GCC MEETING MINUTES
February 24, 2005
Attendees: Carl Shreder, Harry LaCortiglia, Michael Birmingham, Tom Howland, John Bell, Paul Nelson, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MOTION to pay Oxbow bill #1930 - Harry / John / Unam
CAMP DENISON
Reps: Bob Morehouse, Stacey Fix (Workshop in the Woods)
Stacey Fix presented a description of the Workshop in the Woods camp experience.
WIW is a strong program with strong rapport with the community. What’s important to GCC and Camp Denison should be presented to the kids as well. The program is site specific to Camp Denison – can’t be used for another site. Staff child ratio = 1:3 and Camp Nurse.
The highest proportion of children come from Georgetown, next highest is from Newburyport (via the Learning Enrichment Center). Newburyport buses cut down on traffic on the camp road.
WIW Specialists are largely teachers and are CORI verified through the schools.
Financial assistance is publicized on the application form, the WIW website, and through Superintendent offices. The schools approach and talk to families they think would appreciate the WIW experience. There is no application for assistance, just an informal interview which is cross-checked with teachers & the school. Last year Stacey gave out $11,000 in scholarships from her own funds.
If there were a representative in Georgetown schools who could refer children to Stacey for financial assistance it would help her identify more children from the community. HL will send that name to Stacey.
GCC will:
Help Stacey contact Mark Gregorovicz re. Endangered Turtle sessions at camp (Harry)
See if we can lend the GCC GPS to Stacey.
Get GIS maps of Camp Denison to Stacey for end of session mapping projects.
Refer potential nature leaders to Stacey (if known).
MOTION to accept & sign revised contract - Harry / John / Unam.
Action: Harry
62 CENTRAL STREET - GEORGETOWN SHOPPING CENTER
2002-GCC-032
Request for Certificate of Compliance
Compare the list of as-built differences with the original OOC before issuing a COC (Paul).
GCC asked for markers on catchbasins showing the flow. Where are these?
Perhaps engage an engineer to check it out.
Action: Paul
HEARINGS
PENTUCKET POND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOI 2004-GCC-001
Bill Dudley (chair of committee) emailed HL re fanwort treatment. NHESP specified what they wanted done – a study of the pond, locations of invasive species & a plan to protect the bridle shriner. The study & plan were done by ACT but NHESP says the treatment will adversely affect the bridle shriner. NHESP wants more data re. what the impact would be to the bridle shriner. We don’t have that data yet – expensive to come up with.
The N section of the pond is shallow with 2 floating islands cutting across the middle. ACT recommended a whole pond treatment. There is no evidence where the bridle shriner are & where they might shelter during the treatment. The latest email from the NHESP mentions their concerns for small bur weed as well.
Sonar affects the plants’ chlorophyll production so it could affect everything. If fanwort is hardier/stronger it could need more Sonar & that could adversely affect other things. There isn’t much of anything eating the fanwort. ACT doesn’t recommend stocking the pond with anything that might.
NHESP & Bill Dudley are meeting this week to iron out these questions. Spot treatment has not been entirely successful in past (though not followed up in those attempts). It is possible that phosphates may have been a factor in promoting bloom of that vegetation.
We are waiting to see what NHESP says.
Is Fanwort affecting other plant species? It might be protecting the bridle shriner at present but is also competing with other vegetation.
It may be possible to use barriers. In other communities where the whole pond was treated “bad” things happened & NHESP don’t want to repeat that.
Bill Dudley arrived.
New contact at NHESP is raising these new objections. ACT is trying to get together with NHESP but can’t contact him.
Other ponds have had overall treatment. The herbicide affects everything but is applied at low doses that fanwort is susceptible to. The lilies seem less susceptible. Native species should return within a year.
NHESP says they want more data because there were some “failures” in overall treatments in the past. Where is evidence of those? Can we ask them for information about those failures? ACT tried a spot treatment in the past but Sonar is so soluble it disperses everywhere anyway.
Bill Dudley talked to the ConCom in Belchertown – they were happy with their riverside treatment.
Sonar can’t be applied later in the season as it needs 60-90 days for early die-off. The bridle shriner might not have a lot of cover that late in the season anyway so what is the actual worry?
The marsh is divided from the pond by floating islands. If Sonar is applied in the plant area it “shouldn’t” flow into the marshy area beyond the islands – but there isn’t a lot of experience with this situation so the outcome can’t be predicted.
The Sonar plan seems to be the most economically feasible & generally viable.
Fanwort is believed to have been introduced at boat ramp. Hand pulling does not work as it only causes the plant to be spread farther. The pond was treated in 1999 but it wasn’t followed up & now the fanwort is a problem again.
Bill Dudley will let GCC know what his recommendations are. We must keep a record of the conversation trail in writing. It would be good to have documentation of conversations with the prior NHESP contact. Bill will get some documentation from ACT re. prior NHESP contact.
We must find out what solution would make them happy. Even a partial treatment might prevent another 100% growth in the coming year. Though have to use expensive barriers for a partial treatment it might not be as expensive as doing nothing for another year. This is an ongoing maintenance problem. We must get it under control, perhaps using spot treatments for isolated patches.
MOTION to continue to March 24, 8:00 - Harry / Paul / Unam
Bill Dudley left the meeting.
9 CHAPLIN HILLS
2004-GCC-033
Reps: Jay Jones, Developer; John Decoulos, Engineer
Revised plan dated 2/22/05
Jay Jones - Construction has started, 60% has been framed, the rough plumbing is in. The original OOC expired. AB told him to go ahead with the old OOC.
GCC – The hearing was never closed so there shouldn’t have been an OOC. Work is being carried out without an OOC.
Jay Jones – He waited a year & AB said he would get a new OOC but after a year still nothing had happened. At that point AB told him to go with old OOC. AB signed the building permit.
GCC – The building permit is completely separate from the WPA. The distance from wetland flag 24B to the paved drive is approx 23’and 38’ to the house.
The applicant must submit revised plans, including:
All monuments should be 35’ apart.
Monuments across back line as well.
Floodplain (FEMA)
Limit of work must be at least 25’ from assumed 24B
Minimization of driveway apron as much as possible
GCC must establish a documentation trail until it is decided how to issue this OOC.
MOTION to deny the NOI – Harry /
MOTION for an EO authorizing interior building to continue without exterior site work - Tom / Harry / Unam
MOTION to continue the hearing to March 24, 8:15 pm – Harry / Tom / Unam
MOTION to adjourn John / Tom / Unam
| 
