<FCFORMSHEADER>
<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

	<fcobject objtype="oDocument" formid="96" objname="Minutes">

		<subject index="0" >September 27, 2005</subject>

		<field id="8010" index="0" type="text">Minutes</field>

		<field id="2000" index="0" type="number">0</field>

		<field id="3999" index="0" type="number">0</field>

	</fcobject>

</firstclass>

</FCFORMSHEADER>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPT. 27, 2005

PRESENT:	Sally Underwood-Miller, Stephen Shatz, Joseph DeGiorgis, Don Deno
		Cathy Plakun, John Hart

ABSENT:	George Shippey

Call Meeting to Order/Adopt Minutes – The Minutes of the meeting of Sept. 13, 2005 were deferred to the next meeting so the secretary can verify the Goodrich St. NOI discussions.

The Chairman stated that because the Commission now has the ability to require a consultant to review applications deemed necessary, the Commission wants to make sure that the consultant be paid by the applicant and that the hearing will not be closed until the consultant is paid.  The Commission suggested that the consultant present the Commission with an estimate and that money will be put in an escrow account set up by the Town Treasurer.  The Commission will take the estimate provided to them by the consultant, require the applicant to put that amount of money in escrow and when the project has completed any money left over will be returned to the applicant.  If the project turns out more complicated than originally planned then the Commission will require the applicant to provide additional funds for the escrow account.  Member Deno suggested that a copy of the invoice be given to the applicant.  Member Shatz made a motion to proceed with the plan, seconded by member DeGiorgis and all voted in favor.  

Ned Baldwin, 5 Lahey Crossroad – RDA – The hearing was continued to the next meeting as the applicant was not present.

Alan Clark of Clark & Greene appeared representing Amy Cooper and Gary Bahler of 17 Yale Hill Rd. who would like to put on a 4 ft. by 6 ft. garden shed attached to the house.  The shed would be a slab on grade on piers.  The Commission approved the addition without requiring further filing.

Jonathan & Vera Dordick, 18 Ice Glen Rd. – Wetland Delineation Affirmation Continuance - Atty. Roscoe Sandlin appeared representing the Dordicks who are requesting the affirmation of their wetland boundaries.  Member DeGiorgis reported that he did a site visit to the property and found that 40-50 ft. of cutting has taken place since June of this year on the property.  Member DeGiorgis is in agreement with the wetland delineation done by Gail Ceresia of Berkshire Wetlands Services.  The no cut zone for the property will be 100 ft. from the wetland.  Member Shatz made a motion to close the hearing, seconded by member DeGiorgis.  The Commission will go out and check the cutting that has taken place.

Carl Edwards, 5 Butler Rd. – RDA Continuance – Mr. Edwards appeared for the continuance of the RDA hearing for the placement of a gazebo near the river and the removal of invasives.  The Commission was concerned with setting a precedent by allowing buildings to be placed so close to the river.  It was suggested the applicant possibly place the gazebo further back on the property by 50 ft. and he stated that that would place it in the floodplain.  The Commission agreed that they would like to see the gazebo placed outside of the floodplain.  Member Shatz stated that he feels this situation is an exception to the rule, thereby not setting a precedent.  The Chairman stated that the gazebo would be outside of the floodplain, visually screened by an existing tree line giving it an aesthetic that the Commission was in favor of and a temporary structure that is less than 100 sq. ft.  There will be no utilities to the gazebo.  Member Shatz made a motion to close the hearing, seconded by member DeGiorgis and all voted in favor.

Arthur Susser, Osprey Lane, Lot 2 – NOI Continuance – Marshall White and Shannon Boomsma of White Engineering, Inc. appeared on behalf of the applicant.  M. White stated that since the last meeting they did a stake out for the cart path down to the lake from the house site and revised the drawings as such and they received comments from the Commissions consultant Terry Eucker and has responded to them.  The proposed driveway comes down near a wetland and swings around across a culvert which is 5 ft. deep and 24 ft. wide, crossing a wetland and up to a building envelope.  The revised plan shows a proposed location for the drainage which places the driveway 50 ft. offset from the wetland as requested by the Commission at the last meeting.  The driveway, at its present location, will catch runoff on the upper side as indicated on the plan to a stone basin which will put the driveway at a 10% grade, to grade out to level across an imbedded box culvert.  They propose to use, in conjunction to a silt fence, wattles which are better than straw bales.  All of the large trees are avoided with the proposed cart path.

T Eucker:  She questioned whether the dock and stairs are in the buffer bank, land under water and in the floodplain.  M. White stated that the land under water is 233 sq. ft. which includes the aluminum disk footings and the shaded area (on the plan) from the dock.  S. Boomsma stated that the floodplain is the bank of the lake, with minor work within the floodplain above the water level of the footings for the dock.  The land under water should be addressed to protect fish and rare and wildlife habitat.  There has been no response from Natural Heritage & Wildlife Habitat to date.  The plan should show floodplain compensation and rare species habitat, as the dock and stairs are within this area.  T. Eucker recommended the cart path be redesigned as an exempt walking path, thereby reducing buffer zone impacts.  If the applicant chooses to keep the cart path as proposed it should be re-designed to avoid most of the large and dead trees that provide habitat.  The path should avoid the pile of debris on site along the southerly line of the property to the lake.  The path should be flagged on each side to avoid the removal of many or all trees as possible.  She recommended additional fees be paid, as the project is a Category 2 for the house, and additional fees should be submitted for the cart path and dock.   She recommended the applicant submit documentation showing that the stream is intermittent.  She stated that from the plan the proposed road is in the wetland, thereby questioning the wetland delineation.  She suggested the applicant go back to the original design, with a bridge that spanned the BVW, thereby avoiding the Wetland Performance Standards.  The applicant must show that he has avoided impacts to the wetlands and minimize those impacts that could not be avoided.  The applicant could do so by putting the house on the west side of the stream which would eliminate the crossing of the wetlands.  With this relocation the septic line could be bored under the wetland and sleeved to protect the stream from potential breaks in the line.  M. White stated that the area is too steep and they would have to put a switchback there to get down the slope.  The Chairman stated that the Commission was very clear that when they permitted the cul-de-sac for the Hirschberg subdivision that they were in no way necessarily going to approve the rest of the project.  T. Eucker stated that it is clear from the site visit that the soils on the site are very erodible with fine silt.  The applicant should test the soils to determine proper silt fencing material to be used to adequately filter out the fine silt.  Every effort to reduce work in the buffer zone should be made, as there have been soil erosion problems on site.  This will allow enough buffer to filter any runoff.  If the driveway was located to the north of Lot 1, the drainage system would be of less concern.  As proposed the Commission should include a condition requiring continued maintenance of the drainage structures on site.  Test pits should be dug in the areas of the sump catch basins and settling basins to ensure that the storm water structures will work as designed.  Work done in the buffer zone should be kept to a minimum, as there is currently a great deal of erosion.  Erosion control measures should be installed on both sides of the driveway in the buffer and BVW and along the pipe from the catch basins to the stilling basin and moved closer to work along the cart path to serve as a limit of work and clearing.  Access to the well should be from the driveway and bored under the BVW and through the buffer to reduced soil erosion problems.  The pile of debris in the buffer zone near the lake should be removed and erosion control measures and the area planted to restore the area with native vegetation.  T. Eucker recommended putting the replication area where there was a failed perc done on the north side of the wetland line.  She also stated that the plan should show for the replication area a grading and planting plan indicating the species and number of plants that they will put in there.  She stated that the culvert, being four sided, will be embedded in the streambed which will cause impacts to the BVW and stream bank.  Also, dewatering plans must be submitted.  If the applicant uses a three-sided culvert then they would not need to do dewatering.  M. White stated that the bank will be restored within the culvert and that three-sided culverts will not work due to poor soils for footings.  He stated that if they run into water during the excavation for the culverts it will be pumped to a downstream settling area and there will be temporary disturbance.  T. Eucker stated that the applicant should show on the plan drainage calculations indicating that the culvert is the proper size for flows in the stream for a 100-yr. storm.  M. White stated that the culvert is large enough for a 100-yr. storm and that flows will be restricted by the culvert.  T. Eucker stated that, with the driveway so close to the BVW, plowing would put sand and salt into the wetland.  M. White stated that with the relocation of the driveway it would allow more snow removal disposal areas and that the Commission could condition a restriction of the use of salt.

The Chairman asked the members if they had any questions or concerns and member DeGiorgis questioned, for the cart path, what they would do to stabilize the finished slope which is 20%.  M. White stated they would use black stone airport mix and J. DeGiorgis suggested the applicant use reground asphalt; member Shatz stated that they do not need two lots there, there is no need for crossings of the wetlands and he would like the proposal better if there was a bridge instead of the crossings; member Plakun would like to see a walking path instead of a cart path; and member Hart stated that no matter what the applicant proposes it will have an impact to the wetlands or the lake.  Member Deno, who recused himself from the hearings as he is an abutter, spoke as an abutter giving concern as to what was flowing through the intermittent stream onto his property and trying to stop the silt from going into the Stockbridge Bowl.  He feels that any construction as proposed, and as well designed as the stilling basins are, there is still going to be more silt coming down.  He feels that putting the two houses up above where the driveway is now, as suggested by T. Eucker, would have less of an impact.  M. White stated that by putting the two houses above the current driveway they would wind up with as much buffer zone impact as what they are proposing.  He also stated that a lot of silt comes onto the property from across the street and a little maintenance would help to alleviate that.  He would put in their plan a silt sump in the middle of the intermittent stream, but DEP emphatically stated in their response not to do that.  The Chairman read into record an e-mail from Bruce & Joan Cohen, abutters to the property.  The hearing was continued to the next meeting.

Harvey Waller, Goodrich St. – NOI Continuance - Shannon Boomsma of White Engineering appeared representing the applicant who has modified the NOI to relocate the two houses for the site to the Goodrich St side.  The dark green line on the plan is the wetland line, the orange line is the 50 ft. buffer line and the pink line is the 100 ft. buffer zone.  The two houses are greater than 100 ft. from the buffer zone line with the driveway coming off of Goodrich St.  There will be a shared sewer line easement from the stub that is there.  The applicant is seeking approval from the Commission the ability to maintain the lawn up to 50 ft. from the wetland and discharge foundation drain.  If they hit ledge while construction of the houses they would discharge just prior to the wetlands.  There will be open trenches with temporary disturbances, reseeded afterwards and discharged to stone aprons.  There would only be foundation drain water with no more runoff.  The also request that the mowed meadow area be maintained once a year.  The Chairman indicated that it is currently maintained as such.  Member Shatz made a motion to close the hearing, seconded by member DeGiorgis and all voted in favor but member Plakun who abstained from voting.

Mark Bean, 14 Beachwood Drive – NOI Continuance – Shannon Boomsma of White Engineering appeared on behalf of the applicant who proposes to do house renovations with the construction of a frost wall, drainage improvements and a dock.  The buffer zone comes to a green line on the plan and the floodplain goes to elevation 99 on the plan.  The house is shifting and in need of repair.  They propose to remove the porches which were additions to the existing structure and lift the house and pour a foundation which will be 4-ft. frost wall with open windows in it to allow flood waters to pass through it in the event of a flood on the property.  The house will be replaced.  They will construct a fieldstone terrace at grade set in pea stone.  They will put in a subsurface drain of perforated pipe in an 18 inch trench of stone along the side of the house to alleviate the water on the property.  The proposed dock will be 5 ft. X 10 ft. along the edge of the lake.  There will be no grading associated with the raising of the foundation, just a slope.  The top of the footings will be 5 ft. above the lake level.   Member Shatz made a motion to close the hearing, seconded by member Hart and all voted in favor.

Atty. Robert Lucido appeared on behalf of his client Joan’s Beach Nominee Trust of 31 Mahkeenac Terrace.  He informed the Commission that he would be filing an NOI for the next meeting for the placement of a seasonal dock in the lake, construction of a fence on the property and vista pruning including removal of damaged trees.  The Chairman reported that she observed that a large tree was cut down already on the property within 50 ft. of the lake.  Atty. Lucido will confer with his client what has transpired.

Rob Hoogs of Foresight Land Services appeared on behalf of his client Robert Wilmers of Averic Rd.  Mr. Wilmers will at some point propose to construct a boardwalk in the marsh on his property with a bog bridge close to the ground.  An NOI filing will come at a later date.

Mr. Hoogs submitted a Certificate of Compliance request for Richard and Susan Grausman on Stone Hill Rd.  The secretary will put it on the next meetings agenda.

The Commission signed an Emergency Certification for Jerome & Kathleen Sugar of  27 Mahkeenac Terrace, as their Order of Conditions has expired.  Also signed was a Determination of Applicability for Joan Nimmo of 42 Lake Drive and an Order of Conditions for Michael & Mary Zabian of 102 East Main St.

With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

					Respectfully submitted,

					Denise A. Schneyer, Secretary