# conservation-commission — 6 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 : 2021-03-03-minutes-6291.txt BOARD : conservation-commission DATE : 2021-03-03 KIND : minutes OUR COPY : https://lunenburgbudgetproject.org/docs/minutes/text/conservation-commission/2021-03-03-minutes-6291.txt TOWN PDF : https://www.lunenburgma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_03032021-6291 ======================================================================================== ===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 March 3, 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 889 3862 6056 Town of Lunenburg is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Conservation Commission Time: Mar 3, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88938626056 Meeting ID: 889 3862 6056 One tap mobile +19292056099,,88938626056# US (New York) +13017158592,,88938626056# 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) 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 889 3862 6056 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcAVETPAU 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 ===PAGE 2=== 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. AGENDA 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: Mentioned he had some input on the land use regulation revisions he will submit to MM for the inclusion into the website. CL thanked the public for the participation and encouraged anyone to send in any comments and asked residents if they read any documents, they should read the one by Sharon Jordan for the useful historic information it contains Minutes of previous meetings –February 17, 2021 Minutes approved with CL and JR abstaining. Appointments/Hearings –commences at 7 PM Appointment CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Tom Wu and Scott Benjamin for work at Map 137 Parcel 12 at Fire Road 12 f or the restoration of the buffer zone . 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 ( to be continued to the March 17, 2021 meeting) Continued to March 17, 2021 by motion of RB and a second by JV with a unanimous vote to approve. Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335.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 constr uction of replacement retaining walls and the removal of trees affecting the current wall structure. 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 ===PAGE 3=== on request by emailing lcc@lunenburgonline, the meeting is scheduled for February 3, 2021 at 7 PM by Zoom meeting link to be issued by February 1, 2021.The public is invited to attend. ( to be continued to the March 17, 2021 meeting) Continued to March 17, 2021 by motion of RB and a second by JR with a unanimous vote to approve. Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, The Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting on a request for a Notice of Intent by Northfield Associates for work at Lot 1, 30 Gilchrest Street for the construction of a single family home. 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 February 17, 2021 at 7 PM by Zoom meeting link to be issued by February 11, 2021.The public is invited to attend. Lot 1 Greg Roy representing the applicant. Mr Roy reviewed plan revisions and comments from Abutter Turner that he met on site and resolved any concerns as well as the DEP number. The limit of work was pulled away from the wetland about 10 feet and permanent demarcation in the form of boulders was added along with a stone infiltration trench added to the end of the driveway. He reviewed the site walk with Mr. Turner and a wetland delineation report. A motion was made by RB to issue a standard order of conditions. JV seconded and the commission approved the motion by roll call vote Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335 The Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting on a request for a Notice of Intent by Northfield Associates for work at Lot 2, 30 Gilchrest Street for the construction of a single family home. 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 February 17, 2021 at 7 PM by Zoom meeting link to be issued by Febr uary 11, 2021.The public is invited to attend. Greg Roy appeared representing the applicants. He reviewed the comments from DEP and changes on the plan. With no questions a motion was made to approve a standard Order of Conditions by a motion of JR and a second by JV with a unanimous vote to approve the motion. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS 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. A motion was made to continue to March 17 at 7 PM by RB with a second by CC and a unanimous vote to approve the motion. Brett Ramsden came on later on in the meeting. He noted he had difficulties with the log on and the chairman reminded about going to the town website. Mr. Ramsden noted that updated drawings were being drawn up and they will be ready for the 17th. 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, representing the applicant, reviewed the prior hearing history. He also reviewed the appeal of the denied Order of Conditions to Mass DEP. He reviewed the history of the appeal site walk and noted he is anticipation the issuance of a superseding order of conditions. He noted this notice of Intent was filed under the local by law only. He outlined the features of the site including the existing cart road that is 900 feet in length and that the site was formerly used for camping. He ===PAGE 4=== noted that there is plumbing, and concrete pad features formerly used for camping. Mr Butler outlined the comments from the fire chief recommending a 12 feet wide driveway but not required it. DPW had no comment. Mr. Butler outlined the resource areas, their location and its relation to the proposal. He noted the Bordering land subject to flooding and its extent. He noted the reason they did not relocate the access as it would involve work regrading and cutting trees and would still be within the buffer zone area of the isolated wetland. He noted that the 900 square foot crossing of the flood plain was not consequential. He outlined the function of the culvert that would provide for the wildlife crossing and a secondary culvert that would function in a similar manner. He noted the retaining walls were not considered a barrier as the culvert would allow for migration. He stated that the use of the exiting roadway would minimize any work required. He noted that there would be 28 white pine trees that would be altered and outlined the mitigation/planting areas on the plan as well as the compensatory flood storage areas. He outlined the erosion controls. He noted that there would be removal of concrete on site with re naturalization of the areas. He also reviewed the location of the house proposed. He noted the septic system was approved. He noted that the proposed house is not typical of a lake front lot being 15 acres in size. He also noted that this design does not inhibit wildlife habitat activities. He noted that DEP advocated the use of a stable and paved surface. JR noted that his prior opinion was that the proposed activities would cause degradation of the site. He asked if the fire chief asked for a radius turn and noted that there was a recommendation for a 12 foot wide driveway. Butch Magurn noted that his conversation with the fire chief noted that the fire department had no jurisdiction on the driveway and he and Joann Magurn were open to a 12 foot driveway. JR asked about the status of the appeal to DEP. Brian Butler noted that Dep representative Gary Dulmaine indicated he was told a superseding order would be issued. JR asked if the trees to be removed included the driveway. Brian Butler noted that there was no trees to be removed in the driveway be limbs removed only. He reviewed the replacement standards and reviewed the national definition of trees. JR asked about the septic system. It was noted that it was approved. CL asked what minimum definition of tree counts were used. Cl asked if the agent approved the septic system or was it the Board of Health. Butch Magurn noted it was a Board of health permit. CL noted that the narrative clearly states the resubmittal was forwarded to ask for a revote of the full board. RB questioned if the application was an back-door appeal of an application that had not been approved by the commission and if the application should be allowed. BP noted that the application had a paved driveway and the application that had not been approved was for a gravel driveway so the application was different than the one that had failed to gain approval. The commission agreed the chair should seek a opinion from town counsel. The meeting was continued to March 17 by a motion of CL and a second by JV and a unanimous vote to approve the motion. CC excited the meeting at 945 PM 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 Richard Tremblay for work at 386 Sunset Lane for repairs to f ive existing retaining wall, the construction of a kayak rack, the reinforcement of existing fencing, the removal of a stump, the replacement of 2 existing concrete patios, and the removal and replacement of an existing driveway. Continued March 17, 2021 by motion of RB and a second by JV with a unanimous vote to approve. CL recused himself. 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 grading and parking. James Alamonte represented the applicant. Brian Lafferty and Brandon Ducharme were also present. Mr. Alamonte represented the applicant. He outlined the properties owned by the applicant as shown on the submitted plans. He outlined the details of each proposed construction areas on the plans. He outlined the septic utility and the water utilities. He outlined the wetland resource areas and the relation to the resource areas. The proposal is to construct a new ===PAGE 5=== dealership generally in the same location. There would be a new dealership building proposed that will make the use of the facility more efficient and will be within branding specifications by Subaru. He noted the new curb cuts and new landscaping as well as the new storm water infrastructure and a three percent decrease in impervious surface meant to satisfy DEP storm water requirements. He outlined the upgrades and expansions to the storm water system. There is no work within the 30-foot buffer zones and minimal work within the 50-foot buffer zone. He outlined the work proposed within the entirety of the 100-foot buffer zones and the mechanics of the storm water system He also outlined the proposed erosion control barriers. He outlined the subsurface infiltration system designed to handle the storm water infiltration system. He noted the other board’s approvals that have been granted. BP asked about the demolition work of the former Mazda Dealership. Mr. Alamonte noted the building will be remaining. JR asked if there was any fuel storage. The applicant answered no. Brian Lafferty confirmed no fuel storage. JR asked about oil storage. He noted there will be some bulk oil storage in the building and a waste oil burner. The oil storage is contained by a double walled tank. JR asked if there is a holding tank designed and a response plan. It was noted that the design will be finalized by a plumber. JR asked what monitoring and containment was called for. The applicant noted that a plumbing engineer would be retained for a final design. RB asked about guardrails on the north side of the parking lot. The applicant noted it is planned for and there was snow storage proposed out of the buffer zone. RB asked to continue to allow for the other boards to finish their work. RB asked what size storm the detention basin was designed for. The applicant noted that he would firm out the details. JR asked it the 100-year storm water was sufficient MM noted that the regulations had the 100 year as a maximum. KJ asked if the well exiting would be abandoned and the answer was yes. KJ noted that three was no DEP number yet. BP asked about the meeting dates of the other boards considering the application. He suggested that perhaps we should wait to the April 7, 2021, meeting. The applicant agreed. RB asked for a schedule of construction to be developed. The applicant agreed. A motion to continue to April 7, 2021 was made by RD and seconded by JR with a unanimous vote to approve the motion. ENFORCEMENT : Violations (Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings). Leominster Road- Illegal Dumping activity (site visit to occur after snow has melted) EO 90 Ruth Street EO- Town of Lunenburg Fire Road 12 ENF 2019 NOI FILED Town admin signature obtained and awaiting drawing . NON - 9 Valley Road- Working on NOI EO 615 Townsend Street- monitoring time line EO Fire Road 16 NON 48 Oak Ridge New Business Jack Rabbit – Tree definition – Not acted on Old Business Continued Workshop for continued discussion of changes of the land use regulations and the creation of a document to inform the public about the land use regulations. RB read a statement outlining the reasons why he had placed the hunting with firearms initiative on the regulation review. He had noted that hunters in Lunenburg are both tax paying and license payers. He also noted the educational and safety course requirements that hunters go through. He cited that overpopulation of deer in Massachusetts and cited mortalities of deer by auto accidents and starvation due to overpopulation and that hunting is an effective way of population control. He noted that in 40 years in the state there have only been three incidents of fatal ===PAGE 6=== accidents recorded. He noted the two parcels that are the only ones now under consideration and why they are the ones selected. He suggested different ways to spread information on safety and hunting laws in the town of Lunenburg. CC excused herself from the meeting at 9 PM. CL felt a workshop extra meeting could be very productive and can help to address concerns and felt that perhaps we should adjourn this session in favor of reconvening for the workshop. BP expressed that with all of the amendment requests placed in by members that the session could continue this evening in addition to the extra session. He noted section 3.1.4 adding language for the reporting of missing signs. Both CL and RB stated that adding the language may not be necessary. BP suggested adding appendix A and B for permitting forms and fishing and hunting guide excerpts. BP noted that he had sent the appendix for hunting to Pat Huckery for review who suggested the wording of the law be added and that a comment that there is no pheasant hunting in Lunenburg as it is not stocked. ML had a question regarding an organized group charging a fee noting a situation that if a local school has a hiking course for which they charge a student fee for , would it be require a permit application from Lunenburg. MM noted the college would be a not for profit activity and the permitting would be required for a for-profit activity. CL noted that the different between profit and nonprofit was not spelled out in the proposed regulation. KJ noted that with the current wording it should apply to all organizations profit or nonprofit. Cl asked about Pheasant hunting and noted that he had spotted a family of pheasant at the northwest town forest. BP noted that Ms. Huckery’s comment stated that there was no pheasant stocked in Lunenburg. CL felt the note is not relevant. JV stated that he did not see Pheasant hunting in Lunenburg as there is not the population not the appropriate field space to make Pheasant hunting desirable. CL noted that in the land grant management program had provisions in the document for procedures for changes to it that he was concerned could conflict with the procedures for changes in the draft document the commission is working on. BP noted he reached out to the appropriate state official to answer the questions if the commission need the commonwealth’s permission to make changes in the land uses noted in the land management plan. The response was deemed vague in language by BP. He replied to the communication and reiterated the original question. Cl noted his concern was the land management plan that was accepted and that if local land use policy was changes would change the land use management plan outside of a written procedure. He noted an example that the current plans on Table rock and The Lane property only allow bow hunting and a change to that may have to follow a different procedure. RB asked if a simple change to the land use plans referring to the local land use policy would suffice. CL noted that the process outlined in the land management plan be added to the local regulations to be consistent with process. BP noted that Brandon Kibbe had written the document to be consistent with the current local regulations. RB suggested simply updating each land management plan once the regulation was completed. BP noted that he wanted to defer action until such time as the commonwealth responded to the follow-up questions. The langue of requiring a 2/3 majority was discussed. RB noted that the commission has no other requirements on any other business it does requiring a 2/3 vote and suggested that not be adopted. KJ JV and BP agreed. It was noted that the police department would aid in enforcement. CL made a motion that the notification language be changed to reporting to the agent and the police as appropriate. CL noted that the ultimate responsibility for enforcement falls on the commission. After examination RB noted that the agent is not a 24 hour position and keeping the word or gives the residents the option of who to report it to if the agent is off duty. The issue of the definition of passive recreation was examined. BP noted it was verbatim from the state standards. It was decided that the language of the CMR be left as is. JR read language for a preamble for the terms “quiet enjoyment” and the addition of language adding community gardens. He asked what are the goals of this endeavor. Cl reviewed 1.4 regarding the prohibition of certain types of guns to eliminate the terms “ the use of” and to change “is” to “are”. RB noted ===PAGE 7=== that per the second amendment people should be allowed to carry. JV asked CL if concealed carry was an issue. CL noted he was not in favor of any firearms possession on conservation lands. JV noted he disagreed with CL on this issue. CL referred to a ruling from legal that the commission has a right to ban them . KL noted he was not in favor of a firearms ban. JR noted that he felt the open carry has a different effect than concealed carry. He felt that concealed weapons only should be allowed with the exception of hunting weapons during the times of the year and areas that it would be appropriate. RB and BP noted they were against banning firearms. Cl also proposed adding language from the current hunting regulations mentioned in the appendix, being moved from the appendix section. KJ noted that he felt it was not necessary and redundant. JV noted that there was a prior conversation where it was decided not to move the section. Cl suggested that 1.6 reflect the language of the current regulations in section 2.20 regarding dogs. BP noted it was discussed prior however, it would be reconsidered. JR noted that based on the WMA regulations there was requirement that dogs be kept on a lease, however he felt that Dogs could be kept under direct vocal control. KJ ,JV and RB felt it was sufficient as currently read. Cl clarified the town by law and would send it to the commission for further review. CL suggested inserting that in addition to the smoking restriction, that language for grills and portable stoves be added. JR noted he agreed with CL. KJ, RB, JV and RB felt it would be sufficient as is. CL asked for a motion to adjourn, JR seconded. During discussion KJ asked what the chairman wanted to do. BP noted that he wanted to go through CL’s suggestions as JR also has some lengthy presentation and wanted to give JR sufficient time for his presentation at the next meeting. The motion was declined by a vote of BP, KJ, JV, RB to decline. 1.9 CL suggested language adding “in accordance with change process as outlined” RB had no opinion on this issue, KJ had no issue with it, JV was also in agreement with the suggestion. CL asked that sections 2.5 and 2.7 be reinserted into the new document. Cl wanted to know why we should delete those items. RB noted that there was existing state law that dealt with public behavior and containers. JR asked about further language concerning quite enjoyment. BP noted that it during previous discussions it was decided it would be eliminated due to varying perspectives on what constituted quiet enjoyment citing KJ’s example of how snow mobiles are allowed , however could be perceived as nuisance by some. CL felt that it was not sufficient to delete the language in order to rely on other mention of general laws. RB noted that there were other laws in effect that cover the items from the original language. KJ noted that examples of others “quite enjoyment” activities and that there were a variety of spaces on conservation lands where activities that were perceived as a disturbance such as snowmobiles, Hunting, mountain bikes and meditating. KJ echoed RB’s concern as to who would be the arbiter of such a regulation item. CL asked the alcoholic and glass containers being prohibited be reinserted. KJ asked CL what the issue was with glass. CL noted that he was concerned about safety. KJ noted that he has seen plastic and glass containers on land however, felt adding in the regulation was necessary. CL felt that glass was still an issue and he also felt alcoholic beverages should not be on the property. RB reviewed section 205-10 of the local code for consumption of alcoholic beverages. Cl noted that the issue was possession not consumption. RB re-read the section of local code noting possession prohibition of open containers. KJ noted it can be left as is. JV agreed with KJ. RB also agreed with KJ and JV. JR agreed with CL. BP noted he would like to ask CC about this issue at the next meeting. Section 2.1 and 2.11 CL suggested that 2.1 be deleted and 2.11 be made 2.1 and add language that refined the line. He felt the sections were redundant. All members agreed with the suggested change A review of section 2.4 requiring tree stands be removed by the end of the applicable ===PAGE 8=== hunting season. KJ noted that he was in agreement with CL and asked JV and RB if state law would require them to be removed at the end of the season. BP suggested that it could be inserted into the beginning of section 2.4 and read the proposed language. Members were in agreement with BP’s suggestion. Cl noted Town Counsel recommended that Hunting Hill be added to the list in section 2.5. BP noted that he had extensive conversations by email with Elizabeth Newell of the Commonwealth and was forwarding that correspondence to the commission for review. ML asked a question if lead free ammunition was present in Massachusetts. RB noted that lead shot is not allowed for the use of shot for water fowl. BP recounted his conversation with the commonwealth and that it was there interpretation that when the CR was signed for hunting hills, there would be further restrictions on hunting in all forms on the hunting hills conservation land. Town Counsel would be shown that conversation so he could render an opinion on it. 4.2 CL suggested that the language be added that the LCC Administrator be the point of contact for reporting violations to make it clear to the public who drives the enforcement. It was noted by BP that a meeting with the police chief resulted in a commitment from the chief that they would assist the commission in enforcement. KJ had no objection to the language however, it was noted that the Conservation Commission is the body that reports to the public and the administrator would report to the commission. MM noted that he had no issue and that there was a need for one point of contact to prevent a disconnect between the public and the commission. KJ suggested adding the language for follow up reporting. BP reviewed follow up actions for the next meeting. BP noted he would like to have a special meeting on March 10, 2021and requested that JR present new items that have not been decided by the commission and he wanted to work with the commission on the Q & A document. He asked RB to write an answer for the Q & A about the hunting issues and the reasons for the proposed expansions. BP further noted that there were over 9 meetings on the land use regulations and a very unusually heavy participation by the public. JR reviewed the basics of what he was planning on presenting. He would send MM the materials of his presentation for posting. All other items were tabled to the next meeting: 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 With no further public comment the meeting adjourned on March 4, 2017 at 12:05 AM by a motion of RB and a second by KJ with a unanimous vote to approve the motion. Meeting schedule: Next meeting is March 17, 2021 at 7PM ======================================================================================== DOCUMENT : 2021-03-10-agenda-6292.txt BOARD : conservation-commission DATE : 2021-03-10 KIND : agenda OUR COPY : https://lunenburgbudgetproject.org/docs/minutes/text/conservation-commission/2021-03-10-agenda-6292.txt TOWN PDF : https://www.lunenburgma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03102021-6292 ======================================================================================== ===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 March 10, 2021 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 Time: Jan 6, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89859290453 Meeting ID: 898 5929 0453 One tap mobile +13126266799,,89859290453# US (Chicago) +19292056099,,89859290453# 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) 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 877 853 5257 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 898 5929 0453 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbrkOUsEsI 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. AGENDA Call to Order Commission workshop 1. Consideration of revisions to the draft Land Use Regulations to be posted on Conservation Commission website. 2. Development of a land use rules public information document for posting on Conservation Commission website. Adjourn – Next meeting is March 17, 2021 7PM- Zoom Platform ===PAGE 3=== ======================================================================================== DOCUMENT : 2021-03-17-agenda-6284.txt BOARD : conservation-commission DATE : 2021-03-17 KIND : agenda OUR COPY : https://lunenburgbudgetproject.org/docs/minutes/text/conservation-commission/2021-03-17-agenda-6284.txt TOWN PDF : https://www.lunenburgma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03172021-6284 ======================================================================================== ===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 March 17, 2021REVISED 3/11/21 @ 5:35 PM Second Revision 3/15/2021 @ 10:55 AM 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 843 6901 4668 Town of Lunenburg is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Conservation Commission- REGULAR MEETING Time: Mar 17, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84369014668 Meeting ID: 843 6901 4668 One tap mobile +19292056099,,84369014668# US (New York) +13017158592,,84369014668# 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) 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 843 6901 4668 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcXBSnc2Mv 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 ===PAGE 2=== 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. AGENDA 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 Minutes of previous meetings –March 3 and March 10 2021 Appointments/Hearings –commences at 7 PM Appointment: 1.0 Appointment: Gini Albertson, Pollinator habitat. 2.0 Appointment: Discussion of Septic system placement, 25 Pearl Street Hearing/Forum for the benefit of the public. NOTE: THIS HEARING IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 21, 2021 WORKSHOP DISCUSSION TO BE HELD ON THIS AGENDA (SEE OLD BUSINESS) The Lunenburg Conservation Commission, under authority granted by Massachusetts General 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 March 17, 2021 at 7 PM by Zoom meeting link to be issued by March 11, 2021. The initial draft revisions and any alternate proposal or updates will be posted on the town website. The public is invited to attend. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Tom Wu and Scott Benjamin for work at Map 137 Parcel 12 at Fire Road 12 for the restoration of the buffer zone (to be continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting) Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335.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. ( to be continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting) ===PAGE 3=== 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. 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. 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 Richard Tremblay for work at 386 Sunset Lane for repairs to five existing retaining wall, the construction of a kayak rack, the reinforcement of existing fencing, the removal of a stump, the replacement of 2 existing concrete patios, and the removal and replacement of an existing driveway. 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 grading and parking.(to be continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting) ENFORCEMENT: Violations (Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings). Leominster Road- Illegal Dumping activity (site visit to occur after snow has melted) EO 90 Ruth Street EO- Town of Lunenburg Fire Road 12 ENF 2019 NOI FILED Town admin signature obtained and awaiting drawing. NON - 9 Valley Road- Working on NOI EO 615 Townsend Street- monitoring time line EO Fire Road 16 NON 48 Oak Ridge EO 205 Arbor Street New Business: APR discussion and consideration for Pierce Property on Chase Road (780 Northfield Road) Old Business Continued Workshop for continued discussion of changes of the land use regulations and the creation of a document to inform the public about the land use regulations. 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 Meeting schedule: Next meeting is April 7, 2021 at 7PM ===PAGE 4=== ======================================================================================== DOCUMENT : 2021-03-17-minutes-6284.txt BOARD : conservation-commission DATE : 2021-03-17 KIND : minutes OUR COPY : https://lunenburgbudgetproject.org/docs/minutes/text/conservation-commission/2021-03-17-minutes-6284.txt TOWN PDF : https://www.lunenburgma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_03172021-6284 ======================================================================================== ===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 March 17, 2021REVISED 3/11/21 @ 5:35 PM Second Revision 3/15/2021 @ 10:55 AM 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 843 6901 4668 Town of Lunenburg is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Conservation Commission- REGULAR MEETING Time: Mar 17, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84369014668 Meeting ID: 843 6901 4668 One tap mobile +19292056099,,84369014668# US (New York) +13017158592,,84369014668# 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) 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 843 6901 4668 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcXBSnc2Mv 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 ===PAGE 2=== 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 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 10 2021 Appointments/Hearings –commences at 7 PM Appointment: 1.0 Appointment: Gini Albertson, Pollinator habitat. Gini Albertson appeared before the commission. She outlined her work with the pollinator habitat on Hollis Road. The proposal outlined a strategy of enhancing the habitat to protect certain species of insects that are considered threatened. The proposal outlined materials that would need to be purchased. She noted that this November will be the fifth anniversary of the habitat and was looking forward to having a big celebration. The total amount of funds need would be a maximum of 1000 dollars. KJ noted that the habitat that Gini and her crew have worked so hard on has been an amazing effort. He noted that he was in favor of funding. Tanner Cole volunteered to contribute some wood chips to the effort. RB noted that Lakeview Nursery would donate up to 300 dollars of plants. KJ moved to approve a maximum of 1000 dollars for the habitat purchased to come from the Hawes gift fund. JR seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. 2.0 Appointment: Discussion of Septic system placement, 25 Pearl Street Mr. Wolfe outline an issue on construction regarding the 4000 gallon holding tank previously approved. He noted that after the installation, the tank was installed in the first location. It was due to the contractor using the original plan as his plan of record. He noted that moving the tank back would be difficult due to its size and the grading would have to be redistributed and it is currently ready to be seeded. JR asked how the tank was installed. Mr. Wolfe noted it was installed with a boom truck in 2 pieces ===PAGE 3=== and is also sealed. It would require a crane to uninstall and would require a crane and is likely to break. Mr. Wolfe noted that ground water on one side was coming in and was dealt with. He was afraid that uninstalling it would likely create a mess due to the ground water. He noted to the commission that the error was discovered this past Saturday and worked was stopped and they self- reported. CL noted that the commission intentionally moved the tank and wondered if the contractor would be responsible for the cost of the new tank? Dan Wolfe noted that it could be discussed with the contractor. BP felt it would likely cause more damage to remove it at this point and may be more protective of the environment to leave it in place. JR was concerned about setting a negative precedent. RB the commission should have the order of conditions amended instead of approving it as a field change. He suggested that perhaps we could convert some bank back to native or add additional plantings. He also noted that the commission should consider a fine. CL agreed with RB’s suggestions of an amendment and the reason it was moved was for long term impacts to the lake. KJ said that he feels a field change was appropriate, as the tank was still outside the 30 foot zone, and that a fine was not appropriate. CC noted that she agreed with RB, but was hesitant about a fine. BP noted to Mr. Wolfe that an amendment appeared to be the sentiment among the commissioners. RB asked if the new placement of the tank would be required to be revisited by the Board of Health. MR Wolfe noted that it would not. JR asked if the fine issue would be discussed at the hearing. BP noted that JR could make a motion, however as there were only six members present that it would likely be a tie vote. JR proposed consideration of a 1000 dollar fine. JR moved to issue such. Cl seconded. KJ asked if we even could assess that amount right at this time. RB stated no. Cl state it would be more appropriate to discuss it at the amended hearing. The vote on the motion was unanimously to not approve the motion. Hearing/Forum for the benefit of the public. NOTE: THIS HEARING IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 21, 2021 WORKSHOP DISCUSSION TO BE HELD ON THIS AGENDA (SEE OLD BUSINESS) The Lunenburg Conservation Commission, under authority granted by Massachusetts General 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 March 17, 2021 at 7 PM by Zoom meeting link to be issued by March 11, 2021. The initial draft revisions and any alternate proposal or updates will be posted on the town website. The public is invited to attend. Land Use policy to be continued to the April 21, 2021 meeting at 7 PM by a motion of CL and a second by JR with a unanimous vote by the commission to approve the motion. BP noted that there will be more workshop activities taking place later on in the agenda to finish the workshop items between now and the April 7 meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Tom Wu and Scott Benjamin for work at Map 137 Parcel 12 at Fire Road 12 for the restoration of the buffer zone (to be continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting) To be continued to the April 07, 2021 meeting at 7 PM by a motion of BP and a second by CC with a unanimous vote by the commission to approve the motion. ===PAGE 4=== Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335.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. ( to be continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting) To be continued to the April 07, 2021 meeting at 7 PM by a motion of BP and a second by CC with a unanimous vote by the commission to approve the motion. 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. Cynthia Ritchie and Brett Ramsden were present to represent the applicant. Cynthia recounted the process used to get to this point. She received direction for the application process and noted confusion with WPA form 3. She thanked MM for his guidance through the proposal. She noted that they currently have an engineering proposal for 5000 dollars. She noted other wall activities in around Lake Shirley. She stated that she shared the commission goals for using the natural stones and will be having Brett Ramsden hand lay the boulders. She noted conservation goals listed on the state website. Decisions, she noted, are made on policies and goals, and that she does indeed shares the commission goals. BP noted the diagram was the very first diagram that was received and the commission need the time to discuss the diagram. JR noted that some of the commission went out and examined the site and had no concerns on the rock portion of the proposal and wanted to know more about the replacement of the dry dock and work within that area. He also noted the trees that had recently been cut along the shore and the plan for these trees to be replaced. Cynthia noted one tree hanging on the peninsula had been blown over She questioned the need for the permit for the rock erosion protection. BP noted that yes under both state and local regulations would require the filing. RB noted that the act referred to was MGL ch 40 Section 8 C the Conservation Commission act and this situation was in jurisdiction under MGL ch 131 section 40 and there were also issues of flood plain that would be triggered and it would need to be examined if there were negative impacts to the flood plain and if compensatory storage was required. The other item was that for a replacement wall, it would need to be put back within its original place. The work would be finished during next year’s drawdown so there as time to consider the application and noted that the dry staking would be appropriate MM noted the length on the wall if not naturalized would require a wildlife habitat evaluation under state regulation and the naturalization both avoids this requirement and allows for a more permanent naturalized solution not normally encountered in other walls. Cl noted that more details were needed and that there was drawing that was submitted that shows a cross section and due to the undercutting of the shoreline and he felt replacing that eroded area would not necessarily impact flood plain. He noted that the dimensions shown may need to be adjusted as the height seems to exceed the bank height in most areas. He noted that there was a considerable section of beach on the lot and perhaps the stone on that section was not planned for and that it should be excluded as that would seal off the open area. He also noted a tree replanting detail should be added as well. Cynthia Richie said they did intend to have the rock barrier extend across the now beach area. BP noted he was going to conduct a straw poll if the current style drawing with some details adjusted would be sufficient. Brett Ramsden reviewed the drawings and noted the drawings were based on discussions with the applicant after the site visit. He also noted the collapsing dock and why having a wall there would be necessary. The dock would be repaired without disturbance to the ===PAGE 5=== ground similar to the current configuration. He noted that the wall needed to be run along the beach area due to the erosion and perhaps add granite steps to be able to utilize the beach area with a boundary. Cynthia Ritchie noted that the work would be done in the spring time. BP asked about the need for the plan. CL noted that a full blown engineered plans may not be necessary and that the current drawing should be refined with more detail. He noted the granite steps should be on the drawing and if there was any fill was going to be there. He noted that the adding of stone to the beach area may constitute a new wall. KJ stated while we need more detail on the drawings particularly the beach area, an engineered plan would not be necessary. JR also indicated he agreed with Cl and KJ and that Brett Ramsden has addressed this prior. RB felt an engineered plan is necessary as it is 560 feet of lake frontage. He noted the engineer would have to certify the plans were compliant prior to approval and after construction. The engineers also have the design experience necessary to meet the aesthetic goals as well as the wetland protection regulation goals. CC noted that an engineered plan is not necessary and maybe a separate drawing some elevations of the beach area could be added. KJ noted that the risk of with having others in previous projects have to come back multiple times to address questions with hand drawings, perhaps the engineered plans may be a time saver. CL noted that perhaps we should during straw polls let RB speak first as his argument was compelling with some survey work being needed. JR said Brett Ramsden had the equipment necessary to establish some accurate elevations and he would like to see what Brett could do first. Cl noted that when the lake comes up within the next 2 weeks there would be work within the wetland. Was that acceptable? Cynthia Ritchie asked if this project could be divided in pieces. BP noted that the applicant had the option but would have to refile a new application for items not included in the first plan. It was noted that the project still does not show in the database. MM stated he would check on that issue as there was some delays created by the pandemic dynamics. Brett Ramsden outlined elevation issues and the work methodologies involved. He also noted that there would have to be a cut in the floor of the lake. He noted that if that doesn’t happen it would likely result in other trees being compromised within the future. RB noted that with the lake being full by April first would not be a good condition to work in and that it needs to be completed during the drawdown. CL asked if there would be equipment used. Mr Ramsden noted that there would be some work with a mini excavator to get around the area that there was thicker woods there would need to be a dry bed from a drawdown or there may be tracks in the water. BP recapped the commission points. He noted MM would find out what happened with the DEP filing number. Cynthia Ritchie noted they would go ahead with the engineered survey. She also wondered why there were other walls allowed on Lake Shirley. RB noted that DEP would likely have their own list of questions. BP noted that this item should be continued to the April 21st meeting. BP noted that concerning the questions of walls. Many of them were predating the regulations and many of the walls constructed were due to replacing of existing. Cl moved to continue to April 21st. JR seconded, and the commission unanimously approved the motion to continue with agreement of the applicant. Cynthia asked for feedback on the proposal. Cynthia asked if it was OK to remove three trees including the tree from the area that fell over. MM noted that the tree that has fallen should be removed. CL noted that an administrator’s determination be submitted to keep the process clean. BP asked the commission if it was ok for MM to work with the applicant. The Commission said yes. 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. ===PAGE 6=== BP noted that he, MM and RB had a meeting with Town Counsel concerning the legitimacy of refiling a prior denial and the notes from the meeting were on the cloud. MM noted there was no further communications from DEP regarding the communications. He noted that the applicant requested a continuance to the next meeting. RB moved to continue the meeting to April 7 at 7 PM. KJ seconded and the Commission voted unanimously. 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 Richard Tremblay for work at 386 Sunset Lane for repairs to five existing retaining wall, the construction of a kayak rack, the reinforcement of existing fencing, the removal of a stump, the replacement of 2 existing concrete patios, and the removal and replacement of an existing driveway. NOTE: CL RECUSED FROM THIS MATTER DUE TO BEING AN ABUTTER. Greg Roy appeared before the commission representing the applicant. He recalled the history of the continuance from the last meeting to coordinate with the abutter Mr. Luck. He noted they are still working with Mr. Luck however wanted to present the proposal for the commission input. He also noted there is still no DEP number issued. He also recalled the site walk with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Roy reviewed the plans submitted and the existing wall and therefore there was no regulatory bank. He noted there was no 100 foot buffer zone established on the plan as the entire lot is within the 100 foot buffer zone. The 30 and 50 foot was shown on the plans. He noted there was no alteration proposed for land under water body. He noted the limits of the 100- year flood plain. He noted there was no flood plain proposed to be altered. He outlined the wall on the western side would be replaced with a natural stone wall and would match the exiting dimensions. He outlined the activities of remove and replace within the 30 foot no touch zone and noted there was a waiver requested. BP asked if the current patio was a solid concrete. The answer was yes, and it was proposed to be replaced with pavers. Mr. Roy noted the dimension of the patio was proposed to remain exactly the same. Mr. Roy outlined a post that needed to be reset and would reestablish a fence. Mr. Tremblay differentiated the different materials on the patios. Moving east Mr. Roy noted that a kayak rack was requested. He noted it was in an area previously disturbed. He noted that there is an oak stump/trunk that is proposed to be removed and is within the limits of the fence. Between sunset lane and the home it would be a resurfacing of the driveway. He outlined erosion controls placed on the plan. Mr. Roy outlined three retaining walls adjacent to the driveway with the timber retaining wall proposed to be replaced with block in the same dimensions. He noted the area across from the house is proposed to be replaced. The eastern lake wall at the water’s edge is currently a railroad retaining wall and as such there is no regulatory bank in this area and the wall is proposed to be replaced with block material in the same dimension. Mr. Roy noted that he has met with Carl and Phyllis Luck to address their concerns on site and are working to propose a detail that is amenable to the applicant and the Lucks as the wall was built integrally with the Lucks property and are attempting to work out an optimal location for a wall terminus and that has not been resolved. This applies to the walls along the waters on both the easterly and westerly side and an a side wall. RB asked if there is anywhere on the plan that the wall would be in the same dimension as the ghosting of the wall would indicate it comes out into the water. Mr. Roy noted that he would provide clarity on the plans. RB clarified the details on the plans for sections C and B. There are also no details called out at section D and E. Mr. Roy noted he would resolve the discrepancies with the notes on the plans. RB clarified that there would be no filling in the flood plain with the wall. RB asked if there was a new infiltration basin proposed. Mr. Roy noted it was an existing one and that it ===PAGE 7=== would require erosion protection. JR asked if the ongoing negotiations were concerning the wall intersections. Mr. Roy noted yes. A motion was made to continue to April 7, 2021 by JR with a second by KJ and a unanimous vote of the commission to approve the motion. RB abstained. 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 grading and parking.(to be continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting) A motion was made to continue to April 7, 2021 by RB with a second by CC and a unanimous vote of the commission to approve the motion. ENFORCEMENT: Actions continued to the April 7, 2021 meeting Violations (Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings). Leominster Road- Illegal Dumping activity (site visit to occur after snow has melted) EO 90 Ruth Street EO- Town of Lunenburg Fire Road 12 ENF 2019 NOI FILED Town admin signature obtained and awaiting drawing. NON - 9 Valley Road- Working on NOI EO 615 Townsend Street- monitoring time line EO Fire Road 16 NON 48 Oak Ridge EO 205 Arbor Street New Business: APR discussion and consideration for Pierce Property on Chase Road (780 Northfield Road) BP noted that this item was taken up at a meeting of the open space commission Tuesday night March 16, 2021 there would be 10 percent funding of the APR by the town. The open space committee recommended the passage. JR asked if there was 10 acres to be donated. BP noted that there has been no official word. RB asked what the current zoning of the land is. RB indicated he was in favor of the APR which is in the amount of 66,500 dollars. He read the proposed warrant. RB moved to a favorable recommendation KJ seconded and the commission voted unanimously. CC excused herself from the meeting at 9:35 PM. Old Business Continued Workshop for continued discussion of changes of the land use regulations and the creation of a document to inform the public about the land use regulations. BP recalled the last session and the review of the changes proposed by CL. BP noted he spoke with the director of the lands grant programs and that Massachusetts is a home rule state and the commission is free to pass restrictions on recreation use types as long as the land is kept open to passive recreation. CL noted that the land management plans on the Lane and Table Rock properties and there is a defined process to changing the plan. It is not the same process included in this regulation. He asked that we incorporate that process into the proposed commission regulations to ensure the process involved for changes were consolidated into one process so that once a change went through the Land Use Process it would also allow changing the Land Management Plan without further process. ===PAGE 8=== BP noted that the plans only needed to be changed if the uses on the table was changed. CL opined that since the Land Use Regulations are referenced in the Land Management Plans, a change to the Land Use Regulation automatically effects the Land Use Process. CL explained the proposed changes. KJ indicated he would not be in favor of the proposed change. Cl explained that the land management plans can be changed however we would have to go through the process defined in the plan. It was clarified these are only other land use management plans except for Hunting Hill. RB noted it would be likely easier to insert the statement in the land use plans that the plans should conform to the local regulation. BP noted that the current uses outlined in the management plans on those properties are consistent with the uses outlined in our regulations and that the uses are unlikely to be changed rendered to be moot. CL pointed out that the bow hunting provisions outlined contains a requirement for a special permit. BP noted that the author of the plan noted that the intention was simply the land use regulations be followed. CL commented that that was good to know but not what the document says. KJ asked what the details were for having to visit which sites. JR asked that maybe we should require a special permit for bow hunting. KJ noted that the commission should develop its own land use regulations and the two management plans if changed would be a separate process. RB noted the land use plans were drawn up as a requirement of the grant but not as a condition of approval. He felt at this point we should not insert the language and simply change the land use management plans separately. BP felt inserting the language would complicate the process. JR noted that there is no clear answer on this issue. KJ felt that inserting the language would complicate the issue and that there were other parcels not included in the process. RB is not in favor of adding the language. CL felt that the 2 land use plans should be changed at a later date. BP assured CL that there will be a date set for that issue after the final regulations were enacted for the affected parcels. CL noted that with respect to the issue of dogs he noted that the language of control and restrain had the same meaning then we should not change it in our regulation change proposal. CL asked to change the language back to the current language in the current regulation. KJ noted that he is not opposed to matching the town by law. RB noted that he would be opposed to any additional language on the towns by law with the exception of picking up after the dog. BP indicated that CL’s changes will be adopted as proposed. CL noted that the alcohol and quiet enjoyment sections of the regulations that were removed be reinserted. BP asked if we could have CC and JV present and over that item at the next meeting. KJ noted that there is existing state law does not allow open containers and asked if that were covered. CL noted that the proposal would cover open or closed containers. KJ felt that it was an issue that is excessive in regulation. CL noted that it is not without precedent and is in the hunting hill regulation. JR noted that he examined other commission regulations and that there was similar language in those regulations. BP noted that he would prefer to defer to the full board. CL asked about the status on bicycles staying on trails only. BP noted that the issue was addressed in the previous meeting and the commission had decided the insertion was not necessary. CL noted that according to an email from Sharon Jordan that the previous regulations were a result of new trails being cut in. BP noted that there was a provision that new and rerouted trails were prohibited without the express permission of the Conservation Commission and that was satisfactory. BP presented suggested language from Adam Costa regarding the Hunting Hills and that there was a three-party board (a member of the Lunenburg Con Com, Shirley Con Com and the Commonwealth). that governed the use of the hunting hill land area. The language was read to the commission by BP and that the Hunting Hill regulations be added as an appendix and that the current proposed language in the proposed regulations be struck. Cl noted he liked the approach as the regulations on Hunting Hills would conflict with our regulations ===PAGE 9=== and supported the position of town counsel. It was noted by RB, KJ , BP and JR that they would be in favor of adopting Town Counsels regulation and BP said he would make the change to the draft language. JR presented a slide show. He outlined the areas of changes he proposed. He suggested a mission statement that could be inserted. He presented statistics of the percentages of population by usage. He also outlined examples of issues concerning private property issues. He stated the proposed changes that 28 % of the land would allow for firearms hunting. He examined areas in surrounding towns and the square mileage associated. He presented a definition of quiet recreation. He also recommended the establishment of a community garden. He proposed not changing the hours of operation from dawn to dusk as in the current regulation, with limited exception that would require special permission. KJ indicated that he was not in favor of changing the existing hours of operation. JR presented statistics of accidents. He suggested that hunting be restricted to white tail deer. He suggested adding a new section outlining quiet outdoor recreation. He also suggested a drunkenness section and motorized vehicles with exceptions. He suggested a prohibition of an open carry weapon but allow concealed weapons. He outlined statistics on hunting accidents. He also outlined language for dog control, use of grills and overnight camping, tree stands, traditional bow hunting and top dressing of animals caught and hunting hills. He further defined hunting and differentiated sports hunting and natural predation. He also outlined the issues with respect to the use of lead shot. He cited statistics that bow hunting has increased in popularity. He further outlined the amounts of deer taken by hunters. He outlined statistics that show an increase in the use of open spaces. He constructed a review of the money obtained by the fees of hunting licenses. He noted the funding sources for the purchasing of different open spaces. The proposed mission statement was reviewed. JR noted this was to reinforce state law and the mutual goals. KJ and RB noted they didn’t see the need to add it to the language of the regulations. CL noted that a mission statement is always a good idea. BP noted he agreed with KJ and RB that the current introduction is sufficient. BP reviewed our current introduction. JR added if it would make sense to ask the public. The order of the language was examined in relation to the mission statement. KJ, RB and BP noted they are not in favor of changing the order. CL and JR stated they are in favor. Quiet recreation was raised. KJ noted this issue in many places in JR’s presentation and that snow mobiles needs to be addressed. KJ noted that in one year there were more injuries and accidents by snow mobiles than there were in hunting. KJ noted that we have to be open to compromise and we need to be careful of what we allow and what is prohibited. JR referred to his decibel chart. He noted that snow mobiles run at 90 db and a shotgun blast is at 170 db. He noted that the snow mobile clubs also do many beneficial activities concerning the trails. He noted that it is a family activity. RB noted that a shotgun blast is very intermittent and that snowmobiles make a more consistent and drawn-out noise. With regard of changing the language of permitted uses KJ, RB, and BP were not in favor of making the changes and JR and Cl were in favor. BP reiterated that the issue of hunting will be revisited when all seven members are present. With respect to the hours of operations as presented: KJ, RB and BP are opposed to changing the language proposed. The proposed 1.2.1 regarding infringement of quiet enjoyment, KJ, RB, and BP state they were against the change. CL noted it would need further work. 1.2.2 proposed by JR about drunkenness, alcoholic beverages, and glass container and it was noted by BP is that it would be taken up at the next meeting. CL noted it should go back to the current regulation and he would support that. 1.3 as proposed RB, KJ ,BP and CL noted the added language was not necessary and the current proposed is covered adequately. ===PAGE 10=== 1.4 regarding carrying of firearms (concealed versus open carry) JR proposed language was re- examined and it was agreed that it could be reworded. RB, KJ and BP noted they were satisfied with the current proposed language and CL noted he was opposed to any firearms. CL noted that in Massachusetts a license to carry does not differentiate between open and concealed carry. BP noted that this issue will have to be revisited with a full roster of the commission present. 1.5 JR withdrew and the commission will continue to forward the current proposed. 1.6 With respect to Dog regulations the definition of restraint and the email from the police chief. JR further explained the definitions of restraint and control. KJ feels the definition of CL that was adopted was sufficient, BP, CL and RB also agreed the current adopted change by CL was sufficient 2.1 Overnight camping was reviewed. KJ noted that he had no issues with the proposed changes. RB noted he was not in favor of the proposed change. CL noted that he didn’t have any issues with the proposed change. BP indicated the proposed changes would be adopted. 2.4 Permits for tree stands was stated that they are not adopted as noted by KJ, RB, BP and CL. With respect to the dressing of deer KJ , BP, RB and CL were in favor of leaving the current proposed in place. 2.5.2 Was considered moot. BP reiterated that the items that were not discussed would be taken up by the full board. The matter was closed to the regular meeting. RB asked if JR was opposed to the forwarding of left-over issues if there was a clear majority of the commission in favor of a certain direction. JR indicated that his item of most concern was opening up further lands to the firearm hunting. JR also indicated that he would want the full board present for that issue and the issue of limiting animals hunted. BP assured that when the formal hearing requiring motions and votes takes place, he would want the full board present. 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 To be taken up at the meeting of 4/7/2021 Communications / public comment asked BP if there was any public comment. No one had comment Adjourn RB moved to adjourn, KJ seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 PM. Meeting schedule: Next meeting is April 7, 2021 at 7PM ===PAGE 11=== ======================================================================================== DOCUMENT : 2021-04-07-agenda-6293.txt BOARD : conservation-commission DATE : 2021-04-07 KIND : agenda OUR COPY : https://lunenburgbudgetproject.org/docs/minutes/text/conservation-commission/2021-04-07-agenda-6293.txt TOWN PDF : https://www.lunenburgma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04072021-6293 ======================================================================================== ===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 April 7, 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 827 3954 6648 Town of Lunenburg is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Conservation Commission Time: Apr 7, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82739546648 Meeting ID: 827 3954 6648 One tap mobile +13126266799,,82739546648# US (Chicago) +19292056099,,82739546648# 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) 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 827 3954 6648 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kd8xW7b4H2 ===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. AGENDA 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 Minutes of previous meetings –March 3 and March 17 2021 Appointments/Hearings –commences at 7 PM Appointment: 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 of Applicability for work at 73 Peninsula Drive by Daniel Murphy will be held. Work proposed is the removal of trees within the buffer zone. 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 586 Reservoir Road by Nicholas Pauling will be held. Work proposed is the replacement of an existing deck with a 3-season porch and associated tree pruning within 100-feet of a wetland resource area 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 47 Cliffview Terrace will be held. Work proposed is the placement of an aluminum framed dock. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Tom Wu and Scott Benjamin for work at Map 137 Parcel 12 at Fire Road 12 for the restoration of the buffer zone (to be continued to the April 21, 2021 meeting) Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335.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. ( to be continued to the April 21, 2021 meeting) ===PAGE 3=== 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. 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. 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 Richard Tremblay for work at 386 Sunset Lane for repairs to five existing retaining wall, the construction of a kayak rack, the reinforcement of existing fencing, the removal of a stump, the replacement of 2 existing concrete patios, and the removal and replacement of an existing driveway. 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 grading and parking Old Business: Continued Workshop for continued discussion of changes of the land use regulations and the creation of a document to inform the public about the land use regulations. ENFORCEMENT: Violations (Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings). Leominster Road- Illegal Dumping activity (site visit to occur after snow has melted) EO 90 Ruth Street EO- Town of Lunenburg Fire Road 12 ENF 2019 NOI FILED Town admin signature obtained and awaiting drawing. NON - 9 Valley Road- Working on NOI EO 615 Townsend Street- monitoring time line NON 467 Lancaster Ave EO Fire Road 16 NON 48 Oak Ridge EO 205 Arbor Street New Business 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 – 106 Sandy Cove Road 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 Meeting schedule: Next meeting is April 21, 2021 at 7PM ======================================================================================== DOCUMENT : 2021-04-07-minutes-6293.txt BOARD : conservation-commission DATE : 2021-04-07 KIND : minutes OUR COPY : https://lunenburgbudgetproject.org/docs/minutes/text/conservation-commission/2021-04-07-minutes-6293.txt TOWN PDF : https://www.lunenburgma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_04072021-6293 ======================================================================================== ===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 7, 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 827 3954 6648 Town of Lunenburg is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Conservation Commission Time: Apr 7, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82739546648 Meeting ID: 827 3954 6648 One tap mobile +13126266799,,82739546648# US (Chicago) +19292056099,,82739546648# 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) 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 827 3954 6648 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kd8xW7b4H2 ===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. AGENDA Call to Order Announcements All members present as the meeting was called to order 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 JR noted that his presentation last meeting had a heckler and that person was using the chat feature and was wondering of the chat could be muted. He asked if the commission could adopt a procedure wither stopping chat or blocking a heckler. He noted that all public comment should be going through the chair. BP noted that he didn’t notice it in the chat as it may have been directed to JR only. He noted that chat had been useful to him. If someone wanted to make a motion for chat they could PB had a discussion with legal and that there are no legal reason n to shut it down. ML noted that he had seen the chat at the last meeting and he felt that it was very distracting. CL noted that he has seen the value of chat however he felt it was abused and equated it with someone at a live meeting shouting comments out of order. He noted that some towns have a policy prohibiting chat and that private communications could be an open meeting law violation. He suggested that if there that type of behavior going on than we could perhaps shut it off at that time. RB suggested that it could be monitored and any person abusing chat could be warned once and then ejected from the meeting if the behavior doesn’t stop. He noted that at times chat has been shown to have some useful comments. CL moved to approve the minutes from March 17 and noted that it should be added to the minutes Cynthia Ritchie had a difficult time understanding the portal. JR noted that she also commented about not seeing the commission having goals. CC seconded. The members voted to approve the motion with JR’s amendments. The motion was passed by a unanimous roll call vote Minutes of previous meetings –March 3 and March 17 2021 No action on March 3 minutes ===PAGE 3=== Appointments/Hearings –commences at 7 PM Appointment: 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 Request for a Determination of Applicability for work at 73 Peninsula Drive by Daniel Murphy will be held. Work proposed is the removal of trees within the buffer zone. 73 Peninsula drive was continued to April 21, 20201 at 7 PM by a motion of RB and a second by CC with a unanimous vote 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 Request for a Determination of Applicability for work at 586 Reservoir Road by Nicholas Pauling will be held. Work proposed is the replacement of an existing deck with a 3-season porch and associated tree pruning within 100-feet of a wetland resource area Nick Pauling represented himself, he oriented the commission to the site and outlined the scope of his work and its relation to the wetland resource areas. He proposed the addition of a three season porch enclosing the deck. He also noted the trees located on the plans that he wished to remove. The trees were small in diameter ( 3 to 4 inches). BP asked how close to the wetland the work comes. It was noted that the porch was 85 feet away and the trees were 83 feet away and the closest point of pruning would be 75 feet away. JR asked if any erosion controls were proposed. Wattles were shown on the plans. JR asked what the remainder of the terrain looked like. It was noted that it was trees and shrubs. CC asked if the landscape around the porch was grass. It was noted that it was landscaped timbers and previously disturbed. CL motioned for a negative determination. JR seconded and the commission approved the motion 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 o n a Request for a Determination of Applicability for work at 47 Cliffview Terrace will be held. Work proposed is the placement of an aluminum framed dock. Matthew Moison representing himself. He outlined the proposal for a dock addition and its orientation to the lake. He also noted that a ground level deck was proposed to be placed on cement blocks. It would be a trex decking material. JR noted that there was really steep slope and asked if there was any digging in the wall to support the decking. Mr Moison noted that there was no plan to do that. He noted that he would recess the concrete blocks for leveling the deck and that should be no deeper than 6 inches. JR asked if hickory hills granted permission. It was noted that there was permission granted pending conservation commission approval. JV asked if there were any forms and pouring of concrete for the steps. It was noted that no there would not be. CL clarified that the work was for the deck and dock. A picture Cl added to the file was examined and outlined where the decking was going to go. JR offered to give the applicant some leftover silt fencing if he would put it in. The applicant agreed. They would go between the edge of water and where the decking was going. KJ noted there was a stump in the middle of the picture and was it new. Mr, Moison noted that during a windstorm the windstorm a tree split and fell and he had obtained an emergency certification. He had it removed from the water. KJ also noted that there was another proposed decking that the commission did not approve, MM noted that was a property on Sunset Lane where a patio was not approved, and the entire unit was dug into the ground. CL noted that we should examine the decking going into the ground and not having any digging. BP asked if the decking could be placed on the ground with no digging and still allow the various supports still in place. JR noted that he examined the drawing and noted that the decking was part of the dock proposal and in this case as similar to other cases there was limited access on the property. BP noted that he kayaks by the property many times and noted that the property was extremely steep and the location unique due to the steep nature of most of the property. Mr Moison noted that he can do the decking on the blocks with no digging. His original goal was not to have a raised structure however he was willing to modify his proposal. KJ noted that he had concerns that the project may spur more projects. He was concerned that it could be similar to 90 Ruth Street and indicated he may not be in favor of the proposal. JR wanted to know if the decking was to anchor the dock. Mr Moison noted that it was not. He also acknowledged KJ’s concern that eventually down the road he ===PAGE 4=== likely would file for further access to the water but there were no plans for the current site RB noted he would not be in favor of the deck within the no touch zone. He noted that there was multiple prior construction for the stairs. RB noted that he would like to see any potential future project added to the plans. Mr Moison noted that some of the structures were prior retaining walls original to the house and part of an original pathway. RB asked of the stairs were on the application. It was noted that no it was just repairs to existing structures. JR suggested considering allowing just the dock be approved right now and the others could be added to another application. JR noted he would support the current application that had a reduced decking. KJ noted he was not opposed to the dock however suggested that the reminder of the work be outlined on a notice of intent. RB would be in favor of the dock only at this time and the reminder be added to a determination. CC is in favor of the dock but also would like to see the remainder of the work could be added to a plan. CL and JV agreed with the remainder of the commission with respect to the dock (removable) and wanted to see further working outlined on a plan. BP noted that historically on the property there was foot access that did promote erosion and would like to see future work placed on a Notice of Intent. He had no issues with a temporary dock. Mr Moison noted that he would be comfortable with amending his request with just the dock and would be willing to come back to the commission with a plan for future work. JV moved to continue to the twenty first. KJ seconded. CL noted that the applicant noted he was amending the proposal to limit just the dock and suggested that approval could be granted just for that. JV withdrew the motion. CL motioned to approve the plan without the platform and the dock only. KJ seconded. RB clarified it would be a negative determination. JV motioned for amending Cl’s original motion to make the motion for a negative determination and that the dock be allowed to have different maximum size. Cl accepted the amendment for dock as described in the plan only and not the expanded dock. KJ seconded and the commission voted unanimously. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335, The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a Notice of Intent by Tom Wu and Scott Benjamin for work at Map 137 Parcel 12 at Fire Road 12 for the restoration of the buffer zone (to be continued to the April 21, 2021 meeting) MM noted that an engineered plan was going to be submitted and that the meeting needs to be continued. Greg Roy noted that he could have the plans in time for the May 5th meeting. JR moved to continue to the May 5 meeting. KJ seconded and the commission unanimously approved the motion to continue. Pursuant to MGL ch 131, s 40 as amended and Under Lunenburg Protective By Law chapter 335.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. ( to be continued to the April 21, 2021 meeting) MM noted that he is awaiting an engineered plan and recommended a continuance to the May 5 meeting. CC moved to continue to the May 5 meeting RB seconded and the commission voted unanimously. 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. Greg Roy, was retained by the applicant and asked if the commission could continue until the April 21 meeting. Rb moved to continue to the April 21 meeting. CC seconded and the commission unanimously approved the motion to continue. 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. ===PAGE 5=== Joanne Magurn and Brian Butler and attorney Levine was present to represent the applicant. Brian Butler from Oxbow Associates. BP noted that the last hearing was continued to obtain a legal opinion as to the status of the filing and legal had noted that the filing was allowable. There was also an alternatives analysis requested by the commission. Mr Butler noted that there as an alternative layout on a one-acre area that was not as intensive as the prior outlined option in the buffer zone. He did note that even though some of the work was out of the buffer zone there was a larger impact on a rear species habitat. He noted that the alternative submitted was largely impacting to the species habitat whereas although the preferred option has more impacts in the buffer zone it was the least impactful to the habitat area. He noted that the impacts on the alternative preferred by the applicant has minimized impacts to resource areas and is the least consumptive on the lot in total. He noted resource areas such as a leather leaf bog and vernal ponds that would be left untouched. He stated his opinion that the preferred alternative has no real measurable impacts. Attorney Levine noted his involvement with the project after the prior Notice of Intent. He had suggested to his client that they hire Mr Butler due to his expertise in this type of filing. He noted that they did not appeal to the courts the prior denial as he felt the Commission should have the opportunity to reconsider the proposal. He noted the revise plans had a 10 foot instead of 12 foot driveway, paving of the entire drive way and a changes of culvert. He stated the applicant wanted to work with the commission on the approval. He noted his client is trying to work with the commission and come to a positive conclusion to this matter. Cl noted that he was hoping that the alternatives analysis was limited to the one site and was submitted late last week and asked that the commission continue the hearing so they can examine the site. JR asked if DEP has issued any conclusion. Mr Butler noted that in consulting with DEP, a superseding order of conditions has been written and is being reviewed internally by DEP. JR noted that the fire department suggested a 12 foot driveway and would like to walk the site to examine the two proposals. He also noted that at the last meeting there was a hesitancy to guarantee not to further subdivide the lot. Butch Magurn noted that they wanted to leave any options open. Cl disagreed with the contention that the preferred alternative was the least impactful especially if the lot could be divided in the future with future impacts. He also noted that the preferred alternative was in the most sensitive area of the site. He noted that in past experience with development adjacent to the 50 foot no structure zone that applicants have returned to ask for even further intrusion by tree cutting citing a danger to the home. He asked for a continuance to examine why the current proposed preferred alternative couldn’t be adjusted. RB noted he was disappointed with the applicant’s unwillingness to restrict further divisions of the lots especially after the description Mr Butler gave of the potential damage to the habitat area he previously cited. He noted that the preferred alternative is within the most sensitive are of the site. He noted that there are walls proposed within the 30 foot no touch and no structure zones off the driveway and that the purpose of it appears to be to add fill that could be utilized for future build out and not for access to the preferred alternative. He stated that it could be a way to address the concerns of future development of the site the commission expressed. BP noted that during the prior hearing, the commission had noted that there were four members in favor. However, it was also noted that the full board was not present and felt the move to continue this request to continue in order to reduce the seven members ability to vote. RB noted that the meeting the vote took place was a former commissioners last meeting and that there was a commissioner that missed two meetings and was disqualified his ability to vote. CL noted that this situation provides an example of the straw polling being in appropriate and that commissioner’s were simply awaiting the opportunity to do a further walk and resented the chairman’s allegations. KJ noted that there is a full board and felt that a vote could take place. RB noted that during the meeting he, MM and BP were at with town counsel it was considered prudent to continue until DEP issues its decision of a superseding order of conditions. CL moved to continue to the April 21 meeting. RB seconded for the purpose of discussion. JR noted that the sampling poll was not a final vote and that the members could change their opinion from learning more facts as time went along in the hearing. He also noted that the vote was legitimate at the time during the prior hearing, and that there was information submitted that he felt should be considered. CC noted she agrees with the continuance in order to see what DEP says. JV feels we should do a vote tonight was we are all still here. Attorney Levine noted that he witnessed straw polls used by the commission to help the applicant and that he could not understand why CL has issue with it at this time. He noted that DEP ===PAGE 6=== will issue a superseding order allowing the project and he contended that the by law did not require the applicant to submit and alternatives analysis and asked for a straw poll if there was members to approve or continue. RB noted that Cl has made comments relative to the straw polling prior to this matter. He noted that in his estimation the submitted proposal was over and above what they would allow and could request an alternative asking for reduced impacts. A vote on the motion to continue was taken With RB CC CL AND JR voting yes and KJ, JV and BP voted against. MM reminded the applicant needed to agree. Attorney Levin noted agreement and asked if MM could let his client know if at the next meeting there was going to be a full commission present. 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 Richard Tremblay for work at 386 Sunset Lane for repairs to five existing retaining wall, the construction of a kayak rack, the reinforcement of existing fencing, the removal of a stump, the replacement of 2 existing concrete patios, and the removal and replacement of an existing driveway. NOTE CARL LUCK RECUSED FROM THE MATTER Greg Roy and Mr Tremblay were present to represent the applicant. Greg Roy recounted the history of the previous meeting and the revisions that were agreed too. He also showed revisions to the retaining wall and its termination. Mr Roy reviewed the alternative layouts of the wall terminus with the applicant and Mr Luck the abutter. He noted that the wall would be saw cut right at the property line and the remaining wall would then be reconstructed. The detail on how the work would take place have been detailed on the updated plan and it was acknowledged by the applicant that permission by Mr Luck would have to be obtained. He noted that if permission were not obtained the applicant would ensure that the work would take place only on the applicants property. JR noted that due to the steepness of the slope, the blocks would have to be lowered down and asked the applicant how this could be accomplished without taking trees down. It could be completed by crane. Mr Tremblay noted that one contractor noted that he could lower the blocks during the drawdown period without going into the water. JR noted that there would need to be erosion protection installed. Mr. Roy noted that erosion protection is noted on the plans. RB asked if there would be any change in grade with the additional six feet. Mr Roy noted no there would be no changes. JV thanked the applicants for the proposal and was complimentary of the engineering. CL ( commenting as an abutter ) thanked the applicant for working with him on the abutter issues with his property . He noted that He agrees with JR’s concerns on the tree issue and that the trees over 4 inches be added to the plans to allow for them to be documented for compliance monitoring. He noted that the walls would be totally exposed there would have be a draw down over four and a half feet and there is limited room for erosion protection. He cited a concern with how much room for work lakeside there was. (the comments were referring to the east side wall) RB asked the applicant how long the work would take to do during the drawdown and if there was an emergency plan in case of heavy rain that brings up the lake level. Mr Tremblay asked to continue to consider a solution that would be considered workable. He cited that he still needs Mr Lucks approval for work on his property and was hoping to obtain such. Mr Roy noted that he could add the trees and how he was looking to access them and was willing to accept a condition requiring a preconstruction meeting at least 48 to 72 hours prior to construction to ensure the work could be timely and properly done. He noted that on other projects he could add in a detail for a turbidity curtain that could be added on site quickly and would allow work to continue without allowing silt to head into the lake. This would address the concern of a potential flash flooding rainstorm. RB moved to continue the hearting to April 21. KJ seconded and the commission voted to unanimously approve the motion to approve. 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 ===PAGE 7=== demolition and reconstruction of a Commercial building with grading and parking MM noted the applicant request a continue to May 5. A motion to continue to May 5 was made by JV and seconded by KJ and the commission vote unanimously to approve. Old Business: Continued Workshop for continued discussion of changes of the land use regulations and the creation of a document to inform the public about the land use regulations. RB noted that town meeting was not a second platform for the commission to make policy. He noted the numerous public meetings and that the commission platform has been open and transparent. He noted that the town meeting platform was not in his opinion a sufficient platform to debate the issue. He also noted that attendance at town meeting can be skewed as to who organizes a larger crowd versus the open meeting process of the commission. JR reviewed section 2.1 Hunting Hill language. He suggested that the original language from the 2011 regulation be used. MM noted the original document was a policy and not regulation. JR suggested changing language to make the firearm unacceptable. RB and KJ stated they would like to leave the current language as is. CL noted that the straw polling doesn’t not consider the total issue and it should be discussed. He noted that he would like to see why there was concerns expressed and members should explain the rationale behind their decision. JV noted he would like to leave the language in place citing the second amendment. CC asked if we can ban the possession of fire arms. BP noted that town counsel noted that yes we can. CC noted that she would accept the changes were acceptable to her. BP noted that he has heard from both sides of the issue and did not know the current policy did not ban the possession of firearms and has no problem with no change to the language. JR cited that current section 2.5 that firearm hunting is allowed on hunting hill citing state requirements. BP asked if the commission wants to open small town forest and northwest town forest to fire arms hunting. KJ and RB agreed with the changes to allow firearms hunting citing the lands are best suitable. RB noted that while there were a lot of comments against firearms hunting there are 260 hunting licenses. JR protested the action stating as not being allowed to reiterate his concerns and his new concerns. RB noted that JR had 45 minutes to expound on his view. CC noted that she would approve section 2.5 as written in the draft. CL noted that RB has some good points. The properties do indeed abut larger parcels, however, CL noted that there are state lands totaling 300 acres already in existence that hunters have access to . He noted that there are a total of over 3000 acres of uninterrupted lands they can still access without having to add the other 500 acres. There were overwhelming communications that reflect people would be afraid to use lands open to hunting. JV noted that hunting based on his research is very safe and is considered passive recreation and noted the straw polls worked and the process despite the pandemic has been well attended and very open to the public. BP noted that he was not in favor of firearms hunting. JR noted that he wanted the hours of operation in section 1.1 changed the hours of operations from dusk to dawn. RB wanted JR to expound why he wanted to changed. JR stated that the state laws allow hunting until midnight and that his research indicated that the majority of accidents happen after dusks. KJ opposed the proposed changes as there are other uses such as moonlight hikes, stargazers and snow mobile trails that are open to 10 PM and it would close it off a large sections of the users. RB indicated he would want to keep it open 24 hours. CC note she is in favor of hours of dawn to dusk. CL noted that the proposed language by JR was actually original and there was no real compelling reasons why it needs to be changed to 24 hours. JV felt that 24 hours is acceptable and that the only real species hunted at night would be coyotes and there Is not a use for coyote. BP noted that he is in favor of allowing use at night citing different uses at night such as night cycling and snow mobiles. He also noted that dusk can be very early in the winter. JR asked for language to be added for drunkenness and prohibitions of containers on the property and also a prohibition of denial of use and enjoyment of the property. Drunkenness., breach of peace and glass containers be prohibited. It was noted that smoking and fires be prohibited and that no grills and fuel stoves be prohibited. KJ expressed a willing ness to add into 1.7 that open fires, smoking and alcohol be ===PAGE 8=== prohibited as sufficient language. He did note see glass containers as a wide spread issue. RB asked KJ in his capacity as a fire fighter concerning regulations on open fires. KJ noted that you can’t burn brush without a permit and you must be a property owner or tenant. Cooking fires are allowed by right with notification to the fire department and there must be a water source available to extinguish the fires. Rb agreed with adding the language concerning open fires and he was asked for additional language. CC also agreed with the language KJ proposed. JV agreed with the language except that he was against the alcohol prohibition. RB noted that he was voting in favor of hunting due to loses of land due to multiple factors ranging from development. He also noted that the Lane property prior to acquisition from the town and the Saliba property was open to hunting and that was taken away when the town purchased it due to its existing policy. The Communication from Adam Costa was reviewed. Cl suggested to clarify the language n what was allowed versus what was not allowed, He cited other communities with more brief documents. RB noted that the proposed regulations contain sections of what you can do, and what you can’t do. ENFORCEMENT: Violations (Enforcement Actions and Administrative Hearings). Leominster Road- Illegal Dumping activity (site visit to occur after snow has melted) EO 90 Ruth Street EO- Town of Lunenburg Fire Road 12 ENF 2019 NOI FILED Town admin signature obtained and awaiting drawing. NON - 9 Valley Road- Working on NOI EO 615 Townsend Street- monitoring time line NON 467 Lancaster Ave EO Fire Road 16 NON 48 Oak Ridge EO 205 Arbor Street New Business Update on trails grant – status report, if any. 119 Reservoir Road : Certificate of Compliance MM requested the commission to consider a certificate of compliance to Kevin McGuiness reservoir road and noted due to the timeliness of his closing if it could be considered. Mr. McGuiness shared the screen. CL asked if this lots was one of the one required for boulder demarcation. KJ moved to use a certificate of compliance. CC seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve with RB abstaining. Extension Permit – Committee Reports – Any Updates Administrator’s Reports/action items: Administrator’s determination – 106 Sandy Cove Road KJ left the meeting at 11 PM. CC left the meeting at 11:05 PM and note to the commission that she had emailed signage suggestions for the commission to review. The remaining members reviewed a questions and answers documents. Language pertaining to it was reviewed as well. The Q & A document will be posted on the cloud for Monday when MM is in the office next. CL left the meeting at 1135 due to computer issues. ===PAGE 9=== Administrator’s determination was approved by a motion of RB and a second by JV with a unanimous roll call vote RB moved to adjourn and JV seconded and the commission voted unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:37 PM 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 Meeting schedule: Next meeting is April 21, 2021 at 7PM ===PAGE 10===