Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Conservation Commission Minutes 06/06/2007
June 6, 2007
 
Present:  S. Benanti, T. Schaefer, J. Stewart, M. Dempsey, T. Grim, J. Termini

Meeting opened 7:14 pm.  

ConCom Business – M. Dempsey made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted for May 2, 2007.  T. Grim 2nd.  All in favor.  Unanimous.   

ConCom Business - Amendment minutes extend ooc for Stonebridge lot 24.  M. Dempsey made a motion that ConCom amend the minutes from April 4, 2007, to the reference for 3 Stonebridge and 23 Stonebridge to extend the Order of Conditions for 2 years.  T. Grim 2nd.  All in favor.  Unanimous.  

ConCom Business – Commissioners signed OOC for 2 Mill Street Extension.  

5 Holly Lane – Hearing opened 7:20 pm
Presents:  Dan & Tracy Spaulding, owners; Ed Gallagher, BOH; Bob O’Hanley, BOH

The septic system put in place 5 years ago.  ConCom’s issued Order of Conditions were never registered at the Registry of Deeds.  The system was put in anyway.  When Claudia McKee, Conservation Agent, was looking for the Certificate of Compliance for this, she spoke with the present owners and found out that it had never been registered.  In the meantime, the owners have been having problems for last 5 years with the system.  M. Dempsey made a site visit last night, and C. McKee has made site visits a couple of times.

Tracy Spaulding said during the purchase of the home they were given sub-drawings and were told that the new system had to be installed in order to sell home.  It was to be a partially raised system, no higher than 3’, which they agreed to.  Approximately 1-2 days before the closing, they drove by the property and the system was 6’ high.  They were in shock, but were told that the system was installed properly.  During the closing, the Spauldings got a Certificate of Compliance from the Board of Health to give to the bank.  They then hired their own engineer because the system didn’t look right.  The slopes in the hill didn’t meet the proper breakouts.  It was too close to neighbor’s property and very close to the wetlands with a 12’ drop.  It was so steep that they could not maintain the hill.  It was over 100’ in length and 80’ wide.  After the engineer they hired looked at it, the Spauldings submitted a notice to the Board of Health.  They requested an as-built plan from the engineer.  Discrepancies were found on the as-built from what was on the property, so the Spauldings asked them to take some off the top and fix the sides.  There was a problem with the property lines, so they were issued a variance.  The property lines moved over the years but weren’t noted.  T. Spaulding said at the last meeting they had a week ago with the Board of Health, he admitted there was no property line change, but was a mistake made by his draftsman.  The system is on the neighbor’s line and too close to the wetlands.  

The Spauldings received a letter last August from the Conservation Commission.  They had no idea that there was an Order of Conditions on the property.  The Spauldings then called the bank attorney and who told them nothing was registered at the Registry of Deeds, therefore, the sale of the house went through.  It wasn’t posted with the Registry of Deeds, which would have stopped everything, and it would have had to be inspected.  The Spauldings were advised to go back to the Board of Health to get inspections and get things fixed so they could get a Certificate, which never should have obtained during the closing.  

Dan Spaulding said meanwhile, they have a system that has failed twice in the past six months.  ConCom asked the Spauldings what the Health Department has done to help them rectify that, with the designer and the contractor and so forth?  Tracy Spaulding said since she received the letter from ConCom, nothing.  She said BOH did come and fix the 2 holes, which took one month to respond and fix it after repeatedly calling.   Her neighbor called the Board of Health becasue she couldn’t stand smell, and planned to call DEP if it wasn’t fixed.  The Board of Health came up the next day.  The last time it failed, it was another month, and they brought it up at the last BOH meeting two weeks ago.  They were advised to come and fix the pipes which they did.  

Its current slope is not like described in the original Order of Conditions per agent C. McKee. T. Spaulding said the design firm and the contractor are still in business.  ConCom  asked if the Spauldings have submitted any written demands?  The Spauldings say a letter has been submitted to the Board of Health.  ConCom asked if it has been surveyed?  Tracy Spaulding said they have not called in their own surveyor, but taken the word of Ben Osgood who is the engineer.  She said they have 3 as-builts.  

M. Dempsey said C. McKee has been to the site a couple of times and read a portion of her note to the Board: “Based on findings, the project, 5 Holly Lane does not appear to be in compliance with the Town of Groveland Wetlands Protection Bylaw & Regulations 1 – 21, more specifically…”  “ It is recommended that a Certificate of Compliance be withheld from the project until such a time as the applicant is able to demonstrate that the system will not cause damage to the resource areas.  Specifically, leaking of any materials from the system into the resource area.  Additionally, the appropriate person shall provide the Conservation Commission with written documentation specifying all the changes made to the original plans and the reasons why the changes were necessary.  DEP will also need to be notified of all the changes to the project if the applicant or the Board of Health has not done so already.  Furthermore, proof of recording of both the original Order of Conditions as well as recording of amendments made to the original order must be presented to the Commission before a Certificate of Compliance may be issued.”    

ConCom asked if they were given a copy of the original Order of Conditions.  T. Spaulding said she has them now.  ConCom suggested they register them with the Registry of Deeds now and start the process so that they will be on the deed.  Dan Spaulding said if they tried to sell the property, they were told the system would not pass Title V.  He said it’s leaking and keeps failing.  

Ed Gallagher, BOH, submitted an as-built, and said the 42’ is the only thing he can see that’s in question.  The 50’ setback to wetlands is to preserve the structure of the soil so that no equipment destroys the structure so the system can drain to the wetlands.  The system nitrifies and the wetlands de-nitrify.  He said the system is in compliance.  It doesn’t meet the breakout, but has a waiver of impermeable barrier.  The slope is 2:1.  The two instances where pipes D and E leaked were broken when they took the excess fill off the top.  He assumes there’s been increased use in the last year in the system, and that’s why they blew out.  

ConCom said it was designed for 3 or 4 bedrooms.  E. Gallagher said ConCom needed to understand a change in use.  If a system starts up and has 8 people on it, it’ll run.  If you have 2 people on it, and then switch to 8, there can be problems.  ConCom said if the system is designed for 4 bedrooms, it should function at a minimum for 4 bedrooms.  E. Gallagher said, yes, but the pressure’s never developed to the extent that it blew out the broken pipe.  The pipes are broken, completely snapped.  

E. Gallagher said the system is too long.  It should have been narrower and wider, but the owner, who refused to record the Order of Conditions didn’t want the trees cut down.  It was designed to fit in between the trees and that’s why it’s longer.  The problem is with the previous owner who refused to record the OOC.  He said he thinks it’s a civil matter.  J. Termini said it still doesn’t meet ConCom’s conditions.  E. Gallagher said the set-back is easily waivered.  J. Termini said not here, it’s not.  E. Gallagher said it doesn’t have to do with the environment; it doesn’t have to do with pollution.  The set-back was to preserve the structure of the soil.  These 50’ set-backs were set before they had excavators.  Before they used to run bull-dozers and other rubber-tired equipment which would destroy the soil.  But an excavator, you can reach, you don’t have to go in this area.  The line is generally + or – 5 feet.    

ConCom has recently seen some change dramatically because of the beavers.  We could go out there no and they’d be totally out of compliance.  E. Gallagher said his concern with the beavers is the height.  You lose the unsaturated area under the bed.  M. Dempsey asked if he agreed they would pass Title V and asked if they had a Title V certificate?  E. Gallagher said yes, it would pass with waivers.  D. Spaulding said they had their own engineer two weeks after the closing and were told, no, it does not pass Title V.  E. Gallagher said the reason the other engineer didn’t realize that there had been  impermeable barrier installed.  D. Spaulding said they didn’t know if it was installed and that they asked that last week at the last meeting and no one gave him an answer.  E. Gallagher said everybody tried to help them move into the house.  J. Termini pointed out that everyone tried to help the seller, not the buyer.  

E. Gallagher said the issue is with previous owner.  It’s a civil matter.  He failed to file the Order of Conditions.  If that was done, they never would have bought the house.  He thinks he’s under an obligation to buy the house back.  T. Spaulding said they were told the Board of Health should never have issued a Certificate of Compliance.  The Order of Conditions was never filed, and the Conservation Commission should have signed-off before they issued a COC.  E. Gallagher said the BOH never checks to find out if it’s registered, that’s the responsibility of the seller.   J. Termini asked if the Board of Health can issue a request to the engineer and contractor to rectify it, so it meets ConCom’s OOC ? E. Gallagher said to meet that, they would have to move the system.  It was written to apply for a variance with BOH.  

M. Dempsey recommends ConCom not issue a Certificate of Compliance on this until our requirements are met as outlined by C. McKee in her letter.  T. Schaefer asked if the engineer was aware of the OOC?  T. Spaulding said yes.  It was suggested that the Spaulding’s speak to a lawyer and with the engineer and contractor.  D. Spaulding said they won’t call them back.  It was suggested they have a lawyer send a demand to give an order or demand to replace the system.  T. Schaefer asked if the engineer was registered at the time.  The Spaulding’s replied that he was not. D. Spaulding said the original drawing was done by his boss.  Since that time, he has gotten his engineering license.  T. Schaefer asked if they spoke with the original, the person who signed off the drawing?   D. Spaulding said he’s with the same company, and they’ve dealt with New England Engineering.  

Bob O’Hanley said what the Board is looking for is a waiver on the 50’down to 42’.   He said the system in compliance, Title V, the way it is.  The grass is growing on the 2:1 slope.  It’s a viable system.  It needs waiver to 42’ and this all goes away.  ConCom asked when the last time the system failed?  The Spaulding’s replied they just had it fixed 2 weeks ago.  

E. Gallagher said the system was higher, and they came before the Board a couple of years ago.  The Board made them take off extra footage, but they couldn’t go any farther because the seasonal high water table there is high.  The lot is unbuildable, it’s very wet.  The soils are very bad.  They could not get a perk test and had to go for a soil analysis.  It was borderline.  He said you couldn’t build a house there today.  

M. Dempsey made a motion to deny the Certificate of Compliance request for 5 Holly Lane based on Claudia McKee’s letter of 5/31/07.  T. Grim 2nd.  All in favor.  Unanimous.  T. Grim asked if ConCom will entertain an amendment to the Order of Conditions.  M. Dempsey said yes, but that it’s more complicated than giving a waiver to the distance, that there’s other issues.  Waiving the distance won’t make sure that the system is actually working today and isn’t going to spew pollution into wetlands.  Hearing closed 7:44pm.

Pineau Estates – Lot 5 – OOC Amendment
Present:  John Judd, Professional Engineer, Gateway Consultants

Hearing opened 7:44 pm.  J. Judd is requesting an amendment to the order.  Showed as-built on map and said home has been pulled further away from wetlands.  Had previously submitted a 40 scale plan for entire subdivision and were issued an OOC for roadway and drainage system.  Subsequently came back for individual NOIs for lots 5 and 6.  Haybales shown approved on 40 scale plan with detention basis.  Haybales have been tightened up on the 20 scale.  ConCom issued order to install 3 bounds (granite markers) at 75’ buffer at hearing.  Detention basin installed first.  House constructed subsequently.  Apparent that bounds would be in the middle of the yard.  J. Judd is requesting to move the bounds back to 50’ line to allow more yard area.  There would be no further tree removal.  New marks for new posts were drawn on the map.  

M. Dempsey made a motion to amend the Order of Conditions, dated June 1, 2005, issued for Pineau Estates, Lot 5, Section D, Paragraph 5, changing from 4 signs to now say “3 signs” and to add after 80’ apart, “along the 50’ buffer line. T. Grim 2nd.  All in favor.  Unanimous.  Hearing closed 7:55 pm. Dempsey will email edited permit and what markers need to look like to J. Judd.

16 Stonebridge Rd. Lot 6 – RDA –
Present:  John Manfredonia, owner
Opened 7:58 pm.  J. Manfredonia would like to install a shed.  C. McKee has done a site visit and inspected wetlands.  He submitted permit fee and financial doc.  12 x 8 shed is to be put on blocks.  Not in ConCom jurisdiction.  Hearing closed 8:06 pm.  

Service Forester/Discussion/Forest Cutting (Governor’s Road and 70 Seven Star Road)
Present:  Jim Soper, Program Supervisor, Mass DCR; Laura Dooley, Service Forester;  Howard Esty
Hearing opened 8:06 pm.

J. Soper  responded to issues raised in C. McKee’s email for the Forestry Cutting Plan for Howard Hill and Nancy Esty properties.  J. Soper said they regulate harvesting and are involved with major impact reports from the agency under MEPA.  In this situation, they are 2 adjacent properties, Hill /Esty.  L. Dooley has done a site visit and concurs with the representation of wetlands on the property.  Under their cutting practices act, they don’t require flagging the wetlands, but only mapped on the cutting plan.  They are in the process of revising their regulations, recommending loggers will be required to flag.  

Questions from C. McKee’s email italicized:  How long will the cutting take?  J. Soper said the plan is good for 2 years, and allowed for two, 1-year extensions.  He made it clear that they are representing DCR (not the homeowners).  Not job to represent landowners.  Were abutters notified?  Forest cutting act requires it, and when the landowner signs it, he attests to it.  They don’t check on it, but will stop job they become aware that the abutter notification hasn’t been done.  Rare species?  Anything in Natural Heritage atlases automatically goes to them for review.  Starting date, earliest date or anytime afterward?  Has earliest starting date.  ConCom wasn’t sure if fell under its jurisdiction.  The Hill lot has wetlands.  For their purposes under Chapter 132, areas subject to flooding are not treated as wetlands.  

J. Soper said they are interested in protecting wetlands and rare species.  It’s also important to protect the forest so it can sustain itself over time.  The White Pine stand and White Pine Oak stand and has regenerated on its own.  The plan is to remove overstory trees to release the young white pine.  If not, the white pine will stagnate and ultimately become a very unhealthy forest.  Over a longer time, there are more potential problems as a result if they don’t do it.   Mass DCR notifies the town’s conservation commissions whether or not there are wetland issues.    

M. Dempsey said the issue is whether they should be filing under ConCom’s bylaw.  Mass DCR doesn’t do the actual cutting.  Mass DCR is a government agency (Massachusetts Department of Conservation Recreation).  DCR does an initial inspection,  an interim inspection and one final inspection.  They work closely with DEP and have a memorandum of understanding with them.  J. Soper said the forest would benefit from the harvest.  Mass DCR will refuse a cutting plan if the project is a precursor to development, in an effort to escape ConCom jurisdiction.   This issue will be addressed in their new regulations.  In regard to the wetland and based on the terrain and advance regeneration, there should be no sediment movement because the area is pretty flat.  Laura Dooley has made site visits.  Mass DCR uses the Cutting Practices Act regulation as governing body.  The harvester is licensed forester.  

The Commissioners questioned what action DCR can take if there is a hazardous material spill, etc..  J. Soper said they can pull licenses and fine them $100 an acre.  He said ConCom can fine for a violation of Wetlands Protection Act.  M. Dempsey proposed ConCom waive the requirement for a permit – not that ConCom waive for their practices.  Meaning, ConCom won’t hold them to the requirements of bylaw, but they are held to requirements of DEP Wetlands Protection Act.  DEP and DCR have an agreement on what they’re doing there.  If this project works in this case, it can be done this way in the future.  

T. Grim and S. Benanti requested to attend the site visit with DCR.  Gerry Hill (cousin of property owner) agreed that the property needs to be dry enough to remove the hay and re-hay or re-seed.  T. Grim will email Laura Dooley with contact information.  

M. Dempsey made a motion in the case of forest cutting at 70 Seven Star Road and at Governors Road properties in Groveland with the DCR forest cutting plans in place, that ConCom waive the requirement for a bylaw permit.  J. Termini 2nd.  Amended with the condition that they notify ConCom of a precutting meeting.  T. Grim 2nd.   Work will take  approximately three weeks, depending on the dryness of the site.  Vote on Amendment:    5 voted yes.  1 abstain. Vote on original motion above re: waive permit and notify of meeting:  5 voted yes. 1 abstain.  Both motions passed.  Hearing ended 8:49 pm.   

Water/Sewer Dept. – Main St. Sewer Main – GNOI/NOI
Present:  Frank Giordano, Water Department; Brian Murray, Millenium Engineering; Tony Garcia, abutter

Hearing opened 8:49 pm.  Submitted green cards and tear sheets.  Project is Main Street sewer that they need to finish.  The project starts at a sewer manhole next to Broad Street, extending a  2” force main behind the side walk until the culvert that crosses the roadway.  The 2” force main will be installed on average at a 5’ depth.  The excavations will be a 3’ wide trench as well as 675’ main line.  Ultimately the property owners will be able to tie into the services with a pump in their house.  Surface treatments will be loam and seed areas that will be disturbed on the lawns.  When they need to cross driveways, they will repave areas touched.  If the pipe needs to be moved into a sidewalk, they may have to redo sidewalks.  There is no increase in impervious.  The two wetland resources are the culvert and perennial stream.  

Overall project 3,300 sq ft of alteration, and all will replaced as is there.  The project should take approximately 3 weeks.  Job will be publicly bid through the bid process.  All standard to Mass General Laws and public safety issues.  J. Termini asked if this project will require a bond?  Yes.  He asked if ConCom can have access to bond if there’s an issue that needs to be recitified?  Yes.  J. Termini said it needs to be specific in their documents to say that.  B. Murray requested ConCom’s OOC require that, and it can be added to their docs.  The bond will be based on the estimated bid.  

Tony Garcia, abutter, 139 Main St.; asked when this project will take place.  F. Giordano said he hoped to begin in the fall.  Plan to be put out for bidding this summer.  Erosion controls will be silt fence and hay bales.  J. Termini requested the OOC have an added amendment about having access to funds from the bond.  M. Dempsey made a motion to that ConCom close the hearing and grant the permit and Order of Conditions for the work proposed including access to bond requirement section.  T. Grim 2nd.  All in favor.  Unanimous.  Hearing closed 9:02 pm.  

J. Stewart left the meeting at 9:03pm.  

24 Stonebridge Rd./Lot 9 Center Place – GRDA
Present:  Greg Hochmuth

Hearing opened 9:06 pm. Lot had an NOI which expired.  The foundation, foundation drains, decking and rough (gravel) driveway are in.  The only work in the buffer zone is a small portion of the driveway, and some grading.  The most intrusive part is the foundation drain, which is already in.  There is a loam stockpile that needs to be spread, loamed, seeded.  The replication area is in.   The reason they filed an RDA instead of a NOI is that there’s not much left to do.  Scope of work is similar to other lots that only required an RDA filing, paving a small corner of the driveway, about 10’ into the 100’ The erosion controls in and are working fine.  They still need to put in the granite monuments in.  C. McKee noted that ConCom needs an as-built plan before allowing change from NOI to RDA.  G. Hochmuth said the plan is essentially an “as-built” plan.  It is where it’s shown on this plan.  G. Hochmuth left the plan for the file.  T. Schaefer said he will date it and name it an “as-built”.  M. Dempsey made a motion to close the hearing for 24 Stonebridge Road, Lot 9, and grant a permit under the Groveland RDA with conditions similar to the previous Order of Conditions under the Notice of Intent from 2004.  T. Grim 2nd.  ConCom informed G. Hochmuth that he’ll need to get two Certificates of Compliance: 1 for the Notice of Intent and 1 for the RDA.  ConCom will charge once for both if submitted at the same time.  All in favor.  Unanimous.  Hearing closed 9:21 pm.

Meadowpond 3 Stream Bridges – NOI
Hearing opened at 9:22 pm

Project is to erect 3 foot bridges over intermittent streams in Meadowpond.  No DEP number yet.  Walking into Meadowpond Reservation on Uptack Road trailhead, nearly 200’ in, you’ll come to the first stream.  The Boyscouts used to construct foot bridges.  They’ve been pulled out of the way and destroyed.  The second stream is approximately 400’ in, and the third stream is 600’ in.  They are all intermittent streams and dry up every year.  M. Dempsey filed for a grant with Student Conservation Association, who will send 10 strong, young people with a supervisor and will work 5 days in July.  Marty Camp be the clerk and will work with them to help build them.  The bridges will be constructed of old dried out utility poles with white oak plants on top of them.  ConCom is getting the utility poles donated, and buying white planking from Esty’s.  The project and filing fees cost is approximately $3,000 to be taken out of Open Space money.  If the placement of bridges are anchored properly, they won’t be able to get torn out.  Hikers will have easier access.  It will help cut down on ATVs.  Signage and chains will be put in place.  There are key endangered species habitats in there, so this will help us to be better stewards of the property.  This will clean it up.  M. Dempsey filed with Natural Heritage Endangered Species Act Program.  Hearing continued to July 11th.  Hearing closed 9:30 pm.  

Marion Way – Enforcement Order
Opened 9:31 pm.  Work needed to be done, and Claudia wanted them to refile.  With negotiations, an enforcement work order has been issued in order to fix all the problems.  Claudia has documented in a letter to Al Couilliard who is in acceptance of it through Leah Basbanes.  Al Couilliard did not show tonight.  Violated general condition #8 – Mr. Couilliard or a representative will attend the Conservation meeting.  No phone calls or messages to that affect.  ConCom will ask him to come to the next meeting on July 11th.  Invoice has been submitted to Al Couilliard for site visits conducted.  Closed 9:35 pm.

ConCom Business – Permission had previously been granted to negotiate to purchase 8 acres of Open Space at 28 Uptack Rd.  Approved $75,000 at town meeting.  Owner has agreed to sell for $75,000.   

ConCom Business – Next Conservation meeting will be held July 11th.  

ConCom Business – M. Dempsey made a motion to amend the minutes from April 4, 2007 to reflect the following change: adding the words “for 2 years” to this motion:  “T. Grim made a motion to approve extensions to the Order of Conditions for Stonebridge Road OOCs: Lot 24, 3 Stonebridge and, Lot 15, 23 Stonebridge.”  J. Termini 2nd.  All in favor.  Unanimous.

T. Grim made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 pm.  T. Schaefer 2nd.  All in favor.  Unanimous.  

Respectfully submitted,  



Lori Felch
Administrative Consultant