Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
September 16, 2010
Second Floor Meeting Room
7:00 pm
Present: Paul Nelson; John Lopez; John Bell; Charles Waters; Steve Przyjemski, Conservation Agent; Carol Fitzpatrick, Minutes Recorder
Vouchers:
Signings:
Public Hearings:
100 & 102 Pond Street, Roadway, Lot 1 and Lot 2(GCC-2010-18; GCC-2010-22; GCC-2010-23) – Cont. NOI
Jeffrey McMath, Applicant
Mike DeRosa , DeRosa Environmental Consulting
Richard A. Salvo, Professional Engineer, Engineering Alliance, Inc.
Mr. Przyjemski explained that this is a proposed 7-lot subdivision with an off-site wetland with a vernal pool and an Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (ILSF), bringing lot 1 and 2 into jurisdiction. Larry Graham has done a review of the land. Mr. Lopez asked if the review was completed in accordance with the Wetlands Regulation Act. Mr. Derosa answered, according to the Storm Water regulations, it will be fully infiltrated.
Mr. Nelson stated that you said you would do the sweepings twice a year. This results in a 1% change to the bottom line. Mr. Salvo, the engineer, explained the TSS calculation. We still plan to do the street sweeping. It will be a town road once it is accepted.
Mr. DeRosa added that they made changes to Lot 1 as the CC suggested. We resurveyed the ILSF, it is about the same size. We changed the property line to accept the septic and moved everything to 50 feet as the commission wanted. We put the garage behind to get it away from the wetland. We are going to put the area by the driveway back to an undisturbed area.
Mr. Waters asked where exactly is the ILSF? I remembered it dipped down and formed a depression along where the road will be. Has a third party defined where the road should be? It was an alley of depression. Mr. Derosa commented that the area had been chewed up by test pitting. Mr. Nelson added that along the bank there was a pile of material. It now looks filled in.
Mr. Waters said that he would feel more comfortable with a third party review of that depressed area. Mr. Przyjemski added that it sounds to me that it is an ILSF, not a wetland. Mr. Lopez commented that he feels that a third party review is needed, according to our Wetland Act and Bylaw. Waters stated that he would like to know what is there and what has been filled in on that strip. That is why I would like a third party review.
Mr. Derosa said that it seems to be an overburden to have a third party review. We filed for this in June and here we are in September. Mr. Waters added tell me about the ANRAD that was done on this 5 years ago (2005) even though it has expired. Does the expired ANRAD have any persuasive value? Sounds like it makes no difference.
Mr. Derosa stated that Lot 1 is really the lot in your jurisdiction. I don’t think that a third party review is warranted. We have made the changes that you suggested. The land is a rolling topography. Mr. McMath added to have another engineer review the drainage would challenge Larry Graham’s review. Everyone sees things and would do things differently.
Mr. Lopez stated that Planning Board’s and the CC often have opposing, concurrent views. Larry Graham works for the Planning Dept so he is looking at the land from a different viewpoint.
Mr. Salvo asked, so you need a PE to review the drainage plan that Larry Graham already reviewed? Mr. Nelson stated that we can not use this plan. Yes, the plan has been subjected to the 100 year storm. We shouldn’t go by these calculations.
Mr. McMath said this project has been a nightmare. Larry Graham has not been ready for months on end. Mr. Lopez commented we should solicit 3 proposals and select one person and select a date. Mr. Nelson stated that a wetland scientist and wetland reviewers are two different people. Larry Graham has no wetland review experience.
Mr. Derosa said that he can get an estimate back really quick. We can agree tonight on who you want to hire. Mr. Przyjemski said that we use Bruce Griffins, a wetland scientist. He would review the site for resources and then zigzag across the property to verify wetland vernal pools.
Mr. Salvo asked if he could provide us with some more info and walk through the report.
Mr. Nelson stated that usually there is a pictorial model of the flows for a 100 year storm. The model may not have been constructed properly. Something could have been missed. The model is not well depicted; there is no flow chart. Mr. Waters added that Steve will get a wetland delineation of the proposed area, the applicant will come back on Oct 21st and Larry Graham will come to that meeting.
Mr. Przyjemski said that the field work will be done by October 16th, our deadline for wetland work. We need that vernal pool also labeled. There needs to be a reserve system in Lot 1. I will check with the BOH Monday morning.
MOTION to hire a third party review for 101 & 102 Pond Street (GCC-2010-18, GCC-2010-22, GCC-2010-23) and to have Steve Przyjemski work with them, with the work to be completed before the Oct 21st meeting. Bell/Nelson; All/Unam.
MOTION to continue the 101 & 102 Pond Street (GCC-2010-18, GCC-2010-22, GCC-2010-23) to October 21, 2010 at 7:46 pm. Bell/Nelson; All/Unam.
Land off Spofford Street (GCC-2010-21) – ANRAD
Scott Cameron, Professional Engineer, McKenzie Engineering Group
Mr. Waters said that the Applicant appropriately notified abutters for an earlier hearing that was cancelled, but did not re-notify abutters as to tonight’s hearing therefore we can only discuss scheduling, nothing substantive at this hearing. We can move forward on the 3rd party review and move this project along. Mr. Przyjemski said the Commission usually also conducts site walks on a project like this.
MOTION to authorize Steve Przyjemski to engage the BSC group to conduct a third party review for a wetland delineation for the Land off Spofford Road, GCC-2010-21. Lopez/Bell; All/Unam
Waters commented that we still need to schedule the site walk. Mr. Cameron said that he would like to do that after the review.
MOTION to continue the public hearing for the ANRAD for Land off Spofford Street, GCC-2010-21, for October 21st at 8:30 pm. Nelson/Bell; All/Unam.
8 Bartlett Drive (GCC-2010-24) – new NOI
Craig Bernard, Engineer
We are putting in a replacement system in the only place we can. We have a BOH meeting scheduled for Wed morning. I don’t expect any problems. I am requesting waivers similar to 4 Bartlett. We are putting in a Presby system.
Mr. Nelson stated that the sedimentation control has to be very rigorous. It is just feet from the pond. Mr. Bell added that it is a failed system. Bernard added that they will not be stockpiling materials on site. I propose a silt fence because a sock is not high enough. Mr. Lopez said that he has not seen the site. Can we throw in 2 or 3 shrubs along the way? Mr. Bernard answered right now we have 7 shrubs in the back of the house. I am afraid of putting rooty shrubs too close to the system.
MOTION to accept the NOI for 8 Bartlett Drive, GCC-2010-24, not accept the wetland line and subject to approval by the Board of Health. Nelson/Bell; All/Unam.
MOTION to close the hearing for the NOI for 8 Bartlett Drive, GCC-2010-24. Bell/Lopez; All/Unam.
Discussions:
1 Londonderry Lane, CoC request
Joseph Coady, Homeowner
We purchased the lot in 2006 from the developer. We saw that we would need to construct a 9 foot wall near the wetland. We wanted to construct a smaller wall because of the safety issues with our children. We hired a builder to build the wall with the modification. I came home and a second wall was constructed within the “no disturb” without permission.
Mr. Przyjemski said that Mr. Coady has been very willing to work with us. I think that the original plans were not precise regarding the grading of the property. I would consider this a minor modification. We would approve the as-built as the modified plan. Mr. Lopez added that this is not a minor modification. Mr. Bell asked if it was possible to get any native plantings in front of that wall.
Mr. Przyjemski commented that we have to get it outside of that area, the “no-cut” bounds. I had talked to the applicant about native plantings outside the “no-cut” line. I am talking mitigated plantings outside the “no-cut” bounds. Mr. Nelson said you can put conditions in the CoC for mitigation. Mr. Waters said let’s get the CoC and vote on it at the next meeting.
Enforcement Order, Richard Nunan, 38 Elm Street
Richard, Nancy & Tricia Nunan, Homeowners
Mr. Przyjemski said that a walk was conducted last Thursday. At the last hearing, I presented information that an undetermined amount of fill was put into the wetlands. An abutter was concerned about future flooding of their property and the area.
My recommendations are that they remove the fill they have put in. A temporary disturbance will in time be better for putting the wetland back to normal. We should then install a “no-cut” bounds in that area so this doesn’t happen in the future. Mr. Przyjemski passes around his Plan for restoring the wetland by removing the fill. Some mitigated planting should happen to restore that area and mitigate for future erosion to the area, inside the “no-cut”.
Mr. Lopez said the issue for me is how far back do we remove. Can we make an arbitrary decision? Mr. Waters added my position is that we take the most aggressive position that we can. Mr. Nelson added, I disagree with that. We are going to end up with a much bigger slope.
Mr. Lopez commented how comfortable are we with doing this ourselves? I would hate to create a drainage problem for neighbors of the property. Who would do this work? Mr. Przyjemski answered, I presume Mr. Nunan would do the work since he does this for a living.
Mr. Nunan commented, I am sick of being harassed about this. I did not fill it in. Mr. Waters asked Mr. Nunan, how do you feel about Mr. Przyjemski’s ideas for fixing it? Mr. Nunan answered, I guess I am okay with that.
Sandra Gerraughty, 42 Elm Street, an abutter asked is this going to restore the flow of the creek? It hasn’t flowed for a number of years. The land was relatively even, now it is built up. The creek is stagnant and it is a mosquito problem. Our land is constantly soggy with the wetlands creeping up on us. We get flooded with every big storm. This is an unnatural product. Mr. Przyjemski asked did they cause the flooding to your property? No, but they definitely contributed to it. Fixing this will not fix a problem created over 10 years. This has been happening all over town. Wetlands grow larger over time. Ms. Gerraughty said that by removing some of this fill, the water will wick away and improve our property. Mr. Lopez added I am sensing that we should hire a third party.
Mr. Waters commented let’s make sure we remove the fill, get the bounds set up, do the plantings and then see where we are in the spring. This needs to happen. Are you going to do this yourself, Mr. Nunan? Mr. Nunan answered, I will do it myself. Mr. Przyjemski added I will supervise the removal. No digging will be done unless I am there. Mr. Waters stated Steve needs to be there at all times of digging. We need to get a schedule. Mr. Lopez asked, are we going into the wetlands? Mr. Przyjemski answered, no we are going into the toe of the wetlands.
Tricia Nunan added we used to catch frogs in there as children. There was not much water at all back then, it was just a trickle.
Tim Gerraughty, 42 Elm Street, an abutter said we are trying to remove the fill that has been put in there. We have had 3 cease and desists. Tricia Nunan added that there is no equipment coming in on a regular basis. We have had permission because we have been cutting wood with permission. Nancy Nunan said it is going to take us while to get a few cords of wood removed.
Mr. Waters commented, you should have 30 days to complete this. Mr. Bell added I would like to check it out after it has been filled back.
Waters: Three things need to happen. First, pull back the fill. Steve will be on site for any activity relating to that area. Steve and Mr. Nunan will discuss timing of the fill removal and removal of wood and where it will be going. All this must be done by Oct. 19th. Second, no cut bounds should happen in the spring. Third, there is an open EO. Any equipment is not permitted on site, and is there without authorization will result in a $300/day fine.
Tricia Nunan commented, in the future, I want time dated documentation. No photos that happened at another time. Ms. Gerraughty added, since the Cease & Desist, the equipment that was there has been brought back. I don’t want the sander or the salter going off at 11:30 pm at night. We bought in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Waters stated, from this day forward we all know the rules. Mr. Bell added the top part of the driveway is okay, not near the site. Heavy equipment is allowed in the lower area. Mr. Mr. Przyjemski said I will write all this down in an EO. Mr. Waters commented, going forward, Steve, you will handle this. Mr. Nunan will work with Steve. Mr. Przyjemski added we will look at this in the first meeting in April.
MOTION to close the meeting at 9:24 pm. Waters/Bell; All/Unam
| 
