild an existing garage ,and upgrade of a septic system. Dan Wolfe from David Ross was present to represent the applicant. The changes that the commission requested were shown. The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Curtis Nikitas for work at 232 Burrage Street The work is for grading and construction of a stone wall within the buffer zone Curtis Nikitas appeared before the commission. He noted the changes made to the plans as requested by the commission. CL examined the height of the wall on the plans. It was noted by the applicant and KJ that the wall would be shortened and capped to 36 inches. RB had inquired as to a marking on the plans and wanted to know about the removal of stumps and debris in the area adjacent to the wetland and cart path. RB suggested the designated area be seeded with an upland meadow mix. MM noted he can add a meadow mix to the order of conditions. RB also asked that the stumps and natural vegetation along the 30 foot buffer zone be replaced. JV suggested the top block as noted be removed from the plan as he feels the area being more level would be beneficial to the area. Based on JV ’s input the wall height would remain at 4 feet. Mr. Nikitas noted that the reason for the project initially is the existing fence is in disrepair and not to code for a pool area, He indicated that he would like to keep the wall height instead of reducing it to 36 inches. Cl expressed reservations with allowing the wall to go over 3 feet in the 50 foot zone and stated he was comfortable within 36 inches. KJ noted he agree d with JV’s opinion of leaving the wall at 4 feet. JR indicated he preferred the wall to go to 36 inches as the heightened wall is within the 50 foot no structure zone. RB had no issue with the wall height remaining as is as he feels it does not infect the resource area as it keeps the grading intac t. BP asked for a motion for an order of conditions with the conditions that all areas west of the ex isting cart path be remediate d with a meadow mix and stumps and debris be removed from the area and the restoration area be allowed to go fallow after initial planting and not be moved as a lawn and the exiting fence around the pool be replaced and maintained as need and the height of the wall as existing at 4 feet ( 103.2 contour) KJ seconded. JR clarified as to which area was going to remain fallow. He not ed that fill would be allowed to be brought in behind the wall. CL stated this was significant deviation from what the commission would approve within the 50 foot buffer. CL also clarified that ===PAGE 4=== the fence would have to be in the same position. The motion wa s approved by a roll call vote of RB, BP, KJ, JV approving and JR and Cl voting no. Mr Nikitas added if he could plant the remidal area in the spring. There was no objection and MM noted that he would write a reporting requirement into the Order. JR asked if the commission granted a variance after the fact so he could note it. The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by on a Notice of Intent by Jeff LaPierre for work at 1672 Mass Ave. will be held. Work proposed is rebuild of an existing shed, grading of existing lawn, repair of a retaining wall, removal of a tree and the repaving of a driveway with gravel . Jeff LaPierre was present and MM noted that there was an updated plan in the file. Mr. LaPierre outlined the r evised plans to the commission. BP noted that the shed is noted to be on a pad where the original was just a wooden floor. Mr. LaPierre outlined the remainder of the project which was resurfacing the driveway with crushed stone and also the removal of three trees in the center of the island in the driveway. He also noted the retaining wall by the driveway would be rebuilt. He pointed out the location of the wall to the plan based on a request to clarify by BP. There was also an area where there was an above ground pool that he proposed to regrade, loom and seed. JR asked if the shed could be removed to the other side of the yard to place it farther way from the wetlands edge. Mr. LaPierre stated moving it could interfere with his septic system. JR examined the area closer and Mr. LaPierre noted that it would be hard to access properly. CL noted that we just got the plans and we had not had the chance to visit the site and asked that we consider continuing the hearing so we can conduct a site walk with the pl an. CL also noted that it was his memory there was not a gravel pad on site previously and only a trench and should be examined more closely. MM noted he agreed with CL. Cl also asked to examine the reason for the removal of all of the trees. Mr. LaPierre noted the pad was there originally however, it was obstructed by a felled tree and the commission allowed him to removed it, uncovering the gravel pad. He wants all three trees removed as the roots on one side hurt the retaining wall and the other had root s breaking the driveway. RB had no issue with the retaining wall as the wall meanders in and out of the buffer zone. RB also noted that historic orthos do not show the preexisting shed and was concerned that grading in the 30 and 50 foot has taken place. H e also noted that there is no record of the original shed. RB had no issues with the clean-up grading, looming and seeding. BP expressed a concern that there is a parking area noted o the plans that may have been green and had an over story. MM read DEP comments. The Commission continued to be able to perform a site walk by a motion of RB and a second by JR and unanimous roll call vote to approve the motion. The meeting was continued to the 20 th of January at 7 PM. ENFORCEMENT: Violations (Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings). EO 90 Ruth Street EO- Town of Lunenburg Fire Road 12 ENF 2019 NOI ,FILED ,Town admin signature obtained, and awaiting drawing. NOI hearing on hold awaiting NON - 9 Valley Road- Working on NOI NON – 232 Burrage Street see above EO – 788 Page Street – EO delivered by Police NON 275 Holman- silt event during rain storm on 12/3/2020 Fire Road 16 investigation ( Not completed ) 48 Oak Ridge ( not completed ) New Business – Old Business – 1. Forest Planning- RAYNO and HOLLIS ROAD- KJ noted that at the RAYNO conservation area should have a parking area and a trail improvement in the scope. RB had no issues with having a quick discussion with Gary Gouldrup for a cut of no more than 50 % of the land area along with the parking ar ea and trails. BP noted Gary mentioned the cut would not be visible from Route 13. He would like to promote an interconnection with the sailba property and noted there was no public opposition to the proposed cut on the RAYNO property. KJ asked if we could leave a significant buffer for the resident along Old Farm Road. RB moved to have MM contact Gary Gouldrup for the development of cutting plan at the RAYNO property with the addition of a parking areas and trails abutting the saliba property and the buffe r zone on old farm road. KJ seconded and the commission approved the motion by unanimous roll call vote. Hollis Road- BP noted we had discussed a patch cut and raised the issue if we do the more selective cutting to cover the costs of the patch cut. KJ noted that he felt the forest should have ===PAGE 5=== a very light selective cut as it does need maintenance. RB noted the commission should also take advantage of the entrance by the water dept. facility. He noted that Hollis was not a large property and should not be cut at street side and felt it would be a good opportunity to do the bird cut and felt doing any more is not the correct move at this time. JR asked KJ if there was still concern about the pollinator habitat suffering. KJ noted that there were concerns exp ressed, however felt that there was no potential for concern as the bird population was not designed to increase, just enhance the biodiversity. KJ noted the pollinator habitat is an amazing accomplishment but that the area was created and enhanced and the bird habitat proposed cut is actually formulated along the same principle and feels that no further justification needed. RB noted that there was a neighborhood and public walk through with Gary and the Biologist previously and the biologist noted that th ere would be no appreciable effect on the bird population. RB felt that the commission has done a good job addressing the publics concerns and feels we should move on from there. RB motioned to have MM work with Gary Gouldrup for the 2 patch cuts and the r oad way improvements between the 2 fields along with access from the water district. KJ seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion by roll call vote. 2. Continued discussion on land use policy – BP noted that there were 3 members who had indicated at the last meeting who indicated they were in favor of the use of firearms. He gave them the opportunity to make a draft proposal. He indicated there would not be any votes taken to give the full com mission an opportunity to review the proposals. RB reviewed his proposal to the commission noting the commission’s authority under MGL Ch. 40 sec 8 C. BP noted that he had forwarded the question concerning commission authority under Ch. 40 sec 8 C to town Counsel. RB noted that he had explained in his narrative the circumstances under which the commission came into possession of the property and posted the DCR definition of passive recreation (what can be allowed on the property). He also outlined non permitted uses of each property and the possibility of exemptions for those not allowed opportunities. RB noted he wrote out proposed regulations for hunting with firearms on lands that are 200 acres o r greater with light daily use. He noted the Cowdrey is not included on the list as it is heavily used and has a large amount of resource areas (wetland) on the properties. He noted that based on a survey by MM the 2 most commonly used areas are the Cowdre y and the Robbs Hill and feels those 2 parcels should be left out. KJ noted the liked the layout of the narrative by RB with the respect it shows what is prohibited. KJ noted that the amount of letters he received had more people opposed to hunting. He sta ted that RB’s proposal to allow hunting only on certain areas is a reasonable way to go. He noted the northwest town forest, the small town forest and Hunting Hills. He noted that they were connected to state lands and the last used by residents. RB was presented with a list of 30 town residents that he has not had the chance to pass into MM, however he will. He noted that to everyone was in favor of hunting, however, the commission needs to balance the needs of an entire community and we should not disrega rded one group in favor of another. He felt, in reviewing the safety statistics, hunting is misunderstood as a safe activity. BP reviewed the questions and answers with Town Counsel. Mr. Costa noted that the commission has the right to not allow firearms on a property. He noted that the commission had the authority to use the terms regulations on the land use policy. JV had also spoken to some of the community and those that hunt would like to see it open more for family hunting activities and perhaps limi t it to big game , fox and coyote to limit the seasons as well as open it up to state residents only. He added to KJ’s list of potential spaces with addition of the lane property. He reviewed the big game seasonal schedules and suggested firearms type of limitations to make it safer. He noted his bigger concern was tree stands safety and children falling off of them. JR noted he had read the responses and had spoken with about 2 dozen and noted that most of the residents indicated the preference not to allo w fire arms. He had quoted the section of the original regulation about disturbing the peace and enjoyment. He felt that people felt that hunting would create a disturbance and that they had asked for a quiet space. He also noted concerns about hunters tre spassing on a residents house lots. He noted that Board of Selectmen two or three years ago the Selectmen did not view it as a safe activity. JR reviewed the second amendment and how places can limit if they chose. Jr indicated he would not support it. He also suggested that it should go to the townspeople for a vote. JV stated he felt that the hunters had just as much of a right to use the parcels and noted it is not going to ===PAGE 6=== create the issue. CL noted that he has not seen any compelling reason to change t he current restriction. He felt it would only benefit a few and make a large number of users uncomfortable and that the users or the children would not be able to use it safely. He noted according to state laws there are hunting all year round and that the details should be addressed. He noted that the 30 people that RB had a list of should submit something in writing. Cl clarified he also had some suggested changes. He also noted that he was not considering changing bow hunting. He felt if the fire arms were changed, bow hunting may go back on the table for consideration as well. BP stated that when the trails grant is completed, along with a website and interactive map the use of trails were likely to double or triple. He noted .87% of the state population having hunting licenses was a significant number. He stated various activities on the Lane property that are heavily used by family and that for safety reasons the lane property should be left off the list for consideration. He noted that the northwest tow n forest, the large town forest and the small town forest should be the only lots considered and he did noted that the northwest town forest area has a larger development proposed near the forest. He wanted to take the time to go through RBs suggestions bu t was not convinced that there was not a majority of members in favor. KJ noted different examples of other activities such as bikes and snowmobiles that want to use the land and that the commission as stewards of the lands needs to be aware of the different uses and try to accommodate and balance everyone’s wishes so it should continue to examined. RB commented that CC was not totally against hunting and would consider it in certain parcels if that list was narrowed down to more appropriate properties. He further noted that the properties previously suggested were that it abutted state lands. CL noted that it would be on the January 20 th meeting. BP noted that a draft would be developed and placed on the website for public comment after that meeting. BP note d that we did not have any discussion of any other items on the town land use policy and asked CL to have any of his suggestions be sent to MM. CL noted that he had a conversation with Town Counsel the morning of the meeting and that the inputs on the prop osed changes that are sent to the commissioners should be posted on the website at the same time to avoid an open meeting law violation. RB reviews the structure of his suggested revisions. CL suggested a workshop devoted to just the regulations. It was suggested by Cl that we set aside the firearms issue and use a suggested date of January 6 to discuss the remainder. JR noted that he like s RBs format. The meeting was scheduled for January 6, 2021 at 7 PM. Update on trails grant – status report, if any. Certificates of Compliance – 1. 305 Leominster Shirley Road: MM requested the commission hold off on the issuance of the certificate until the next regular meeting as he wanted more time to assess the site to ensure the work was completed in accordance with the Order of Conditions. Extension Permit – none Committee Reports – Any Updates Administrator’s Reports/action items: Administrators determination – 338 Sunset Lane removal of 3 dead trees and minor brush – This was continued at the applicants request - 5 Spring Street Ratification of Emergency Certification CL noted that the tree replacement should be considered and that the issues was also on the abutting lot at 899 Flatt Hill Road. It was decided that a follow-up site inspection would be scheduled to determine any potential tree replacement. Open space and land and Trail use issues and strategies: 1. Encroachment on town open space ( updates if any) 2. Forestry -Planning see above Communications / public comment/ Adjourn - Meeting Schedule- Next meeting is January 20, 2021 at 7 P The meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM by a motion of KJ and a second by JV with a unanimous vote to approve by roll call vote ===PAGE 7===