CONSERVATION COMMISSION
TOWN OF GROVELAND
183 MAIN STREET
GROVELAND, MA 01834
(978) 374-1863 FAX (978) 372-6105
June 15, 2005
Present: M. Dempsey, T. Schaefer, S. Benanti, (J. Stewart arrived at 8:00 pm)
ConCom Business : Signatures
Continued ANRAD 97R King St.: Continued to July 20, 2005.
Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision at 10 Wood Street:
Present: Taylor Turbide, Port Engineering Association; Briana Kershaw, 10 Wood Street
No quorum - Informal discussion opened at 7:25 pm.
T. Turbide submitted a letter and 3 maps. He said he got feedback from Cammett and has been to the Planning Board. They are planning one small road and two homes. Wetlands have been flagged by Marc Jacobs one month ago. On property today there is an existing farm road. After flagged, the longest crossing is through the wetlands. He brought in two different schemes. First roadway (shown on map) retaining walls on both sides create 4500 sq ft alteration. Second scheme - reduces alteration quite a bit. (road 18’ wide). Move roadway (shown on map) alteration of 2000 sq ft. more disturbance to the site. They wanted to see which scheme seems better to ConCom. S. Benanti asked if there was any way to get in without going through wetlands?
T. Turbide said it would be too near the septic.
He said the third issue is that the swail hasn’t been maintained for 20 years. It’s not a swail anymore. Pipe completely covered with dirt. Wood Street acts as a swail. Water comes down the hill, passes the swail into Wood st. He would like to dredge the swail out to restore volume. M. Dempsey said we hire consultants to help us with this and that the questions he’s asking are things that we typically ask our consultant because they are complicated. T. Schaefer said it would be useful if we saw the site. When the NOI comes, they will need to hire a consultant. S. Benanti will perform a site visit. M. Dempsey said road on top makes more sense right now, but the we need scientific evidence. T. Turbide read Woody Cammet’s comments
regarding the swail.
Meeting officially opened at 8:00 pm. Quorum
2 Marion Ave. - NOI Dock
Present: Maureen Hanley, Norse Environmental Services; Paul C. Galzerano, 281 Main Street
M. Hanley submitted advertising tear sheets, green cards, and the financial form. DEP #030-0357. She also submitted a letter from Natural Heritage saying there is no adverse impact to wildlife species. She said they are also proposing 5 foot-wide pathway. The dock will be aluminum and will service all the house lots on Marion Avenue, so it will be open access to all people who will be living there in the near future. She said there will be some clearing for 5 foot-wide pathway. They are proposing to loam and seed it afterwards. She said they are undercutting a little bit where slope is steep. They are providing erosion controls as well. The dock is being proposed at 60’ out to shore by 20’. J. Stewart asked her if she checked the water depth at
60’ at low tide? M. Hanley said no, they had not. She said they proposed 60’ because one of the neighbors’ docks goes out that deep. J. Stewart said it’s very shallow and that most of the docks on this side of the river are almost 120’ out. He told her it’s something she needs to look into, because if anone puts a boat with any size or weight to it, it may be in trouble at low tide. She said she was in the process of filing for a Chapter 91. She‘s planning to go to the Army Corps and has just started the paperwork. She said he (the applicant) wants the option for motorized boats. S. Benanti asked her how wide is dock in narrow section? M. Hanley said 4’ wide. T. Schaefer said he’s been at the site a lot. He said he’s concerned regarding the vegetation, that it doesn’t get a lot of light and he can’t imagine anything growing there. He
suggested railroad ties and gravel. M. Hanley said they could try with loam and seed first and see if it takes, then use ties and gravel if it doesn’t. T. Schaefer said it’s right next to the river, and if it doesn’t take, then it’s all going to go right in. S. Benanti asked what’s there now? M. Hanley said it’s wooded. T. Schaefer said erosion controls will need to be maintained for 2 years. M. Dempsey suggested a site visit.
At this point, an abutter, Paul Galzerano, entered the room, referred to himself as “the public” and/or “the abutter” and asked for a copy of what was presented. P. Galzerano said it’s extremely problematic from “the public’s” point of view and “the public” is prepared to present issues. M. Dempsey allowed M. Hanley to finish her presentation.
M. Hanley said she doesn’t know when the intent for this is to be constructed. She said the homes are still going up at this time. She said she can’t imagine it being in the summer because she still has to get the Chapter 91 license from the state. She said probably at least 6 months from when she files it.
P. Galzerano said he’s been a land owner in town for more than 25 years. He said this proposed plan is problematic from environmental standpoint prespective. First, the proposed dock won’t hit mean low water mark for river. Secondly, they want to create a path which he had previous plans approved from town that show a buffer zone, and the buffer zone was created to screen off. When they put this property in, they turned his lot into a corner lot. He said he negotiated with the town, which he has the documents to show that there was a piece of property that was deeded, and there were easements and buffer zones shown to screen off this. He said they want to put a public dock within the zone only feet from his lot land and he thinks it’s problematic. He said there
is no detail for the path. He said the zone they mapped out for the proposed dock is inappropriately placed. He said he’d like to see what reviews have been proposed from the jurisdictions and the regulatory agencies.
M. Hanley said the reason why in they are proposing the dock on this location on the plan is because that would be the least impact to the slope down to the river. She understands that his lot line is adjacent to the pathway. She said the applicant can provide plantings to help gain some privacy for him and his lot. P. Galzerano said he isn’t concerned about privacy but has concerns about the environment. He said the fact that the applicant hasn’t provided any information what he’s going to do to protect environment and the fact that the boat dock not less than 60’ from an approved dock is disconcerting.
M. Hanley said it’s a 5’ wide pathway, so essentially, they are going to clear 5 feet, they are proposing to loam and seed it so it’s stabilized, therefore, there’s no impervious area. P. Galzerano said there are impervious areas and displayed many photographs. The photos were of the pathway that shows what the applicant previous has provided in terms of destroying the environment. He showed a photo of his dock and said this is the applicant’s destroying of the proposed area. S. Benanti asked him if he had a dock. P. Galzerano said yes, he had an approved dock from the state. He showed a picture of his dock and said the proposed dock is less than 60’ from his dock. T. Schaefer asked when the pictures were taken. P. Galzerano said they were
taken less than 4 years ago. T. Schaefer said the reason he asked is because he is there at least once a week and has never seen anything like this. P. Galzerano said he has monitored the property for more than 20 years and is quite familiar with property. He said as early as this spring, there has been runoff. T. Schaefer said his concern is that the sins of previous developers are not necessarily the sins of current developers. P. Galzerano said the performance of applicant has been less than desirable, in that, there has been run-off to the river this spring, there has been run off to the road. There’s been less than desirable performance in terms of run-off off the property into the street that results in run-off into the river and the hay baling, screening and the protection to environment, in his opinion, is poor. He said he has approached the applicant in terms remediating, he said he has spoken to Road Commissioner, to ConCom
regarding to the runoff and the cleaning of the road. He said if you went there tonight, you’d see runoff and not good maintenance. He said in terms of performance of the current applicant and in terms of a pathway to river, he said he wants to know what has applicant has done to meet all the requirements as he has gone through in terms of hand work in preserving this area. He said he has no problem with distance but from a development standpoint, it‘s affecting the environment. He has documents that eagles are winter-nesting there. He said he has documents that the area is being disrupted in a major way. He said the area has been cleared off and nothing has been done in terms of remediating the area. He said from the Planning Board’s standpoint, there is a proposed vegetation plan that has not been put together to screen this. He said the applicant wants to put a path in proposed vegetation area. He said
that this will be rejected from the neighborhood because there is a dock less than 60’ from one in the neighborhood. S. Benanti asked him if the problem is with dock or the walkway? P. Galzerano said some questions have to be asked. How many people will be using the pathway? M. Hanley said she couldn’t give a solid number, but it would be the people living in Marion Avenue neighborhood. P. Galzerano asked how many that would be. M. Hanley said she doesn‘t know how many will live in each house because they haven’t been sold and didn’t see what his point is. P. Galzerano said if the Commission doesn’t have an understanding of how many people will be using the pathway, how will they have an understanding of how that pathway will be impacted. M. Hanley replied that she suggested that when it‘s created and constructed, to monitor it. She said to address his concerns
regarding the wildlife issues, she submitted the application to Fish and Wildlife Services and Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program who stated that the project would not have any adverse effect. P. Galzerano asked if the Army Corps signed off on this? M. Hanley said no, that she’s in the process of filing the paperwork for it. S. Benanti asked him how long his dock was? P. Galzerano said his dock is more than 80’ upstream, and said at low tide, it won’t even hit the low watermark. M. Dempsey proposed that we continue this until next meeting. P. Galzerano submitted a letter from Mass Natural Heritage from 1989 regarding Sturgin and rare species and that limited human activity at the river’s edge during the winter months is recommended to reduce the likelihood of disturbance of nearby eagles. He said all the work he has done by the river has been done by hand. He said there has been a lot more
disturbance since that period. He said he would be happy to copy documents of all of the work that he had to do to have his dock put in done by hand. He said the proposed plan does not say how it will be put in. He said the applicant has not done a good job of maintaining the site up to this point. He has concerns because they want to put a pathway at the exact location where there is run-off. He said he has spent more than 15 years creating a barrier for the run-off because the town hasn’t had the resources to enforce the run-off off this hill because they land-cleared this hill. The run-off has come through his property. He said he is not adverse to this development, but would like to see it be a successful development. He said he’s willing to work with applicant to make this development successful. He said he thinks the location of the proposed dock would be better suited in another location. He said
he is a member of the Merrimack Watershed Council. He said he could make suggestions to applicant on how both an access to the water and a dock could occur at this property that would be friendly to Merrimack River and the Watershed Council; be friendly to the Town of Groveland; be friendly to the wildlife in the area; and be friendly to the neighborhood. M. Hanley said they definitely want to do that. She suggested a site walk with ConCom and him to look for a better location. She said they support what he’s saying. M. Dempsey continue the hearing until July 20th , at 8:00 pm. Site walk is set for Saturday, June 18th at 9:00 am. They will meet at Marion Way. The hearing ended at 8:44 pm
5 Evergreen Lane GRDA, Grading and Erosion Controls
Hearing opened at 8:47pm.
Present: Danny F. Collins, 5 Evergreen Lane
M. Dempsey said he went to the house and visited last week. He said there’s an erosion problem, probably created by poor planning on the builder’s part. The builder has agreed to fix it. They need to protect wetlands before we allow them to do it. D. Collins submitted copies of the plan. Mr. Kelley is proposing to stabilize the slope from the top. M. Dempsey suggests that ConCom allow him to work and ask that hay bales be put along blue lines (on map). The yellow area on map will get approximately one foot of fill. M. Dempsey made a motion to approve the filling and erosion stability of the hill with the condition that hay bales are maintained for 2 years along tree line as outlined on the map. T. Schaefer 2nd. All in favor.
Unanimous. Hearing closed 8:57 pm.
T. Schaefer motion to close meeting. S. Benanti 2nd. All in favor. Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Felch
| 
