Conservation Commission Meeting
April 21, 2005
Attendees: Carl Shreder, Harry LaCortiglia, John Bell, Michael Birmingham, Steven Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
MINUTES
MOTION to table approval of April 7 minutes to next meeting - Harry / John / Unam
ROCK POND DOCK
Rep - John Kane, 18 Lakeridge, dock builder
John Kane - has had dock rights on P Muscavitz’s property for some time. Lost the original dock (flotation with ramp from land) in last 2 years. Muscavitz said they could put in a new one. Staged it in the winter. Drilled through the ice, poles sitting on bottom, framed to attach to shore as was before.
Carl S – If the dock is a permanent structure it is regulated by GCC.
John Kane – The poles are sitting on the bottom, there is no cement. He was going to put it on wheels for removal in winter. There is nothing permanent about it.
Carl S – Is it your intent to remove the dock at the winter?
John Kane - Yes. Had no intention of leaving it in. Used trees to hang a pulley to remove it. There are no feet on the bottom – it’s sitting on solid rock & not sinking in. The wood is pressurized, bought at Home Depot about a month ago
John Bell – There are only a couple of newer docks on the pond. Some floating docks are left in all year.
John Kane - Can lever it right out if required. Had no intention of breaking rules – but didn’t know what the rules were and that he needed to apply for a permit. The posts are galvanized metal.
Harry L – Can / should he apply for a Chapter 91 permit?
John Kane - Just replacing the old dock. Didn’t know he needed a permit.
Carl S - That’s for a permanent dock. GCC needs confirmation that this is not a permanent structure. The applicant should write a letter to the GCC confirming that fact..
MOTION to lift the second EO issued by the full Commission on March 24, 2005 –
Harry / John / Unam
PARKER RIVER LANDING
Reps: Mark Mastrianni, Pulte Homes; Jay Billings, NE GeoScience
Mark – Took GCC concerns back and reviewed the data & additional issues. Still confident that they have addressed concerns & the irrigation won’t affect the wetland. They hope to work in Georgetown again. Want to come to agreement tonight. There will not be a second well. They need one well and will do whatever they can to get approval for one well.
Jay – Introduced geologic information on the area and a letter with additional information from the last meeting to provide more detailed analysis of the data.
Bedrock, outwash deposits, sand & gravel deposits - most precipitation probably infiltrates the sand & gravel layer. Their plan has an infiltration component included. There should be no difference in the natural flow due to irrigation. Also estimated the groundwater flow direction - to the NW towards the wetland areas & the Parker River. They don’t have specific data to support that but is working with his experience of this area. Groundwater flow contributes to the river all along its length - to the NW. The stated groundwater velocities are from the DEP – the MA contingency plan defines distance of plume travel over a year.
Carl S – That also depends on the constituents of the plume - oil, chemicals, dissolves, etc.
Jay – We’re only talking about water as there are no contaminants. 200’ per yr. This is tight, low permeability soil. Permeability rate & gradient go into the calculation – it comes to the same as the DEP calculations. This is point of reference information. The bedrock aquifer is truly a separate unit from the wetland – there is a transfer of water only through fractures in the bedrock. The sand & gravel overlying it is much more porous.
Harry L - Has the detention basins been constructed yet? What layers did they encounter when digging those?
Jay – The site guy said they were dealing with sand & gravel. The original gravel pit did a thorough job of removing all the gravel. It had been mined down to 10’ setback from the water or down to materials they didn’t want. There are 2 water bearing zones at the fractured rock level.
Carl S - How big is the aquifer they are pulling water from? What else does it affect?
Jay – It goes to a depth at which fractures can’t exist anymore –that’s difficult to answer. Can’t say how deep it is. The area of fractured rock aquifer includes all of New England. Recharging is from exposed bedrock with fractures and water pouring in, or the sand & gravel deposit with fractures occurring underneath. It all comes from precipitation. The deeper you go the older the water is. There is no radon. High calcium, sodium, chloride ...
Steven P – It’s a deep aquifer, so not necessarily very renewable. The DEP recommends a 3 month peak season, they have shown 4 month peak. Other resources say that is high.
Carl S – It’s almost 1.5 gall / sq foot per week.
Jay – Referring to a DEP doc to get range - 1.4” is the max for a golf course.
Carl S - 100k gals per day = permit. It is desirable to do infrequent, deep watering.
Jay – They are working with irrigation contractors to have sensors. Part of their plan for water deficit in drier times. The numbers are high but are for worst-case scenario. There are some oddities in the data. Why was there a decline during test & recovery after initial tests? 50 minutes prior to the end of the test the water started coming back - why? Did it rain during test or anything else strange? One hour before the end of the test the temperature rose dramatically – from 35 F to 53 F in one hour. The warming event & precipitation event are related – there was more melting & rain. The timing of the precipitation didn’t explain the change but the warming does.
The period before the test shows a steady decline in the level, the temperature change happens & then get a rebound in levels corresponding to the precipitation event. It happens at both well points - WP1 & WP2. But WP2 didn’t decline before the test.
WP1 raw data – The feet of water above the transducer (not hand measurements) shows a steady level drop & then a precipitous drop & steady recovery. It doesn’t look like a drawdown & recovery curve – there is no explanation but he doesn’t think is related to the pump test.
WP2 data set - 7 pts that plot low (2’ low) but again there is no explanation – is it electronics? It occurs before, during & after the test – the 21 day data set has them as well. It must be data logger glitches. (They were rentals.)
Estimated irrigation water use -
Minimum .4” per week = withdrawal of 7,307 gallons per day.
Maximum 1” per week = 18,206 / day.
It will be somewhere between 7,307 - 25,000 (1.4”) per day depending on the weather.
Carl S – You can work with us on this by choosing plantings appropriately.
Jay – Looked into fescue as a turf grass. It is good for water use but not good for high-traffic. The grass planting process also determines how well it will grow. Weather & how well is planted will determine how much water is needed. There will be a 7.5 hp submersible pump in the well. The cost will be borne by the residents so they may decide not to run it.
They looked at the whole site as a single project to determine whether this site represents a single water withdrawal. According to mass balance calculations wastewater is 60% of Title 5 flows. This irrigation system will be 90% efficient - 10% will be lost.
Mass balance timeframe = 1 yr. Given the distance from the source & wetland it may take up to 3 years for water to enter the wetland. It’s a slow moving system with only 4 months of irrigation but year-round wastewater.
1.6 m gals of town water are coming in. 1.5m gals are lost thru evapo-transpiration due to irrigation. Some of the irrigation water will make it back to the aquifer. So this system is a net importer of water into the area.
The proposed irrigation withdrawal can be done with one well. There was no impact on the wetland during the pump test. They conclude that it doesn’t represent a threat to the wetland resource areas.
Harry L - Still concerned about the 6 hr delay. Is it a blip or a sign? A high volume, longer test would be more representative of how they will actually use the irrigation system.
Jay – They pumped 20,000 gals of water. If they do a 6 day test will get 6 results of the same.
Harry L - Will we see 6 unexplainable blips?
Jay – The blip is only 1 hr long. It doesn’t look like a drawdown & recovery curve. It is some sort of other anomaly. The well points (Fig 4) are rotated 40’ apart in the same wetland. How did they get a 40’ drop at one point & not 40’ away?
Harry L – There could be a clay layer between the 2.
Jay – They are bringing town water into the site. If run another test could do it with a pumper truck into the septic area to mimic the actual operation of system.
Harry L – The mass balance has to reach the well before the wetland.
Jay - If they are not connected it will raise the level of the wetland. If they are connected there will be balance. Title 5 water is coming into the site.
Carl S – The main question is - Is this a significant change?
Harry L – Is this a change under the Planning Board as well?
Mark - They told us to use irrigation rather than town water but it’s not actually on their plan. This well is 400’ away from wetland.
Michael B – There is nothing in the OoC about irrigation except that they can’t use town water.
Carl S – Is this a significant change?
Mark – This irrigation wouldn’t usually be part of a ConComm concern as they are so far from the buffer zone.
John B – We are concerned about potential scarcity of water - how’s it getting recharged? Can they be more conservative with pump times?
Carl S – Can you work with us on quantity & irrigation timeframes?
John B – These are numbers for worst-case.
Jay – That is not what they intent to do but was stated as information as well as best-case numbers.
Harry L – It seems significant. If we allow this we have no level of tracking as we’re saying there is no change to the OoC. This is adding a level of complexity that was not envisioned in the OoC. It is significant. They would need to file an amendment.
Jay - If this were were not jurisdictional it wouldn’t be before the ConComm. It’s happening everywhere. So it’s not significant within the WPA as it’s way outside the buffer zone for local & state.
Harry L – The blip says it does have an impact on the river so it is within our jurisdiction.
Mark - What should we do for water? The houses are built, plantings are in and we need water.
Michael B - What if the wetland disappears in 10 yrs - we need documentation of how this was worked out.
Jay – The water is being disposed of in the same place. Town water in, irrigation out = balance.
MOTION to consider this a significant change to the OoC - Harry / Mike /
Carl S - Can we offer them a temp solution? Can we allow them temporary use of water until the next discussion? How would we do that? Can we get more data that way?
Mark - Could do that. We could put the well in, run it & get more data on the way.
Carl S – That provides data & a solution to their need for water.
MOTION withdrawn - Harry
Jay – They received no comments in response to their information submitted in advance. The want comments on testing back from the Commission before the next hearing.
104 THURLOW
Reps: Phillip & Virginia Murphy, Owners
Mr. Murphy – Residents of Georgetown for 15 yrs, 3 acre property. Their backyard abuts Conservation Land. The wetland is eating away their backyard. They want permission to build up & level off to protect their back yard and permission to build up the area to the side of the garage. Want a site walk to help them preserve their back yard as much as possible.
Carl S – They will have to file with the GCC if they are working near the wetland. Any alteration has to go thru process.
Mr. Murphy – Don’t want to alter, just preserve what is left of the yard. Where does the wetland start & end? The trees are dead, is this a fire hazard? Kids have been setting fires back there. Just want to clean it up & the preserve trees. Build a retaining wall?
Michael B - How long has the wetland been encroaching?
Mr. Murphy – Over the last few years.
Steven P – There is about 15’ of lawn to a very steep bank down to standing water. Large oaks have fallen into the wetland, saplings were cut. A retaining wall would be 4-5’ away from the wetland. There isn’t even enough room for silt fence.
Mrs. Murphy – This area is hazardous for children.
Harry L – This would normally be covered with an NOI, but a local RDA would probably be more appropriate in this situation. (Come to a negative determination with conditions?)
Carl S – This sounds like it needs an engineered solution.
Mr. Murphy – The property angles out to the side. If build the wall out to the side of the house it would protect that side. Also need permission to cut trees and prevent dangers from fire.
Action: Owner will file an RDA.
NPDESII REGS
Harry L - Alan MacT from MVPC presented an annual report to the selectmen. It has not been accepted by them yet so GCC has not seen it. Alan MacT wants to get together with Jack Moultrie & Steve to see what the plan is for next year.
Carl S - Isn’t this for this year?
Harry L – No, it’s a generic timetable, just an example of what might be. We have to have an action plan but getting to that point is up to individual towns.
Carl S – Jack M wants us to do something this year.
Harry L – Alan MacT’s report was on what was done last year – an End of Year report. From now we will on co-ordinate with MVPC & Jack M & us to figure out we what want to do and what’s achievable. We have made significant improvements from last year and will improve the outreach efforts in the coming year.
Carl S - Steve should attend those meetings.
Harry L - Jerrard Whitten (MVPC) was working to develop a map of all outflow pipes of stormwater & catchbasins We got a base map from them.
John B – They only went around the ponds in last few years. Are they draining into the ponds?.
Carl S – This is a work in progress, it will always need working on.
Harry L – We could make the map as we do the stenciling of catchbasins using GPS.
HEARINGS
541 North St
NOI to conduct soil testing within buffer zone of BVW
GCC-2004-049; DEP 161-0612
MOTION to continue to 8:00 on June 2, 2005 - Harry / John / Unam
Pentucket Pond
NOI to apply treatment for invasive species in Pentucket Pond
GCC-2004-001; DEP161-0583; NHESP 04-14660
Reps: Bill Dudley, Pentucket Pond Advisory Committee
Bill D - Talked to Dan Nein (NHESP) he says he will not have information or an OoC in time for treatment this year. Marc Bellaud (ACT) thought he would, but Dan Nein said it would be 3-4 weeks before they can make a decision. That puts us beyond June 1.
Carl S - Talked to Dan Nein. He is hopeful this can come to a resolution in the next couple of weeks. We can wait a little longer. This case has generated tremendous discussion at NHESP Headquarters in Westboro. It may be ready for this year.
Bill D - ACT would prefer June 1, but treatment could possibly be later but there is so much fanwort.
Carl S - Maybe we would go after the worst areas first. They are looking at it very seriously but don’t want to jump the gun. Everyone must understand the time deadlines.
Bill D – The OoC is to protect the shiner – the cost has now doubled from the initial price.
Carl S - If we leave the fanwort it’s bad for the shiner, but Sonar might damage the plants the shiner need. NHESP have had bad experiences with Sonar - dose rate problems lead to loss of all vegetation as well as the species they were trying to protect.
Steven P – We can’t rush this as long as there are dosage & half life questions. We want their feedback before going ahead.
Bill D - Sonar is the least noxious.
Steven P – I’m just being cautious. We have no better ideas, but do need to be careful before applying the Soanr.
Bill D - ACT wanted to use it as it is the least invasive of all ways to treat for the fanwort. It is the best of the worst ways to treat for it.
Carl S – We really don’t want to do things that cause loss of endangered species. They understand our viewpoint but are trying to make sure nothing bad happens.
Bill D – NHESP may want a survey of species in pond.
Carl S – This case is moving along in Westboro & they need more time. We must hang on & not try to force decision out of them.
MOTION to continue to May 19, 8:15 - Harry / John / Unam
Skate Park
NOI to construct a Skateboard Park at American Legion Park, within Buffer Zone of BVW
GCC-2005-07
Reps: Elizabeth Waite, Jim DiMento - Park & Rec; Hancock Engineering
Hearing is opened.
MOTION to waive local filing fee - Harry / John / Unam
Hancock – This project is to reconstruct the existing two tennis courts into 1 court & a skate park.
The plan is to square off the existing pavement to create one complete area for both purposes. The courts are currently in bad repair & very cracked, the fence may fall. They will relocate the path, reseed the disturbed area, remove the fence & replace it. There will be a path at the back of the lot so skaters can access the park without crossing the courts. Silt sock siltation control will be used.
Water collects under the courts - freezing & thawing has probably contributed to the cracking. They are adding drainage to keep that away.
Carl S - How much additional impervious surface will there be?
Hancock - 700-800 sq’ (about 3-4 parking spaces worth). Hancock did the wetland delineation.
MOTION to conduct a site walk May 14, 9:30 am - Harry / John / Unam
Hancock – The old pavement will have to be removed. The project can’t be moved farther from wetland as it would create significant difficulty & disturbance. They will dig test pits to see why the pavement is failing - then propose to do whatever needs to be done.
Nancy Condon, Abutter, 2 Milton Way - Lives right in front of courts – the tennis courts are used daily but suddenly they are not safe for tennis. She is totally against the skate parks - police patrolling, crowd control, bathroom facilities, and use by non-Georgetown people.
Douglas Cannon, Abutter, Pond St - Drainage would be going towards Pentucket Pond on the 100-yr floodplain. The current drainage fills up to 8-12‘ deep in spring. Something needs to be done if that will be blocked. Ownership of the plot is also in question.
Carl S – It is a public project so anyone who wants to come on the site walk can.
Norma Johnson, Abutter, Pentucket Ave - At the site walk make sure to look at the condition of the roads going to the park. They are in terrible condition.
Doug Cannon - How will emergency vehicles access the site?
Hancock – Double-wide gates would allow vehicular access & other gates for pedestrian.
Steve Bejakian, Abutter, Pentucket Ave - When AB was agent the ConComm squawked about silt in the pond. Park & Rec had to build a chamber to collect it (3 chambers). Park & Rec were supposed to submit plan as to when it would be pumped out but they never heard or saw anyone pumping it. It failed in the first rainstorm. These projects start off great then nothing happens to maintain them. Is the chamber going to be pumped? This happened 4-5-6 yrs ago. So then had to put in a grease trap to catch the auto runoff - but nothing was done. One of the manhole covers disintegrated.
Barbara Bejakian, Abutter, Pentucket Ave - If that isn’t a public road why does all the traffic come down there?
Jim DiMento – There is contentious dispute over ownership of the road.
Mike B - What’s the purpose of paving the extra corners?
Hancock – This is the most efficient way to create room for the skateboard area.
MOTION to continue to June 2, 8:30 - Harry / Mike / Unam
| 
