Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes 7/13/21

Meeting date: 
Tuesday, July 13, 2021

Meeting Minutes

 

Meeting Date & Time: July 13th, 5:30 pm

Meeting Place: Virtual Over Zoom

Members Present: Virtual: Jeremy Rawitz (Chair), Michael Zisser, Nancy Tomasovich, Leslie Lichter, Mary Stucklen (Agent)

Absent: Margo Droham

Public Present: Valerie Winig, Peter Solosky, Michael Kulig, Aaron Biason, Jackson Alaberti

Chair Jeremy called the meeting to order at 5:30pm. The Chair notified the attendees that the meeting will be recorded. The commissioners were introduced. Agent Mary Stucklen introduced herself and is filling in temporarily.

2. The public was asked if there were any comments on issues that weren’t on the agenda. There were none.

3. Informational Update by BRPC regarding the Rain Garden Program on Lake Garfield. The representatives were absent and requested that this appear on the next agenda, which the commission agreed to.

Continuing Business

4. Enforcement Order issued to Koenig of 141 Stevens Lake Way (Map 228, Lot 011) for the unpermitted clearing of vegetation in the resource area and buffer zone of Stevens Lake.

The agent updated the commission that the current property owners claimed that they purchased the property after any work was conducted, thus they are requesting that the enforcement order be revoked. The agent clarified the issue with the MassDEP Circuit Rider Mark Stinson and he verified that Paragraph 30 of 131/40 within the regulations that states that despite the change of owners, the property is still in violation thus any property owner is subject to the enforcement order. The commission discussed the issue regarding what the next steps could be, including when to invite the owner to the commission’s meetings. The commission also discussed that there isn’t an ability for the commission to impose fees, however, if the Order was sent to the state department that they could impose fines and fees.

The commission asked the Agent to send the specific regulation regarding the carryover of the violation to the current property owner, as well as to ask the property owner for a site visit and for them to attend the next commission meeting in August. The agent described the various routes for remedy which can be considered for the next meeting.

New Business

5. A WPA Request for Determination of Applicability submitted by Michael Berstein of 16 Laurel Banks Rd (Map 113, Lot 37) for the installation of a well in the buffer zone to Lake Buel.

The representative from Foresight presented the property’s plans and project to the commission. The commission asked many questions regarding where the current well was and other context with neighboring properties, in which the representative clarified that there currently wasn’t a private water supply on the property and the proposed well was limited to being placed where proposed.

 

A motion was made to issue a Negative Determination #3 for Michael Berstein of 16 Laurel Banks Rd (Map 113, Lot 37) for the installation of a well with the Monterey Standard Order of Conditions (Tomasovich/Rawitz). A roll call vote was made and all were in favor. MSV.

 

6.  A WPA Request for Determination of Applicability submitted by Stephen Solosky of 23 Laurel Banks Rd (Map 113, Lot 33) for landscaping and the removal of trees in the buffer zone to Lake Buel.

 

The property owner met with Commissioner Lichter on the property and various photos were taken to show the proposed area for work. The neighbor had conducted work on Mr. Solosky’s property following an Order of Conditions, thus violating their Order and encroaching on their neighbor. The commission asked the Agent to contact the neighboring property owner and inform them that they are violating their Order of Conditions. Commissioner Tomasovich asked the Agent to inform them of this violation, to schedule a site visit with the property owner or their representatives, and that they need to remove the structures and soil that were inappropriately placed on Mr. Solosky’s property, and that they need to do it properly with sediment and erosion controls. In addition, the Agent will ask them to either attend the August commission meeting or to write a letter regarding the issue and stating that they will fix the issue. The Agent suggested that the commission issue an Enforcement Order in September if there isn’t any action or correspondence with the violating property owner.

 

The commission discussed the trees that were proposed for removal, and the commission informed the applicant about the needs for trees on the bank of the water, and that the proposed removal could be detrimental to the area. After the discussion, the commission and the applicant clarified that the trees remain but that the two bushes under consideration were more appropriate for removal if they are replanted. Chair Rawitz stated that he would be comfortable with specifics for the replanting’s, such as dimensions and type of native shrubs. The commission asked the applicant if he could supply a planting plan for the removed trees, and he agreed that he would submit that for the next meeting.

 

A motion was made to continue Mr. Solosky’s application to the August Conservation Commission meeting (Tomasovich/ Zisser) A roll call vote was made and all were in favor. MSV.

 

Commissioner Lichter left the meeting at 6:45pm.

 

7. A WPA Notice of Intent submitted by Arlen Gelbard of 22 Point Road (Map 102, Lot 25, DEP File# 230-0324) for the construction of additions to a residence and the installation of a septic system in the buffer zone to Lake Garfield.

 

The Chair opened the public hearing at 6:45pm (Rawitz/Tomasovich) All in favor.

 

The Agent shared a few plans while they waited for the representative. Aaron Biason of White Engineering briefed the commission on the proposed additions to the home and a new septic system, which will be a perc-right system and will have a jet-back tank that has nitrogen removing processes. There were two proposed planting areas for the property, with 17 trees to removed. The representative informed the commission that there would be 22 replacement trees and a garden between the house and the water. There was ample discussion about the trees proposed for removal and that the trees along the bank were, for the most part, to remain.

A motion was made to issue an Order of Conditions for Gelbard of 22 Point Road (Map 102, Lot 25, DEP File# 230-0324) for the construction of additions to a residence and the installation of a septic system with the Standard Monterey Order of Conditions (Tomasovich/Rawitz) .There was some discussion about where the equipment would go and that the staging area would go in the driveway. A roll call vote was called and all were in favor. MSV.

The public hearing was closed, and there were no public comments. (Tomasovich/Rawitz) All in favor.

8. A WPA Request for Determination of Applicability submitted by Al and Carol Perlman of 14 Point Road (Map 102, Lot 30) for the construction of a small concrete pad and the replacement of a dock in the buffer zone and resource area of Lake Garfield.

The commission heard from Carol and Al Perlman about their property and the proposed project. They had placed a generator on their property and needed a concrete pad for the fuel tanks. The applicants asked to also have the generator (which was labeled as A/C unit on the plans) added to the application.

 

A motion was made to issue a Negative Determination #3 for Al and Carol Perlman of 14 Point Road (Map 102, Lot 30) for the construction of a small concrete pad and the replacement of a dock and for the installation of a generator and with the Monterey Standard Conditions (Tomasovich/Zisser). A roll call vote was made and all were in favor. MSV.

 

9. A WPA Request for Determination of Applicability submitted by Hanau of 0 Dowd (Map 109, Lot 8) for the construction of a residence and related infrastructure in the buffer zone to Lake Garfield.

The commission discussed the plans for the property with the two representatives, Ms. Winig and Mr. Kulig. The proposed work was mostly on the lake-side of the property and that about 60 to 70 yards of soil would be added to the area to grade the property for a flat lawn area. There was discussion that the proposed slope would be stabilized by an erosion fabric and that no further plantings are proposed. The commission agreed that a less steep slope, not to exceed a 3:1 steepness, was appropriate for this area. There was further discussion that there was a possibility for less mowing or no-mowing in certain areas, but overall the project as proposed was significant and could result in a Positive Determination should certain measures not be conditioned. The commission agreed that a Negative Determination was possible if the permit was heavily conditioned.

A motion was made to issue a Negative Determination #3 with the following conditions: 1. All slopes that are to be created shall not exceed a 3:1 slope; 2. In the areas where a new 3:1 slope is created, every ten feet shall have a new planting; 3. Any new plans for this application shall be submitted to the commission prior to the August meeting for review and approval by the commission; 4. Significant sediment and erosion controls will need to be in place prior to the start of work; and 5. The Monterey Standard Order of Conditions (Tomasovich/Zisser). A roll call vote was made and all were in favor, MSV.

Additional Items

10. Report of the nominating committee for the permanent position of the Conservation Commission agent.

Commissioner Zisser stated that this discussion will happen in the public session. He described the interview process and that there were three formal applicants who had submitted there resume, with a few others that had shown interest without having shared their resume. In conclusion, the committee would like to formally nominate Mary Stucklen as their permanent agent. There was one other applicant that had the qualifications for the position but was not the chosen applicant. The other applicant had a unique resume but did not have all of the skills needed for the commission. The Chair asked Mary if she would accept the nomination, and she confirmed that she would.

 

A motion was made to nominate Mary Stucklen as the permanent Conservation Commission Agent (Zisser/Tomasovich). There was no further discussion, and a roll call vote was made. All were in favor. MSV.

 

11. Summary of a discussion held by Michael Zisser, Mary Stucklen, and Melissa Noe regarding the Conservation Commission’s financial questions on July 6th at 9:00am.

Commissioner Zisser briefed the commission on the details of the _______

12. Budget for Fiscal Year 22

  1. Trails in Monterey
  2. Fees

13. Educational Review: Common WPA applications and permits

14.Review and approval of April 20th, June 16th, and June 29th Conservation Commission Meeting minutes.

15.General Mail and Administrative Items