Issue 14 March 2025
Conservation Commission 2/11
The Commission continued the hearing on 10 Fire Road 54 and this project is presenting a lot of difficulties protecting the vernal pool and buffer zone with the house and driveway being enlarged. The vernal pool is seen as robust and thriving currently.
Public Hearings
Continued Notice of Intent – 10 Fire Road 54
Bill Hannigan, Hannigan Engineering, representing the applicant, presented plans for 3 alternatives for the driveway location regarding the vernal pool buffer zone. The new house footprint has shrunk, and an outbuilding was eliminated. The area of disturbance has been redefined. He went through the three options.
Leave the driveway where it is and construct a retaining wall along one side to protect the vernal pool. New disturbance: 3,130 sq ft. No re-naturalization.
Move the driveway away from the vernal pool. This includes restoration of previously disturbed areas. New disturbance: 6,525 sq ft. Driveway restoration: 1,745 sq ft.
The third and preferred option is to shift the driveway and grade a stone strip. This provides the least new disturbance of the area. New disturbance: 3,000 sq ft. Driveway restoration: 1,745 sq ft.
The vegetation would be replaced along the vernal pool for regeneration of the habitat.
He also stated there needs to be a relocation of utility pole. There would be additional trees to be removed for both the driveway reconstruction and the pole.
A review is done by Oxbow Associates, and they agreed that option 3 was the best for the site.
Brad Stone, Conservation Agent, introduced Ron Strohsahl, Oxbow Associates, and Strohsahl spoke to this plan. A review of the plan was sent in a letter by his firm. He specified that there is already direct impact to the pool from the driveway during flooding from vehicular traffic, by pollution of road materials and sediment. He said all three options help the vernal pool. The first option is not desirable because of the retaining wall, being an impediment to the vernal pool species, using their energy and keeping the creatures in the driveway for both vehicle and predator strikes. Option 2 is the most disturbance to the area and is not preferred. Option 3 is the most preferred. Strohsahl said he had added some recommendation for protection of the vernal pool during construction and afterwards. He would like to the construction to avoid the breeding period.
Stone asked what the timing should be. Strohsahl said February from May and developing larvae until July. Commissioner Jim Lavallee asked what areas around the vernal pool are used. Strohsahl said it would be to the north and northeast. Lavallee also asked why the driveway would be paved. Strohsahl said the pavement will be able to direct the rainfall and keep the runoff cleaner, stabilizing the road area.
Hannigan explained the rock trench that is planned to direct the water flow and small enough for transverse by creatures. Commissioner Lavallee asked about the temperature of the road. Strohsahl said the amphibians may be attracted to the heat of the road. Hannigan said they are preserving the tree canopy to provide shade.
Commissioner Dennis Hubbard asked about driveway lighting, whether that would be detrimental. Strohsahl said he did not know and said he would get back with an answer.
Chair Seidenberg asked if the trench would just be crushed stone. Hannigan said yes, for now. Commissioner Hubbard asked about new impervious surfaces vs. current, including the pavement and the house. Hannigan did not have the numbers but noted that the driveway would be new and additional, and he will get the numbers for the house. He then took a couple of minutes to calculate the house adds about 3500 sq ft.
Commissioner Lavallee asked more general questions about the plan contours as noted. Hannigan answered; parts of the house on both the north and south side are inside the 25 ft buffer zone and Hannigan said those areas were already disturbed. Commissioner Lavallee said even though they may be disturbed that doesn’t mean you can build on them. Chair Seidenberg expressed the same concerns. He expressed concerns about the exemption and the need to protect the vernal pool. He thinks the exemption applies. Commissioner Hubbard agreed with the Chair.
However, the Wetlands Protection Act would be the authority on the 100 ft buffer zone from the pond. The house invades this buffer zone.
Commissioner Lavallee agreed that this is a significant impact. All agreed they were ok with the driveway, but the house was increasing in size to be inside the 100 ft buffer zone.
Stone said there was not a lot of control over a reconstruction under the WPA.
Attorney Richard Nyland, on behalf of the applicant, said the applicant is not looking for exemption on anything for that is not already disturbed on the property. He said the plans were revised to adhere to the exemption by the bylaw. Hannigan agreed and supported this statement with a demonstration of the areas on the plan. Chair Seidenberg did not agree and said Hannigan’s logic did not hold up. Chair Seidenberg said this was not an approvable project under this logic. Commissioner Hubbard said the septic on the south side is in the 25 ft buffer zone.
Atty Nyland said they are looking for both exemptions, both for the driveway and the house. He and Chair Seidenberg did not agree on this premise. Hannigan asked if they have to claim the exemption or is it just exempt? Attorney Nyland said they are claiming both exemptions.
Attorney Jeffrey Roelofs, representing the abutter, John Bowen, presented some slides. The overview included a statement that the Oxbow review incorrectly concluded that the Commission had already determined that the “disturbed areas” were exempt. The first slide also expressed concern about the trees to be removed. He also presented on the second slide that he agreed with the Commission’s thoughts of that night, that the applicant was only claiming the vernal pool exemption and showed the definition of a vernal pool. He says the applicant does not have proof of existing conditions in 2007 to take a further exemption. Bowen had already presented photos that the “disturbed areas” had not been present in 2007. Roelofs went on to say the confusion between “disturbed” and “developed” had already been resolved and needs to be observed. He again presented several photos from before and after the new owners took possession. He went on to say the biggest concern is the expansion of the house and the movement of the driveway. He showed on the plan the buffer zone is being encroached by both the driveway and the house. He advocated that new construction be confined outside the 25 ft buffer zone which is a no-build zone. He asked why the 3x expansion is needed and why there needs to be a further patio and what are the landscape plans.
Further discussion followed with Chair Seidenberg and Atty Roelofs.
Patrick Garner, environmental scientist for the abutter, joined the discussion, agreeing with Atty Roelofs, and he spoke to the 100 ft buffer zone is a critical resource area. He said the 100 ft was a bare minimum when some amphibians need up to 800 ft for transit. He said most forcefully that the driveway should not be improved at all with any changes since this disturbs critical habitat areas. He argued that under the bylaw there can be no changes to the driveway. He especially didn’t like the pavement and said it is not the best method of controlling runoff. He does not like the trench that will hamper transit. He also addressed the problem of lighting. Lighting is very disruptive to breeding species. He would like the Commission to take that into account also.
Strohsahl came back on, after retrospection, to say the lighting is disruptive to the vernal pool species.
Commissioner Hubbard asked about the old septic system, Hannigan said there has not been any records found of the system.
Commissioner Lavallee asked what the evidence was for the exemption 215-5A for the house. Atty Nyland said there has been development on the property, and he thought the site visit delineated the areas.
Chair Seidenberg said the pictures only show the most recent additions of the driveway show disturbance.
He said that pictures do not present a very convincing picture of disturbance or development. He does not think the exemption 215-5A applies.
A discussion followed about the pictures. Commissioner Hubbard said recounted what he saw on the site visit. Chair Seidenberg said they need to come to a finding of fact on this.
Hannigan put the plan back up. More discussion followed. The Commission reviewed the area that applicant is asking to be exempt according to under bylaw’s section 215-5A. Chair Seidenberg asked for a vote. The vote was 2-1 that the exemption applies with Chair Seidenberg voting no.
Stone gave his opinion that the impervious pavement is better because of the sediment pollution.
Atty Roelofs asked if the vote could be valid since the majority of the entire board, not just a minority of 3 members, needs to be in consensus. Atty Nyland said that all members that can vote have voted.
Commissioner Hubbard said he does not want lighting in any area adjacent to the vernal pool.
Garner said there is not current disturbance along the driveway currently and so no disturbance should be allowed. In his opinion, pavement within 15 ft of a vernal pool is untenable. Commissioner Lavallee said if the vernal pool is well functioning then he is not in favor of messing with that area.
Chair Seidenberg said the Commission needs to come to a finding of fact on the driveway. He suggested that a fourth option should be considered for not changing the driveway. Strohsahl brought up that the vernal pool overflows occasionally, and the driveway should be moved. Chair Seidenberg said it would be better to be moved for the health of the vernal pool. Commissioner Hubbard agreed. Commissioner Lavallee has a problem of paving it. Hannigan reviewed the changes between pavement and gravel driveway and said the runoff can make a difference in large storm events. Stone said he is more comfortable with a paved driveway. Garner came back to restate his objection to moving the driveway. He said the premise of the bylaw is to minimize impacts and this is not what is being proposed. The restoration being proposed is not genuine since the area is in its natural state until they disturb it to move the driveway. Commissioner Lavallee noted that the site would not be improved from what it is today. Hannigan said the applicant was trying not to make it worse than it is currently and provide a balance on the construction. He showed the plans again to show that the applicant was trying to show net zero for newly disturbed areas and restoration of areas.
Chair Seidenberg expressed doubts about this plan being beneficial. He expressed doubts that the hearing could be closed. Commissioner Lavallee would like to hear any more improvements that could be offered as mentioned by Hannigan as further mitigation. More discussion followed about what could be done.
Prevention of future encroachment of lawn or other disturbance along the erosion line was discussed; split-rail fencing, blueberry bushes, etc. Chair Seidenberg asked for these things to be noted on the plan.
The Commission would like to see these items, including the plants, on the plan before voting. Also placards noting the critical environmental areas.
Atty Roelofs would like the Chair to research the vote had previously in the meeting and asked him to check with Town Counsel. Atty Roelofs maintained that the vote was not valid. He thinks the bylaw affects the entire house area and the finding did not pass.
Atty Nyland said there are two permits being issued; one under the bylaw and one under the wetlands act.
The hearing was continued until March 25.
Continued Notice of Intent – 121 Fire Road 11
Continued until March 11.
Continued Request for Determination of Applicability – Removal of dead trees within the Seven Bridge Road right-of-way
Continued until February 25.
Continued Notice of Intent – 0 Hill Top Road
Construction of roadway and utility infrastructure at 0 Hill Top Road
Frank McPartlan, engineer from Dillis & Roy, and James Whitney, the applicant, were available. McPartlan said all the comments have been satisfied with the exception of number 10 from Stone’s letter. Comment 10 concerned the Homeowner’s Agreement, asking for more information for maintenance of the stormwater system. Infrastructure maintenance is key to the approval of the project. The HOA has been delivered to the Commission on January 23 outlining the resolution of these concerns. Stone is not quite satisfied with the HOA and wants the Town Counsel to look at the Agreement.
Chair Seidenberg asked the Commissioners if they were comfortable with the HOA. The Commissioners want it to be a condition, and in force by the time the individual lots are starting to be built. Stone said not to tie it to the individual lots, he said the HOA is for the roadway. Chair Seidenberg clarified that they would not be voting on any individual lots if the HOA was not in force.
Adam Zand, 202 Hilltop Rd, asked about the legal action against the Planning Board. Chair Seidenberg said that this is a separate issue.
Commissioner Hubbard has concerns about developing inside buffer zones and isolated a wetlands.
Nick Dewhurst, Bohler Engineering, representing the applicant, commented on the wetlands, saying that the stormwater basins were perceived as acceptable as located.
A motion was made to close the hearing, and approved.
An order of conditions were be prepared to be voted on and a draft will be circulated for a voted for the next meeting. Chair Seidenberg is concerned that if further pipes are found during the building of the road, the Commission is notified. He asked if the Commissioners had other concerns. The answer was negative. McPartlan wanted to clarify that the notice needs to go to the Conservation Agent and the answer was yes. He also asked for a draft so the applicant could also comment. Chair Seidenberg said since the public hearing is closed, there will be no further input accepted.
Whitney asked whether the applicant has any input on the conditions. Chair Seidenberg said no. Whitney said he would hate to see any unnecessary conditions put on the development and then the same thing would happen with the Conservation Commission as with the Planning Board, i.e. a lawsuit. Chair Seidenberg said that the Commission decides on the conditions and the conditions will be necessary.
Continued Notice of Intent – Lot 3 Neck Road (a portion of Assessor’s Map 30, Parcel 128), Construction of a single-family home
A request was made to continue until the next meeting. The motion was made and approved.
Continued Notice of Intent – 2086 North Main Street
Construction of a sewage disposal facility
There is an updated plan with the siltation barrier and a DEP number. After some discussion whether this Notice was ready for approval, the Commission agreed to close the hearing and approve the Notice with an Order of Conditions.
Discussion
Request for Extension Permit – McGovern Blvd. ORAD – DEP #193-0554
Art Allan from EcoTec, recounted the history and requested an extension to Order of Resource Area Delineation (ORAD). Shannon Boyce, representing the applicant, said they have completed the roadway project with Planning Board approval and are dealing with Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency, finishing up some last inquiries.
Commissioner Lavallee asked when the ORAD was originally issued, Allan said January 2019. It has been extended twice automatically. Chair Seidenberg said the bylaw only allows for a one-year extension, but he disagrees with an extension since there have been changes and new features to the landscape. A wetland has been discovered since the original issuance. He said the automatic extensions from the state, made during the COVID pandemic, have muddied the situation. Six years is a very long time. Commissioner Lavalle agreed.
A motion was made to deny the extension and approved.
General discussion regarding updating the Wetlands Protection Bylaw
Tabled.
General discussion regarding the oversight of open space parcels
Tabled.
Minutes to Approve: 1/14/2025, 1/28/2025
Not available, tabled until next meeting.
Select Board 2/18
This meeting had no minutes for approval and Chair Steve Kerrigan was absent. Under the P.J. Keating hearing, a great deal of attention by Member Ralph Gifford was paid to the four monitoring wells and the possibility they may be pumping ground water from the surrounding area, which would reduce the water table and be detrimental to all wells and wetlands in the area.
Scheduled Appearances and Public Hearings
Continuance of Public Hearing of Special Permit to Remove Earth Products (Sand and Gravel) for P.J. Keating Company
Notice is hereby given that a Continuance of a Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 18 to consider the application of P.J. Keating Company, 998 Reservoir Road, Lunenburg, MA, for renewal of a Special Permit To Remove Earth Products (overburden, rock, gravel, loam) from a parcel of land located south of the Lunenburg town line, west of Lunenburg Road, north of a N.E. Power Co. right-of-way and east of the Leominster city line, containing by survey 73.3 acres in Lancaster, further identified on the Lancaster Assessors’ Maps as Map 1, Parcels 1 through 4 and Map 4, Parcels 1 through 6, and further delineated on Plan No. 18-D-3, sheets 1 to 4, dated January 19, 2005 and Plan No. 18-D-4, sheets 1 to 3, revised September 19, 2005, by S.J. Mullaney Engineering, Inc., 305 Whitney Street, Leominster, MA.
Michael Wright from RESPEC Engineering, LLC. came to the podium to request the special permit be approved.
Michael Trovato, from Tighe and Bond, came to the podium to say a response with comments had been drafted in response to the report.
Member Ralph Gifford asked about the water from the monitoring wells. Wright described the problems he had with getting the monitoring pumps down two of the wells. He tried to use baler, but he said the baler probably disturbed the water leading to higher levels of iron and manganese. He did not get the pump down any of the wells, but he may be able to use the pump on two of the wells. He also explained a great deal about the chemistry of the wells. Member Gifford asked more questions about the iron and manganese. Wright explained more information about the wells. He said if they had been able to pump, then these substances would have been lesser since the pump would clear out the disturbance of the pump going down. More discussion followed. Member Gifford asked about mitigating remedies for any issues with groundwater and private wells surrounding the site. Wright said the area is stable though two wells that Member Gifford mentioned were affected by the quarry going further out. He cited the wetlands adjacent that have not been affected and are thriving. Member Gifford suggested there were further updates and verification for the statistics.
Trovato said there are volume control questions to be answered, threshold levels may warrant further water management.
Rob Robinson, VP of Aggregates, P.J. Keating, came to the podium to ask for a conditional permit to continue work. Jeff Nutting, interim Town Administrator, suggested a written request via email for that extension. He noted that Town Counsel is working on new language for the permit.
Trovato said there are some issues with the pumps, but an extension is reasonable. The revised numbers and revised conditions for the permit will allow closure. He cited low confidence contained in the report and this is the first time they have seen groundwater being pumped. He had not seen the threshold for the water management act being exceeded previously, historically, and the current numbers do exceed that threshold.
Member Jason Allison postulated that Member Gifford should have written up his questions, submitted them beforehand to get answers and then published the results online. While Member Allison appreciated Member Gifford wanting to learn all he could about the site, but there had been 45 minutes of discussion around his questions.
Pumping groundwater is detrimental to the surrounding areas, including residential wells.
Anne Ogilvie, 4 Turner Lane, commented that the data presented was last year’s data. She requested independent experts to help with this. Alarmed at the groundwater pumping, she would like to understand where the water is coming from, and the effect on her well and her neighborhood’s wells. She is not willing to depend on P.J. Keating’s experts.
Wright said that it may be an error in the pumping numbers, and they may not be pumping groundwater.
Member Allison said Tighe and Bond are the independent experts.
Oglivie stated that the numbers are still from last year.
Wright talked about Excel spreadsheet errors. He had not wanted to present these numbers; he had wanted to wait.
Ogilvie talked about the infrequency of the reports and then the rush to get the permit approved. She would like new and better information and another experts pulled in.
Partially because Town Counsel had not completed new wording for the permit, the hearing was continued until March 3.
Public Hearing of Special Permit to Remove Earth Products (Sand and Gravel) for Fort Pond, LLC
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 18 to consider the application of Fort Pond, LLC, c/o W.J. Graves Construction Inc., 192 Depot Road, East Templeton, MA for renewal of a Special Permit to Remove Earth Products (overburden, rock, gravel, loam) from a parcel of land located 450 Fort Pond Road, Lancaster, MA., Map 5; Parcel No. 26B, Location approximately 800 feet East from the intersection with Fort Pond Inn Road.
Mikael Lassila from Tauper Land Survey, Inc. came to the podium to describe the operation and present the plans for renewal of the permit for the earth removal operation. Two hundred yards of material are remaining to remove. He cited a 10-ft barrier before groundwater is affected so the earth is available afterward for development.
Trovato came back to the podium to say there are no outstanding compliance issues. Some of the wells have been dry and so he did recommend deeper wells. He said the restoration has been sufficient. Member Allison wanted to vote for approval.
Member Gifford mentioned he had not seen the inspection reports and the Board is waiting on some language from Town Counsel for the permit, so an approval vote would be premature. He wanted to do a site visit. James Fletcher, the applicant, said he would be welcome. More discussion followed about the condition of the site.
Lassila said they are not digging deeper, so he is not sure of the value of deeper wells.
Trovato would like to know if there are areas where the operation would like to go deeper.
The hearing was continued until March 3.
Executive Session
The Board went into Executive Session to discuss the litigation with World Farmers and the Lancaster Community Center kitchen.
Community Preservation Committee 2/20
This meeting reviewed the projects being put before the Town at Town Meeting for approval of funding.
Minutes
The minutes from 1/09/2025 and 1/16/2025 were approved.
Public Comment
Chair Marilyn Largey is running for Housing authority and is collecting signatures.
Victoria Petracca – Affordable Housing Trust and CPA Housing budget
This was tabled.
Applications for Cemetery walls
Member Regina Brown reported there is a quote for less than expected for the one stonewall on Main Street. The one on Colony has not yet been quoted. These two walls are now tabled until the next Town Meeting after the May Annual Town Meeting.
Next steps for approved applications and Town Meeting warrants
Sunshades
Thayer Memorial Library Roof and masonry
The warrant articles are being drafted and will be emailed to Jeff Nutting, interim Town Administrator The report will be presented by a Committee Member. Tom Seidenberg volunteered for this.
Review submission for the Annual Town Report
Financial information will be included. A vote was held to approve the report and was passed.
Planning Board 2/24
This meeting outlined four bylaws that the Planning Board is looking to revise because of new state regulations and/or the need to update for outdated sections. The public hearings for all these bylaws will be March 24.
Public Hearings
357 Sterling Road
This is a continuance of a Public Hearing that was opened on January 8, 2024. The Applicant is requesting a continuance to the next meeting scheduled for March 10, 2025. This is an application for a Stormwater Permit and Site Plan approval to construct a proposed 6,780 square foot community center accessory attached to an existing place of religious assembly at this site. The Board will review the applicant’s latest responses to comments on the Site Plan by the Town’s engineering peer review consultant. This site is identified in the Town of Lancaster’s Assessors Office as Map 41 Parcel 11. Project documents can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/planning-board/pages/357- sterling-road
A petition by Southern New England Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, P.O. Box 1169, 34 Sawyer Street, South Lancaster MA 01561, for the following: Site Plan Review and Stormwater Management Permit relative to the addition of a 6,780 square foot gymnasium to an existing house of worship, and associated stormwater management features. The property is located at 357 Sterling Road, Lancaster, MA, in the Residential Zoning District, and is identified on the Assessor’s Map 41, Parcels 11 and 11a.
This hearing was continued until March 10.
71 -75 Main Street
Site Plan Review
A petition by Grant J. Isaacs, Trustee, 71- 75 Main Street, Lancaster, MA 01523, for the following: Site Plan Review (Lancaster Zoning By-Law §220-34) relative to the construction of a 1,976 square foot addition to existing building used for truck repair. The property consists of two adjacent parcels under common ownership and is located at 71-75 Main Street, Lancaster, MA, in the Neighborhood Business District and in the Residential District and is identified on the Assessor’s Map 41 Parcel 233.A and Map 41 Parcel 234. Project documents can be viewed here: https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/planningboard/pages/71-75-main-street-site-plan.
John Farnsworth, Farnsworth Engineering, and Attorney Bill O’Neill, and Grant Isaacs, applicant, came to the podium. Farnsworth presented the plan and explained what the Zoning Board of Appeals had required of the applicant. Isaacs has fulfilled the conditions of the ZBA.
Farnsworth asked for a waiver on the parking space sizes and usage due to the parking spaces had already been delineated. Discussion followed.
Chair Streeter asked about the containment of hydrocarbons. Grant replied with the method of containment and recycling.
The hearing was closed and waivers for parking spaces and landscaping were approved. The site plan was approved with the waivers.
Public Meetings
Zoning Bylaw Modifications and Amendments
Accessory Apartments Bylaw Amendment §220-9G:
The Board will discuss revisions to the current Accessory Apartments bylaw. The Affordable Homes Act governs how municipalities can regulate such residential housing units, known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) in their communities. Information on the state ADU law can be viewed here: Accessory Dwelling Units | Mass.gov. The current Town Bylaw regulating ADU’s can be viewed here: https://ecode360.com/11813706#11813706. See Section G Accessory Apartments
There is still no model bylaw from the State. There was discussion about what is happening in other Massachusetts communities, most specifically Fall River, regarding parking and public transportation. The Board reviewed the draft of the Bylaw. Chair Streeter is looking for a limit on the number of units. A single ADU is allowable by right under state law. The Board discussed property density. Chair Streeter wants more than one by special permit. Member Regina Brown brought up the implications of water and sewer resources.
There was discussion about resources and then a public hearing date was settled on for March 24.
Integrated Plan Overlay District (IPOD) Bylaw §220-8.7
The Board will discuss suggested revisions to the current bylaw. The intent of the IPOD to provide design flexibility and efficiency in the siting of development, services and infrastructure; conserve open space; preserve the rural, historic character of the Town; provide for a diversity of lot sizes, building densities and housing choices to accommodate a variety of age and income groups; and to allow the integration of land for residential, rural, recreational, community, retail, service, commercial and industrial uses. The text of the Bylaw can be viewed here: https://ecode360.com/14291823#14291823.
There were changes suggesting minimum lot size and density limits. Some rumors were discussed concerning Atlantic Union College. Also, there was discussion on the limits of zoning. Discussion also followed about parking and traffic requirements. Six-storey buildings are allowed so the limit on density of 15 units doesn’t make sense but the six stories would be too high for Lancaster’s landscape. The two parameters have to be refined and be brought into synch.
Chair Streeter is keen to keep the bylaw non-controversial so the changes can be approved at Town Meeting. He also wanted residents with good ideas to be able to comment before a public hearing and then let the Board fashion the ideas into the bylaw.
A public hearing is being scheduled March 24.
Ground Mount Solar Photovoltaic Installations §220-76
The Board will review a draft of an amended bylaw that was discussed at the Planning Board meeting of 2/10/2024. The purpose of this Bylaw is to facilitate the creation of new ground-mounted solar photovoltaic installations by providing standards for placement, design, construction, operation, monitoring, modification and removal of such installations that address public safety, minimize impacts on environmental, scenic, natural and historic resources, and provide adequate financial assurance for the eventual decommissioning of such installations. The text of the Bylaw can be viewed here: https://ecode360.com/31334671#31334671.
The Board needs to differentiate between commercial and residential; over 25KW is commercial. The setbacks and site plan review are acceptable. There was a continuance of the DIY solar array discussion, prompted by Member Brown. Chair Streeter said the regulation was for ground mount, not for mobile or other applications.
A public hearing will be scheduled for March 24.
Flood Plain Regulations
The Board will review a draft of an updated bylaw to ensure that local regulations meet the minimum standards under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and reference the new flood plain maps issued by FENMA. The current Floop Plain Regulations can be viewed here; https://ecode360.com/11813849#11813849. Guidance from the NFIP can be viewed here:
https://www.ci.lancaster.ma.us/sites/g/files/vyhlif16016/f/pages/2020_ma_model_ floodplain_bylaw_v2_003.pdf
There were new maps issued and the bylaw needs to be updated with the new flood plain maps. Chair Streeter asked for a marked up to show the informational changes.
Past floods were recounted by Member Brown.
A public hearing will be scheduled for March 24.
Correspondence
2038 Lunenburg Rd
Developer submitted the expected cash bond ensuring the final road completion. This cash bond is the basis for releasing the company from the covenant prohibiting the sale of the house lots.
The developer has met all the requirements, and the document will be prepared for the covenant to be dismissed.
Other
Member Brown wants to have rules governing the Chair discussed. Member Kendra Dickinson said she wanted people to know she was not behind the suggestion, but she does think it is necessary. Chair Streeter asked for the Town Administrator involved and thinks it is a good idea.
Conservation Commission 2/25
During this meeting, Brad Stone, Conservation Agent, announced his departure from the Town of Lancaster employment. The lot currently being proposed for Neck Rd was discussed with the plans showing encroachment into buffer zones.
The Order of Conditions was approved for 0 Hilltop.
Public Hearings
Continued Notice of Intent – 10 Fire Road 54
Continued until March 25, 2025
Continued Notice of Intent – 121 Fire Road 11
Continued until March 11, 2025
Continued Request for Determination of Applicability – Removal of dead trees within the Seven Bridge Road right-of-way
There was a request to continue to the next meeting. A motion was made and approved.
Continued Notice of Intent – Lot 3 Neck Road (a portion of Assessor’s Map 30, Parcel 128), Construction of a single-family home
Tabled until a representative was present.
Wesley Flis from McCarty Engineering joined, updated the plan for a 3-acre lot. The water resources will be town water and sewer by moving the forced mains to accommodate. The plan showed 25-ft n0-touch buffer and the 100-ft wetlands buffer. The plans also showed a dry well will be installed to capture the runoff from the roof and put it back into the groundwater.
Brad Stone, Conservation Agent, asked for a peer review. Commissioner Jim Lavallee asked about the dry well, whether it could handle the entire runoff from the roof. The dry well is sized for 1 inch of rain, Flis thought, but needed to check.
Answering a question from Commissioner Carl Fawcett, Flis answered that the house is right against the offsets needed.
Commissioner Dennis Hubbard asked that the boulder boundary proposed be move to outside the 25-ft n0-touch zone. He asked about the landscaping. Flis said the limit of disturbance is the limit of the erosion control barrier. Commissioner Hubbard asked about the lawn around the house. He would like to see the erosion controls extended. He asked if the stone boundary could wrap the house. Flis said they could extend. Commissioner Hubbard also asked about irrigation for the lawn, Flis said he will ask. Commissioner Hubbard also asked if the dry well would handle the driveway runoff. Flis said no, just the roof. Commissioner Lavallee said boulders would be preferable. Flis was amenable.
Chair Seidenberg is uncomfortable with accepting an encroachment into the buffer zone for new construction. He understands the land has been mowed, a meadow maintained, so the wildlife is not in residence, but he doesn’t think this has to be done this way. It doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t know if this is a warranted denial. The lot, Lot 3, is almost entirely a buffer zone or resource area. He asked the Peer Review to include what wildlife may use the meadow. Commissioner Hubbard agreed.
Stone suggested the applicant look at the wildlife as well as the Peer Review. He also said maintained meadows do provide habitat for wildlife.
Joe D’Eramo, 125 Harvard Rd commented that he regularly walks along this site. He said the stream is called intermittent but there have been years that the stream runs all year round. Only in drought conditions does the stream dry up and he thinks the stream is perennial.
Chair Seidenberg said if the stream is perennial, it does have different standards. He has observed the stream not flowing at the time. Stone commented that one side of the culvert the stream may actually be perennial. Flis said the USGS map shows an intermittent stream. Chair Seidenberg asked about the watershed area. Flis said they hadn’t looked at this. Stone said the information will be revisited.
A motion was made, and a vote was approved for a Peer Review. Flis asked to be consulted on who is doing the Peer Review.
A continuance was requested by Flis until March 25 and approved.
Discussion
Discuss issuing Order of Conditions for 0 Hill Top Road – DEP File No. 193-0630
The Commission reviewed the draft of Order of Conditions. Commissioner David Mallette needed to abstain since he missed two discussions. There was a motion was made the Order of Conditions and approved.
General discussion regarding updating the Wetlands Protection Bylaw
Chair Seidenberg has done research of other municipalities’ buffer performance standards. He hasn’t had a chance to distill his findings, but they do have performance standards for buffer zones. Some have use tables.
He will continue to work on this.
Commissioner Hubbard has been looking at the exemptions and the exceptions. He thinks the ones included in the bylaw are expansive. He would like this section tightened. Chair Seidenberg agreed, but he warned about opening up the bylaw to be modified at Town Meeting. He doesn’t think any more restrictive modifications of the bylaw will pass. He thought putting in better definitions will help the bylaw and not have to go to the Town Meeting.
Commissioner Lavallee does not like the exemption in 215-5. He said at some point the exemption would not make sense in future.
General discussion regarding the oversight of open space parcels
No significant updates yet.
Farmland of Local Importance discussion
Stone shared some information by a federal contact, who is now no longer in his position, that show the town is mapped as prime farmland soils.
Chair Seidenberg said the Commission could add missing properties to the map to help residents in the future if this designation is needed. He noticed his abutter is not noted on the map but about 90% of the town is designated. Stone showed the map and almost the whole town is covered.
The Commission should coordinate with the Agriculture Commission since the federal contact is no longer available.
Minutes
The minutes of 1/14/2025 and 1/28/2025 were approved.
Resignation
Brad Stone has given his resignation to the Town. His last day was March 7.
Finance Committee 2/27
This meeting included a detailed review of the budget with a focus on key changes and recommendations.
Emphasis was placed on the need for a full-time fire chief and the use of free cash to balance the budget.
The committee discussed the importance of understanding the tax impact on residents and the need for further meetings to finalize budget details.
Discussion of FY26 Budget-Capital
Jeff Nutting, interim Town Administrator, gave an opening statement:
He said he and the town Finance Director Cheryl Gariepy have spent 7 weeks reviewing the budgets and he stated that some positions are being eliminated. These positions are either already vacant or will be vacant.
He also said a full time Fire Chief is needed.
Member Roy Rezac asked if the Select Board is in favor of the full-time Fire Chief. Nutting said the Select Board is seeing the budget for the first time. Nutting cited several factors in support of a full-time chief:
The young staff needs a mentor.
Next in line under Commissioner Moody is a lieutenant who is in the union, so he could not handle union negotiations.
The department is mixed between full time and volunteer, making it a complicated department to run.
He noted that as of the meeting date, the budget was $92k short of balancing. This shortfall can be covered by free cash.
Budget Presentation
The budget spreadsheet was displayed.
There were lower numbers for some items. The positions of Assistant to the Town Administrator and the Assistant to the Assistant have been eliminated. Some discussion later surrounded the position of the Assistant to the Assistant, who had been a new hire, and now that person is looking for a new job.
Nutting explained that there is a consultant available for Human Resources and this is not needed as a full-time position. The workforce is small enough that a consultant will work. The budget for this item was $10K.
Nutting also noted it is a tough job market to get candidates for the Treasurer/Collector.
Other individual items were reviewed.
The Town General Counsel was reduced from over $200K to ~$18oK.
The Conservation Agent position will be open as of March 7 and will be now part-time, 25-30 hours per week.
The conjoining of the Department of Public Works and the Cemetery Department was discussed.
Nutting spoke to the Scott MacDonald, DPW Superintendent, about hiring a truck instead of buying a $750K vehicle.
The school budget was discussed.
Group Health Insurance and pensions are up.
The capital budget will be ready in about 10 days.
Nutting noted that the capital plan was never voted on and approved at last Town Annual Meeting.
This will have to rectified at this upcoming Town Meeting.