Georgetown Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
Second Floor Meeting Room
October 21, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Present: Steve Polignone; Mike Birmingham; John Bell; Paul Nelson; Charles Waters; Carl Shreder; Steve Przyjemski, Conservation Agent; Carol Fitzpatrick, Minutes Recorder
Approvals:
Signings:
Public Hearings:
Pentucket Pond Aquatic Management Program (GCC-2010-09, DEP 161-0707) –NOI (cont. PH)
George Comiskey, Parker River Clean Water Association (PRCWA)
Cindy Delpapa, Massachusetts Fish and Game
Mr. Comiskey explained that we noticed deficiencies with flow control and how it would disturb the fish downstream. Myself, ACT and MA Fish and Game noted many deficiencies. The gap in the two boards is affecting the velocity. There is not enough control and the dam is not that exact as far as constant flow. We have been concerned with the lack of river herring downstream since the 70s. Mr. Shreder added that the flow is constant F=AV. Due to the drought, we have had a natural drawdown. It has never been like this. Mr. Nelson added that you can’t quantify what is happening downstream. Mr. Comiskey said that we have passed the drawdown period this year. Westford is trying to do a drawdown also.
Ms. Delpapa explained that the drawdown does not eradicate the invasives problem. There are other options. Other invasives sometimes fill in the gap during draw downs. You increase erosion of your banks during winter and increase sedimentation and severe erosion. We have been looking at other methodologies. We propose regarding the index cage, a 25% high and a 25% low gage. Your top feed cues temperature flow regarding migrations of the herring which are very sensitive to temperature. Mr. Shreder asked, can you point to any drawdown success stories? Mr. Nelson added, we understand that we cannot eradicate the fanwort, we are only looking for a long-term controlling mechanism – without having to use poison.
Ms. Delpapa answered, Westford has tried a comprehensive look at the invasives problem.
Mr. Comiskey added that the drawdown needs to have accurate data. Mr. Sheder stated that we need to find a solution to this problem. Ms. Delpapa said we have a modeling program that works very well but the person who knew how to run it is no longer with us. The model can figure out the hydrology and other things that ACT can’t do.
Mr. Comiskey mentioned that there may have been a board out all summer. Mr. Nelson commented, as we have a drawdown by default, we should document what we see now. Mr. Przyjemski added that ACT did their fall vegetation survey last week so we have some info. Mr. Nelson asked, do we know the data we need to get? Mr. Przyjemski answered, I think it will be more hydrology related.
Ms. Delpapa added that all of the lakes/ponds that have done draw downs have to keep doing the draw downs and they are losing the battle. You need to know what the natural flows are.
MOTION to 1) Over the course of winter authorize Steve to get access to a hydrologist; 2) Collect water flow data; 3) Get the cost of new mechanism; and 4) Continue the hearing, Pentucket Pond Aquatic Management Program, GCC-2010-09 to April 14, 2011 at 7 pm. Waters/Bell; Polignone abstained; 4-1.
25 Charles Street (GCC-2010-30) - new NOI
MOTION to continue 25 Charles Street (GCC-2010-30) to November 18, 2010 at 7:30 pm. Waters/Bell; All/Unam
155 Pond Street (GCC-2010-25, DEP 161-0719) – new NOI
Debbi Kerr and Charles Augustine, Applicants
James Scanlan, Engineer
Mr. Scanlan explained that the applicants are having some problems with their system. The new Presby system’s pumping system will be outside the 100. Mr. Waters asked, why did you move the leaching field? Mr. Scanlan answered, we moved it to get it away from the well. There will be some trees removed to put in the leaching field. There will be some trees and grading in the buffer zone. With the Presby technology, we have been able to reduce the leaching field. We are using the same septic tank. Mr. Nelson asked, can you move the pump station? Mr. Scanlan answered, it is gravity fed so we have to keep the tank high.
MOTION to allow the NOI for 155 Pond Street, GCC-2010-25, but not accepting the wetland lines. Waters/Birmingham; All/Unam
MOTION to close the hearing for 155 Pond Street, GCC-2010-25 . Waters/Birmingham; All/Unam
101 Lakeshore Drive (GCC-2010-26) – new NOI
Michael Caron, Applicant
Mr. Przyjemski explained that we did an OoC on this a year half ago. The CoC was granted. The walls were never completed. The applicant started the walls without the Conservation Commission’s permission. I allowed him to finish the walls as they were a hazard. He wants to put in a floating dock, replace a patio and build a deck in this new NOI.
Mr. Caron explained that between the two retaining walls, I would like to replace the flagstone patio with pavers. I would like to put a deck over the existing pavement extending to the dock from the deck. The wall is tiered. I plan to put some natural planting on either side of the deck.
Mr. Nelson asked, what area is disturbed here? Mr. Przyjemski answered, the patio and down to the deck. The retaining walls were in rough shape. Mr. Bell commented that he is thinking of taking up the pavement. Mr. Waters said we should go down and see it before we make other decisions.
MOTION to have a Site Walk for 101 Lakeshore Drive on Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 8am. Waters/Bell; All Unam
MOTION to continue 101 Lakeshore Drive, GCC-2010-26, to November 18, 2010 at 8 pm Waters/Bell; All/Unam
100 & 102 Pond Street, Roadway (GCC-2010-18, DEP 161-0713) - NOI (cont. PH)
100 & 102 Pond Street, Lot 1 (GCC-2010-22, DEP 161-0714) - NOI (cont. PH)
100 & 102 Pond Street , Lot 2(GCC-2010-23, DEP 161-0715) - NOI (cont. PH)
Jeffrey McMath, Applicant
Michael DeRosa, DeRosa Environmental
Jeff Molloy, BSC Group, Third party reviewer
Mr. Molloy explained that the wetland had been approved under a ANRAD over 3 years ago that has recently expired. The wetlands are as they are depicted. Mr. Przyjemski said that there are some discrepancies regarding the ILSF (Isolated Land Subject to Flooding). It was argued that it is isolated and vegetated. The plants that are there were planted under the Enforcement Order. Mr. Shreder asked, did you look at the impact of the vernal pool? Mr. Molloy answered, we are waiting to hear what NHESP (National Heritage Endangered Species Program) has to say. It it scattered National Heritage property. I couldn’t find other ISLFs or wetland areas. Hydrolic, vegetative and hydrick soils are present, with the land slope, if there was a significant rain storm it would hold the water. The report said the wetlands are
limited to the isolated areas. The vernal pool, if it is anywhere, it is out of the jurisdiction. The land is in NHESP?? The drainage study is still outstanding.
Mr. DeRosa added we are now negotiating with Natural Heritage. We would like to continue this until the spring when we hear their proposal. They want this to be a more comprehensive study.
Mr. Waters asked, has this been in front of the Planning Board for some 8 months. Mr. DeRosa answered, Yes, the NHESP? came back with the comment that it needs a further investigation.
Mr. Przyjemski added we want the vernal pool marked on the plan. It isn’t there right now.
MOTION to accept the wetland lines, as of today, as they exist on the plan dated June 22, 2010, with the agreement and stipulation with the Applicant that the vernal pool is identified. Waters/Birmingham; 4-1; Polignone abstained.
MOTION to continue 101 Pond Street (GCC-2010-18, GCC-2010-22, GCC-2010-23) to December 16, 2010 at 7:15, 7:16 and & 7:17 pm. Waters/Birmingham; 4-1, Polignone abstained.
Caribou Court (10 Pine Plain Road), GCC-2010-29, DEP 161-0720 – new NOI
John Tilton, Hayes Engineering
Jason Barnes, Applicant
Mr. Tilton explained that Parcel A is to be built on, Parcel B is the roadway. The P&S has been submitted and the Applicant has been authorized. There will be a driveway, roadway, home and wetland crossing. We would like to move the parcel up to 325 feet. Jason would like to give Parcel 2 to the Con Comm. The septic will be located in the same area as before. Nothing has changed other than moving the house forward and increasing the grass swale, coming into the “no cut” zone. The donated land would be bordered by Lufkins on three sides, giving access to one big parcel. This is an improvement to what was originally shown. We are asking for 20 feet to bounce it out. Mr. Przyjemski said they have a legitimate OoC on Parcel A. If they go with the Parcel B they will need a new OOC.
Mr. Waters asked, didn’t the former applicant put the house there? Mr. Przyjemski answered, no, they didn’t. The DEP put out a half page of comments that need to be looked at. They suggested an open box culvert. Mr Waters added there are some nice, really large trees. We got the road out of our jurisdiction. Mr. Przyjemski commented we tried to get the applicant to move the house closer to the road and shorten the roadway. Mr. Shreder stated that you still have the same impact on the front of the lot. Mr. Nelson said that the house is still outside of the 75’. Mr. Przyjemsi added yes, it is still in National Heritage.
Mr. Waters commented, I don’t know what is going on in the front, but the back is definitely an improvement. Mr. Shreder asked, any comments from National Heritage? Mr. Przyjemski answered, not yet, I would like to see another bounds put in. Mr. Shreder added I prefer this version. It has less impact. Mr. Waters asked, is it worthwhile to look at the site even though the trees are outside our jurisdiction? We don’t know what trees we will be getting rid of. Mr. Przyjemski answered we can say that they will work with us during construction and try to save those trees in our jurisdiction.
Mr. Tilton added that the home is in Residential C zone. We are down to 10% impervious. Mr. Nelson commented you are swapping out pervious to impervious. But, you are reducing the driveway in Version B. Mr. Waters asked, Would you do pervious? Mr. Barnes answered there is too much maintenance if it were to be pervious. Mr. Shreder stated there is some work needed regarding the land donation. Mr. Tilton added we have to go before the Planning Board as an ANR (Approval Not Required).
MOTION to authorize Steve to go to the property and review the area where the house is planned, with number of trees to be removed and what type of trees. Waters/Bell; All/Unam.
MOTION to continue Caribou Court (GCC-2010-29) to November 18th, 2010 at 8:30 pm. Waters/Bell; All/Unam.
Lori Spence 1 Pine Plain Road, abutter, said she is concerned with the run-off although my land is higher. Mr. Tilton commented we are not pushing anything towards you. Everything water wise, the run off, will be going away from you. Mr. Waters asked, what is the water flow in that area? Tracy Powers, 11 Pine Plain Road, abutter answered, it is pretty swampy. It dries up in the summer. Mr. George Comiskey, 45 Old Jacobs Road, added that we are down to 80,100 square feet. I am for this proposal.
Mr. Barry Low, Enforcement Order (EO), 9 Gloria Road
Mr. Przyjemski explained that we have received zero feedback from the state. Mr. Shreder commented that the state has superseded us to have your OoC extended for two years. The second thing is we would like to resolve the EO on your site. Mr. Przyjemski added the sticking point is the granite bounds to be put on the site. The land has grown in pretty well. Mr. Shreder stated that we need to identify the “no disturb” zone. At this point, there is no need to replant. We do need to put in clear bounds.
Mr. Low said there have been children that have gotten hurt from running into the bounds. My kids run through the bushes. I am concerned for my children. Why not put it by property lines of the two neighbors, at the edge of my lawn. Mr. Waters commented you are the only land owner in Georgetown whose kids run into trees, rocks and stone bounds. You have repeatedly cut things in that area. This has happened three times. This is why we are asking you to put in boundaries on the “no cut” zone. Mr. Low stated I do not want the boundaries at the edge of my lawn. Mr. Waters asked, is there an area along the “no cut” line that is least offensive to you to put the stone bounds? Mr. Low said that entire property area is along my lawn. Stick it out somewhere in that flat area. Mr. Nelson added we can do a
perimeter where the land slopes down and put the bounds there. Mr. Mr. Przyjemski presented the site plan and the Commission discussed, with Mr. Low, where exactly the bounds should go.
MOTION to 1) Modify the EO to reflect that placement of three, two-foot marker boundaries and the EO should reflect the specific placement 2) One on both sides and one set back a little (drawing straight line) and appoint Steve to oversee this. Mr. Low has 45 days from today to put these bounds in. If not, a $300 per day fine will be enforced. Waters/Birmingham; 4-1; Bell opposed.
Land off Spofford Street (GCC-2010-21) – ANRAD (cont. PH)
Scott Cameron, PE, MacKenzie Engineering Group
Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental Consulting, Wetlands Biologist
Jeff Molloy, BSG Group, Third party reviewer
Mr. Cameron explained that a site walk has been conducted by the Con Comm. Ms. Rimmer added the wetland was flagged last year. She explained the wetland delineation on the site plan. There is a stream and an intermittent stream on the upper left of the property. This was done the 1st week of July. The stream was dry for 5 days. The official drought wasn’t in effect until August. There a few small isolated wetlands throughout the site. Mr. Przyjemski stated our regulations say it must be dry for 7 days??? for it to be an intermittent stream. Mr. Shreder asked, You made your determination mostly based on soils regarding where the wetland is and isn’t? Ms. Rimmer answered, there are very clear distinct boundaries.
Frank Coppelino, 30 Spofford Street, an abutter, commented I have photos of the water flow in that area. He presents the photos. It seems that is coming down the hill from Spofford Street. These photos were taken in March. The volume is enormous. I have spent thousands of dollars trying to get rid of the water coming off the hill. He presents salamander and plant photos that he sent to Natural Heritage. The hill is actually a drumlin and is one of the highest points in Essex County. Drumlins are always full of water and the water literally bubbles out of the ground. If the water flow is changed at all, I will get even more water into my basement. There is an Army Corps of Engineers (Contact Kevin Totelli) report that stopped the building on the high school on that site. There are also three wells on the top of this hill.
They were smart enough to do this because of the water from the drumlin.
Ray & Donna Kenison, 27 Spofford Street, abutter said that they agree regarding the water flow problems. Mr. Waters asked, can we get that report? Mr.. Przyjemski answers, I will get it for you. Mr. Kineson added my concern is any access from the top left of the property, if it is paved and developed, will push the water toward our property. Mr. Nelson commented if this is a drumlin, we need to look at it. Mr. Molloy, BSC Group, added it is a big hill. The stream does get flash flow at times. It is consistent with an intermittent stream, consistent with the 5 days (Georgetown Regulations 2008), 7 days would mean perennial stream.
.
Ms. Kineson asked when did this become an intermittent stream? When the golf course went in we got much more water. Richard Soloski, 4 Crescent Meadow Lane commented that the golf course and the beavers control the flow of water in that area. Mr. George Comiskey, 45 Old Jacobs Road, asked with an ANRAD, do you indentify vernal pools? Mr. Molloy answered it is to establish a wetland boundary. Lots of water moves through this area. This area has a lot of burning bush which is an upland plant. There is no discernable bank to establish a stream channel. There is a lot or red maple. The soils are very rocky, indicative a drumlin, actually.
Mr. Coppelino commented, 1. This delineation is one day, one point in time. I have witnessed this water for 33 years. 2. You have proven my point about the hill is a drumlin. Mr. Molloy stated, under that framework, I can attest that the delineation is accurate. I am a soils scientist. Ms. Rimmer said this shows up as an intermittent water course. We are applying your regulations to show that it is an intermittent stream with water flow for 5 consecutive days annually. Mr. Waters commented our regulations do not fit together perfectly. Mr. Cameron added that in 2001, the subdivision developer said that it was an intermittent stream.
MOTION to approve the ANRAD, revised October 10, 2010, and that the delineation does not go 200 feet off the property boundary. Waters/Birmingham; 4-1, Bell opposed.
MOTION to close the ANRAD for Land off Spofford Street, GCC-2010-28. Waters/Birmingham; All/Unam
Land off Spofford Street (GCC-2010-28) – RDA
Scott Cameron, Engineer, MacKenzie Consulting
Mr. Cameron explained that they want access to cross through with a machine through burning bush. Mr. Birmingham asked, will you be there Steve? Mr. Przyjemski answered yes. Mr. Przyjemski asked, how will you get in there? Mr. Cameron answered, from the access road. It is a common access road. We already spoke with the water department and they said that it is fine.
Mr. Ray Kineson, 27 Spofford Street, abutter, asked where they will be accessing it on the map.
Mr. Cameron shows him, on the map, their access through the center of the property.
MOTION to: 1) Issue a negative determination of the RDA; 2) Steve Przyjemski to be on site during the cutting of the burning bush. Waters/Bell; All/Unam.
Lot 77A, Thurlow Street (GCC-2010-27) – RDA
Jeff Thorne, Applicant
Mr. Thorne explained that the septic swale is encroaching into your jurisdiction. Mr. Przyjemski added that they should have done their test pitting back by 10 feet but that is getting picky.
MOTION for a negative determination of the RDA with the condition that the applicant notifies Mr. Przyjemski after the rough and before the final swale. Waters/Bell; All/Unam
Motion to close the RDA for Lot 77A, Thurlow Street, GCC-2010-27. Waters/Polignone; All/Unam
MOTION to close the meeting at 10:55pm. Bell/Birmingham; All/Unam
| 
