Georgetown Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
Second Floor Meeting Room
7:00 pm, May 20, 2010
Present: Carl Shreder; John Lopez; Tom Howland; Mike Birmingham; Charles Waters; Steve Przyjemski, Conservation Agent; Carol Fitzpatrick, Minutes Recorder
Vouchers: MOTION to pay the bills. Waters/Birmingham; 5-0; All/Unam
Public Hearings:
Pentucket Pond Aquatic Mgmt Program (GCC-2010-09) – new NOI
Gerry Smith, Erica Hoag -Aquatic Technologies Inc.
Mr. Smith stated that they treated the fanwort in 2005 with sonar and then it was left untreated for 5 years. In 2004 we put together a treatment program. In 2007 we did a whole pond treatment for fanwort. Over the years the pond has become heavily infested. We plan to do a limited drawdown phased over a few years. We have a favorable response from National Heritage.
Ms. Hoag explained the visuals and explains the drawdown. The drawdown will control the fanwort in the more sensitive area and sonar to control along the edge. They will do a drawdown and a chemical treatment. National Heritage (NH) got back to us yesterday stating that we can do a 1 foot drawdown starting on Sept 15 to be completed by October 7th with the main concern the Blandings turtle. We will do a 2 foot drawdown the following year and up to a 2.8 drawdown. NH is fine with it if we stay within the NOI. Mr. Smith said we will need the Highway Dept. to take down the boards after the drawdown and assist with the staff gauge. We recommend that the survey be continued. Mr. Bill Dudley, abutter, 5 Bartlett Drive asked: If you treat along the marsh, will you use barriers?
Mr. Lopez asked how would the herbicide be contained in the deeper portions of the pond? Is sonar EPA approved? Mr. Shreder said the EPA doesn’t approve any chemicals. Mr. Lopez comment they are going through the same thing in Amesbury where is in the Conservation Agent. We are using an EPA approved herbicide for milfoil. We are having a lot of disapproval from people in our town.
Mr. Smith said that they run one of the largest fleets of mechanical harvesting in the state. We could do this by mechanical harvesting. Fanwort reproduces through fragmentation and each species reproduces differently. Mr. Anthony Salerno, 56 Pond Street, asked if Rock Pond filters into Pentucket Pond. Has it been checked and is Rock Pond clean?? Mr. Shreder said the water is flowing from Rock Pond to Pentucket. We are trying to make sure that this doesn’t happen. Mr. Smith answered that you can’t use an herbicide in flowing water. The herbicide has to have contact for 30-90 days. We can also offer the Commission a newsletter for a few thousand dollars as public information source.
Mr. Salerno then asked: What is the drawdown on the insect population, dragonflies, etc? We used to have fish make a nest in the sand. The water level gets dropped and the fish have to move. The water level fluctuates every 3 or 4 days. I was told the Highway Dept. pulls the boards as it sees fit. How much of the south end will be exposed when you draw down the marsh? Mr. Shreder said the Commission will look into this. Mr. Smith said those kinds of fluctuations are ongoing and the wildlife adapts to that. There are impacts with any treatment that you use and the drawdown will cause a minor impact.
Mr. Brendan Comiskey, 45 Old Jacobs Road, an abutter asked how much the drawdown will affect the turtles in that area. What if we have high precipitation? Ms. Hoag answered that the drawdown will not expose the entire channel. Smith added that there is going to be a lot of learning here. You may have several winters where you have a hard time keeping the levels down. Bill Dudley said that all 3 boards should be in the dam. He asked: Is there something going on with the water level this year? Mr. Shreder added that the Commission will have a discussion with the Highway Dept. about this.
Action Item:
The Commission will look into the pond level fluctuations with the Highway Dept.
MOTION to continue the Pentucket Pond Aquatic Management Program hearing to July 15th at 7 pm. Birmingham/Waters; 5-0; All/Unam
77A Thurlow Street (GCC-2010-10) – new RDA
William Holt, Professional Land Services
Mr. Holt said the property is 4 acres of land. It is abutted by the Department of Environmental Management (DEM). We are asking for 2-3 waivers. The two houses abutting are proposed. These types of roads were done in the 70s and 80s. It was a way of dividing properties without building roads. Mr. Przyjemski said that these plans are not showing the limit of work. Mr. Lopez added that he is not seeing the wetland lines. Is there an ORAD? Mr. Shreder added that this needs to go to an ANRAD or an NOI.
Mr. Lopez said that we need to issue a positive determination or to have the applicant withdraw within the form of an ANRAD. The Applicant should withdraw without prejudice and re-file. We don’t have enough information to make a determination. We need a third party.
Mr. Beau Hedberg, 103 Thurlow Street, abutter, said the area becomes very swampy and wet around there. What does that do to septic over flow. Mr. Shreder answered we don’t have that analysis right now. We don’t know the resources, the hydrology, etc. The applicant needs to move to an ANRAD and another public hearing. Mr. Przyjemski added that he can file a NOI and then we can discuss waivers if need be.
MOTION to close the hearing for 77A Thurlow Street. Birmingham/Waters; 5-0; All/Unam
23 Prospect Street (GCC-2010-11) – new RDA
Janice Thompson, Applicant; Jim Benito, Son-in-law
Mr. Benito explained that they have an existing, unsafe, old barn and we want to build a 2-car, full garage with a concrete foundation, 12-pitch roof in its place. Mr. Przyjemski said that the current structure is on block pilings. I thought that it was on sonitubes. They are sliding it left to right on the lot. Mr. Shreder added that the resource is between 25-50 feet. This should not have come in as an RDA. Because there is soil movement, this should be a NOI. We can roll the fee into the NOI. An RDA is for very minor things.
Ms. Thompson asked if she needed to notify abutters again? Mr. Przyjemski said that you need to send a copy of the NOI to the DEP. We can continue to June 17 at 7pm. Mr. Shreder said that they can withdraw without prejudice or you can re-file. Mr. Benito said that he thinks it is best to withdraw.
MOTION to close the hearing for the RDA for 23 Prospect Street. Birmingham/Waters; 5-0; All/Unam
Conservation Restriction (CR) for Stone Row Lane:
Tim Ruh, 8 Stone Row Lane, Applicant
Mr. Ruh said that they last met on March 18. Very few changes have been made to the document. I am asking for the executive of this. Mr. Shreder said this has already been voted on by the Commission.
Mr. Ruh added that the Board of Selectmen has to approve this, you, then the state and the Sec. of Energy and Conservation. I can’t sell the lots until I have full approval of the town boards.
MOTION to approve the Conservation Restriction for Stone Row Lane, dated May 20, 2010. Howland/Birmingham; 4-1; Lopez abstained.
Enforcement Order for 9 Gloria Road
Jack Roelofs, Attorney; Barry Low, Homeowner
Mr. Przyjemski said that this activity took place on April 28, 2010. I saw a large amount of vegetation was cut and burned. I could see the burn marks left behind. I called the applicant and he said that a large quantity of debris floated up from the pond after the storm. I counted 20 piles of sweet pepper, low bush blueberry burnt piles. It had been previously disturbed. I think it is within 10 feet of the resource.
Mr. Shreder asked the applicant if he is aware of the Wetlands Protection Act and the Town Bylaw. Atty. Roelofs said that debris did float up to the area. Barry did burn 10 piles of debris. This was a particularly bad year. Barry said that he did not cut. Yes, there was cutting back there in the past. The neighbor may have used his weed whacker in that area recently. Mr. Low said that he is at work during the day. This happened in April. My neighbor is unemployed. He may have done this during the day when I am not home. Atty. Roelofs stated that Barry said that he did not do any cutting. In the area, we want to see what will grow on its own. We will replant if we need to. There are 10 new piles out there. Barry did not do this.
Chris Comiskey, Abutter, 45 Old Jacobs Road added that having served on the Open Space Committee for 10 years, there is a small piece of land along the waterfront that belongs to DiBiase. Mr. Low said he is not on the waterfront. Mr. Shreder commented that people should not be cutting resource areas on other people’s property. We went through a comprehensive plan with Barry in the past. Atty. Roelofs added that he doesn’t think that his client fully understands the local wetlands bylaw. Mr. Waters added that we all agree that there was burning done in areas where they shouldn’t have been. Mr. Shreder stated that there needs to be a full mitigation plan.
Atty. Roelofs said why don’t we wait one month to see what will grow back. We will plant again if needed. We would like to talk to the neighbor also and get the land back to what is was. Mr. Waters commented he liked that Atty. Roelofs is involved and should stay involved and I agree with this overall plan. There is a pattern on apparent ongoing violations. We need to resolve this repeated behavior.
Mr. Low said that the water level is over the stone wall with debris flowing onto my property. Atty. Roelofs added that this area wasn’t all bushes. Mr. Waters stated that we are not making any headway. He has clearly and knowing violated our local bylaws now and in the future. The only condition I have is that Counsel is involved with the conditions going forward. Steve needs to go onsite and figure out a plan with what really happened here. Mr. Shreder added I would like to see a definitive plan with milestones and dates.
Atty. Roelofs said put us down for your July meeting and we will come with a concurrent plan regarding the rehabilitation of the land in that time. Mr. Waters added that we have seen a pattern here. Our kneejerk reaction is to fine. Give us something to work with here. You do not want to hear what Carl has in mind for preventative measures.
Mr. Lopez asked what are the species involved here? We need to have an invasive species control program. Mr. Low added my neighbors have been burning off debris for years now.
Action Items:
Mr. Przyjemski to go on site and come up with a definitive, restorative plan of action with dates and milestones.
MOTION to amend the Enforcement Order: 1) Atty. Roelofs and Steve Przyjemski to meet in the next 4 weeks, at their mutual convenience to discuss immediate restoration of the proposed area in question; 2) Atty. Roelofs remains involved and that Mr. Roelofs and Mr. Low come back with a plan on how to deal with this pattern of violation. This will happen by our July 15th meeting. There needs to be a restoration draft proposal and timeline for action. And, we need to continue this with no action without authorization. Waters/Birmingham. 5-0; All/Unam
Enforcement Order (EO) for 102 Pond Street
Jeffrey McMath, MMC Georgetown Realty Trust, Applicant
Mr. McMath explained that Scott Green was the prior owner, I am the new owner, MMC Georgetown Realty Trust, owner of 100 & 102 Pond Street. Steven DeRosa said that this planting plan was approved in 2006. I just recorded the new subdivision plans this past Friday. There are unplanted plants on the site in containers. Mr. Shreder stated that there have been two illegal fillings in the past, dating back 10 years. Mr. McMath added he would like to bring this 7-lot subdivision to close. I will do whatever the Conservation Commission wants.
Mr. Shreder commented that this proposed subdivision has never been brought as a NOI to the Commission. Mr. Waters asked did he not know that there is isolated land subjected to flooding (ILSF) on this map? Mr. McMath answered that Scott Green deeded that property back to us. I recorded the deed on the 11th, and the plans for the subdivision went to Planning on the 14th. The timeline has moved very quickly.
Mr. Shreder commented that the lack of communication from the Planning Board has wasted a lot of time. There is a certified vernal pool on the property. This is an ILSF under our regulations. Mr. Przyjemski said that a vernal pool, isolated wetlands and an ILSF is what I see. I want this to be clearer on the maps. The waivers are going to be on the roadway and the ILSF.
Mr. Waters asked: What is the EO for? Mr. Przyjemski answered to bring this land back to the existing contour with a restoration plan overseen by me. Mr. Shreder added that the town has put in a lot of resources and has gotten little back. Mr. Lopez commented that we should hire a third party to oversee this. It is not the job of the Agent. Mr. Waters stated that we should not burden him with the acts of someone else. We should let him do what we want him to do. I like the idea of the third party doing this. Mr. McMath asked: Have you always made people work with a third party, or am I only being asked of this? My only objection is that this party has the control, not you or I, and it will go on and on. I would like to get the deed signed and donate a piece of land to the Commission
tonight.
Mr. Shreder said that you must settle the EO first. You need a quote to restore that ILSF to it former state. The drainage may have to change due to the ILSF. Mr. Waters added that we need to close out the EO and begin the process of choosing a third party consultant. Mr. Shreder said that we can give you a violation notice of the continuation of the process.
MOTION: 1) We are going to authorize Steve Przyjemski to prepare an enforcement letter; 2) Steve is going to draw up a proposal for third party bids; 3) We want to have this party back on June 17th; 4) We are not looking for the new owner to step into the shoes and take on the obligations of the former owner regarding the former EO. Waters/Howland; 5-0; All/Unam
Chapter 57 Erosion Control Bylaw
Mr. Shreder explained that under this bylaw, any work that can result in erosion falls under the jurisdiction of Conservation Commission. Mr. Przyjemski asked: What do we want to consider jurisdictional, just larger projects, larger subdivisions, etc? This is my introduction to this issue. I will come up with some recommendations. Mr. Shreder added that we need to establish a standard operating procedure. This is completely separate from our existing bylaw.
Action Item:
Mr. Przyjemski to make recommendations on standard operating procedures regarding the Chapter 57 Erosion Control Bylaw.
Appointment of Carl Shreder as Conservation Commission CPC Representative:
MOTION to appoint Carl Shreder as the Conservation Commission representative to the CPC. Howland/Birmingham; 5-0; All/Unam
Peter Durkee, Highway Department, regarding digging around wetlands
Mr.Shreder stated that Steve Przyjemski should write Peter Durkee a formal letter as to what he can and cannot do within the wetlands and copy the Board of Selectman. Peter has to call us when he is doing something that is questionable. Mr. Przyjemski said that he will meet with Peter and go through each project and discuss the process. Peter has agreed to come to our June 17th meeting and discuss these issues.
MOTION to end the meeting at 10:06 pm. Waters/Lopez; 5-0; All/Unam
| 
