FINAL
Present for the Conservation Commission and attending the meeting were: Richard Steves, Chairman, Pam Goff, Virginia Dyer, Dick Smith, Bruce Bartels, Rusty Walton and Chuck Hodgkinson. Glenn Provost, Richard Gallogly, Chris Alley, John Lolley, David Norton and Steve Myrick (MV Times) also attended. Robbie Dietz and his family attorney arrived late because they were told the hearing started at 1:30 PM. Mr. Dietz also mentioned his sister Laurie wanted to attend but was unfortunately unable to make the meeting. Andrew Fischer and David Flanders were absent.
Mr. Steves opened the meeting at 12:30 PM and informed the audience that the Commission made their site visits for today’s agenda on September 23rd. He further appointed Alternate Commissioner Dick Smith as a voting member for the day’s agenda.
GLENN PROVOST FOR MERLE & BONNIE BERGER; NOI SE 12 – 564; AP 27-15.2, 15.2: Mr. Steves opened the public hearing at 12:30 PM. He summarized the history of the violations and how this application is in response to two Enforcement Orders that were issued on July 2, 2008. The Notice was filed before the extended deadline of August 15, 2008 as outlined in the Orders. He added that the hearing will address each of the specific issues and sections as outlined in the Enforcement Orders while receiving comment from the public and Trustees of the Pease’s Point Conservation Trust (Trustees). Mr. Steves read the letter from the Trustees dated 9/29/08 for the record.
The Commission then asked for the following technical change in the Notice of Intent application—Page 2 Section 7: change the Project Type from Single Family Home to “Other” with the explanation that this Notice of Intent is issued in response to two Enforcement Orders issued on July 2, 2008. The applicant agreed.
Mr. Provost mentioned that the applicant did not give him the second Enforcement Order. A copy of the second order for “SE 12 – 404” was provided. Chuck H. explained that this separate order is for the buried propane tank and gravel parking area that is not indicated on the approved site plan under SE 12 – 404. It was further pointed out that while these two features are in resource area buffer zones; their location is not protected by the Conservation Restriction. The second Enforcement Order with no DEP reference number covers all of the other violations of the Wetland Protection Act (Act), Town Wetland Protection By-Laws (By-Laws) and the Town-approved Conservation Restriction.
Propane Tank and Gravel Parking Area: Mr. Steves outlined that the location of the garage was approved as part of SE 12 – 404 but, the propane tank and gravel parking area were not. Both the buried propane tank and the gravel parking area are in the buffer zone of a wetland and within 100 feet of the pond and heron rookery. The Enforcement Order calls for their removal and relocation outside the resource area and buffer zone. Mr. Steves itemized the specific sections of the Act and By-Laws that have been violated—wetland and pond buffer zones and a wildlife (Night and Green Herons) breeding habitat. The Notice of Intent is proposing to leave the tank and parking area in place because this will create less resource area disturbances than moving them. The
Commission explained that it would never have approved these two features because of the sensitive pond and breeding habitat. The ongoing activity in the current location has the potential for pollution from cars and trucks and the disruption of privacy for the heron rookery. The Commission added that their removal will create fewer disturbances if the removal and restoration is done after the herons have migrated and before they return.
A subsequent motion was made under By-Law Section 6.09 (4) calling for a $300 fine that will imposed on a daily basis starting today. The fine will remain in effect until a filing is made to remedy the situation as outlined in the Enforcement Order. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
Heron Rookery and Pond: Mr. Steves summarized the violations as outlined in the Enforcement Order and the sections of the Act and By-laws that apply. The Trustees comments for this area were read from their letter. Mr. Provost summarized the proposed plan to restore the area. A vegetated screen is proposed in lieu of the fence as outlined in the Enforcement Order. Mr. Dietz recommended taller initial plantings that will provide more breeding habitat privacy now – and not need ten years to reach an effective height. The Commission pointed out that mature black willow trees and vegetation were removed from the pond, wetland and buffer zone. The applicant agreed to a minimum initial height of four to five feet for the screening. The Commission
recommended the black willows be planted between October – April and that all planting will be done under the direct supervision of the Conservation Officer. The applicant agreed and will include the control of invasive species as outlined in the proposal. A subsequent motion was made to approve the amended plan for the heron rookery and pond. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
Section II: Mr. Steves summarized the activities and sections of the Act and By-Laws that were violated. The Trustees comments for Section II were also read aloud. Mr. Provost summarized this area on the site plan and the reasons for the recommendation to do nothing and let the area grow back naturally. Mr. Gallogly added that they would like to keep this issue open for reevaluation in July 2009. Mr. Dietz presented blowup reprints of GIS photos of the area taken in 2003 and again in 2005 to demonstrate how the area has been progressively cut back over time. He added that the removed vegetation was ten to twelve feet high and suggested a temporary snow fence should be installed to protect the boundary of this protected
area and buffer zone.
Mr. Steves pointed out that the Enforcement Order and recommended remedies cover the cutting done on lots 15.1 and 15.2. The proposed plan to do nothing only addresses the activity on lot 15.1.
After discussion a motion was made to impose an additional $300/day fine under By-Law Section 6.09 (4) with the same conditions as outlined earlier. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
Section III: Mr. Steves read the activity and violations of the Act and By-Laws for this isolated wetland on lot 15.1. Mr. Provost outlined the proposed re-vegetation plan and the use of a drip irrigation system for three years after planting. He added a protective fence is not included as outlined in the Enforcement Order. The Commission discussed the recommendations and concluded the plan seems to create a manicured garden rather than restore the native bushes and vegetation for the isolated wetland. The Commission asked if the applicant would accept a revised planting scheme for the wetland that would be executed under the direct supervision of the Conservation Officer. Mr. Steves read the Trustees letter for this section and commented that the request to plant three
native cedar trees cannot be accepted because the Commission cannot impose trees in an area where they did not previously exist.
The Commission and applicant agreed to the following list of plantings for this area: 3 viburnum, 3 winterberry, 3 high-bush blueberry and 5 summer sweet (clethera). The number of switch grass will be reduced from 30 to 15 and the cultivation as proposed will be deleted. The drip irrigation plan will remain as proposed and the work will be performed under the direct supervision of the Conservation Officer. The outside boundary of the isolated wetland will be marked with rocks instead of a fence. A subsequent motion to approve the amended plan for section III was made, seconded and unanimously approved.
Section IV: The Commission pointed out that there is a significant wetland in this area that is not indicated on the site plan. The applicant agreed it is an oversight and will add it to a revised plan.
Sections IV, V and VI: Mr. Steves summarized the violations and sections of the Act and By-Laws that were compromised. He added that the proposed plan for this area is the same as Area II – to do nothing, keep the issue open and reevaluate the situation in July 2009. The Commission also pointed out that nothing is proposed to remedy the cutting done on lot 15.2 as outlined in the Enforcement Order. The applicant agreed they have the same response for Areas IV, V and VI as with Area II. A subsequent motion was made to impose a $300/day fine for each violation in Areas IV, V and VI as done for Area II. The motion was seconded. The Commission discussed and pointed out that there is a total of $1500/day in imposed fines and reiterated its goal of restoring all
areas on lots 15.1 and 15.2 as outlined in the Enforcement Order. The Commission would like to see an amended plan that satisfies this goal in lieu of receiving fines. To this end, an amendment to all of the imposed fines (totaling $1500/day) was made as follows: The applicant will prepare a revised plan as outlined in today’s hearing and approved by both the Conservation Officer and the Trustees as proposed in the Enforcement Orders and submitted to the Commission at Town Hall before Thursday, October 9 @ 5:00 PM. If this deadline is not met, the daily fines will be imposed as outlined and levied retroactive back to October 1. The amended motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
The applicant agreed with the amended motion and asked for a hearing continuance to Wednesday, October 15 @ 12:45 PM to allow time to meet with his client and possibly review a revised plan. A motion to accept the requested continuance was made, seconded and unanimously approved. The Commission also said it will determine how to respond to the violations made to the Conservation Restriction at this time.
DAVID NORTON FOR BLUEBERRY RIDGE LANE ROAD ASSOCIATION NOI SE 12 – 569; AP 8-70: Mr. Steves apologized for the delay and opened the hearing at 2:25 PM. Mr. Norton summarized the plan to install new buried utility lines down the entire length of the traveled ways along Blueberry Ridge Lane and Tiasquam River Lane. The current service is failing and needs upgrading. He added that the trench will be dug and refilled in sections on a daily basis to allow residents to access their homes. Silt fencing will be installed to protect the three resource areas that are affected along sections of the roadway. After brief discussion a motion was made to close the hearing at 2:30 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the plan as presented with the standard conditions. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
CHRIS ALLEY FOR SUSAN DAVIDSON RFD AP 34-1.2: Mr. Alley summarized the plan to install a well in a buffer zone and in a location that abuts the driveway. The location for the well is in an area that is already disturbed. The well will be approximately 50 feet from a wetland edge. After brief discussion a motion was made for a negative determination. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.
JOHN LOLLEY FOR HONKER & SONS NOI SE 12 – 559; AP 35-1.2: This is a follow up discussion as required in a condition of approval. The Commission asked for the details on how the basement foundation will be installed under the proposed addition to the main house and for the results of the water table perk tests. Mr. Lolley explained that the applicant would like to expand the Notice of Intent and change the proposed new crawl-space foundation for the main house to a full-basement foundation—as proposed and approved for the addition to the main house. After discussion the Commission said this is a significant change and the hearing must be re-advertised and re-opened on Wednesday, October 15 @ 1:00 PM to review this request. A follow up site visit will take place on
Tuesday, October 7 @ 8:00 am. Mr. Lolley agreed.
ADMINISTRATION: The meeting minutes for September 17, 2008 were reviewed. A motion to approve the minutes with a minor change was made, seconded and unanimously approved.
The following documents were signed and notarized as needed:
Order of Conditions: SE 12 – 569; AP 8-70.
Determination of Applicability AP 34 – 1.2.
With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 3:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, C.A.S.
| 
