GCC MEETING MINUTES
July 14, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, John Bell, Tom Howland, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, Steven Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
29 BAILEY LANE
Reps: Mark Unger, Pam Unger, Owners
Steven Przyjemski, GCC Agent – The GCC office received a call about filling & soil disturbance near the wetland at 29 Bailey. (Shows Pictometry image of the property) There had been an illegal cut made in the road. Georgetown Highway Dept got them to close it down. The area has been clear cut & tracts of the wetland filled in. The owner is in the process of creating a farm. There was a farm here in the past but if it hasn’t been operational in the last 5 years they are not eligible for agricultural exceptions. The road is within 5’ of the wetland, there is brush piled within 5-10’ of the wetland. It can’t legally be called a farm yet – I got information from state farming agency & wetland resources. If the farm has been out of
production for more than 5 years it is considered new land & is not exempt from wetlands laws. Paul and I have been out to the site and feel that the applicant should file a NOI, so that we can oversee activities through an OOC. Paul and I have been working with Mr. Unger to minimize impact to the wetland.
Paul N – The disturbance in this area was very great. The work here needs to be permitted.
Mike B – Is this a Natural Heritage (NHESP) area?
Steven – It is well within a Natural Heritage polygon. (Shows map)
Mike B – Natural Heritage has to be involved. And there should be a wetlands filing for the work being done.
Steven P – The site is extremely close to the river & very sensitive.
Mark Unger, Pam Unger, Katie Unger, Owners – In spirit of Open Meeting Law should state that I am the Wiring Inspector for the Town of Georgetown. The property I own extends back 1500’ from river. Half is wetland. It was bought from people who farmed it. They just had hay & cows. We have owned it for 2 years. I am a good steward of the wetland – have removed trash from the wetland including pulling tires from the swamp. I’ve done a lot to clean it up. I know it’s in the Water Resource area. I sold my first produce to Nunan’s last year & more this year. Decided to farm organically as are so near to the wetland. The back part of the land is very steep incline - the delineation between upland & wetland. I thought I was following the old road, I mowed the brush straight out. Mr Hann, the old owner, showed me where road went before. I stopped using road he made. The vegetation will return on its own. Went on the site walk with Paul & Steve, had cut an old rotted tree
from the road but mainly brush.
Steven P – We need documentation to oversee this work as it the majority of new work will be done in 3 years.
Carl S – We should utilize the NOI process so we know what to do when working with the owner on it so there will be no wetland issues.
Mike B – We also need to document the changes for the DEP.
Mark Unger – I needs information on how the NOI process works.
Steven P – We need a site plan with the wetland marked on it.
Mark Unger – The property was flagged by the end of the street but he didn’t pay to flag the back part.
Carl S – Anytime you are working within 100’ of a wetland resource it is in our jurisdiction.
Steven P – I can go out and measure the wetland buffer for him.
Carl S – You need to work with the office to file a NOI. Refrain from working in the wetland areas until we figure out what we want to do.
Mark Unger – All the areas I’m working in are outside the buffer zone except for the road and I’ve now left that alone. That area there will be to 25’ once I am recognized as a farm. Will work with Steve.
Carl S – Want to capture information about this project and create a documentation trail.
Mark Unger – We don’t have to be too strict about this do we.
Steven P – The road is 5’ away from the wetland. New farmland is not exempt from wetlands laws. You need to understand what that all means.
Paul N – The things he is doing are fairly broad. The fill will go 100’ away from the wetland. These are steep slopes, if they aren’t stabilized properly the runoff will go into the wetland. The barn is also being taken down within 25’ of the wetland.
Mark Unger – Yes, but the wetland was farther away when we moved in. Five years ago the Parker River management study said the wetland was receding as the town was taking so much water from the aquifer. But now the swamp has risen by 2’ due to beavers and the un-maintained culvert at Bailey Lane, amongst other things. But things could change naturally in time. I have a building permit to rebuild the barn – within 20’. It is being cleared up. Putting a structure that close isn’t a good idea so will work with Steve.
Paul N – We need to define what you are doing and where you’re doping it for the OoC conditions to prevent runoff washing into the wetland.
Mark Unger – This was an old gravel pit 4 years ago. It was leveled off so got more area to farm.
Paul N – All those fillings, etc can be defined with the OoC.
Carl S – Please work with the office & file.
Steven P – You need to make it as detailed as possible.
Paul N – The OoC can refer to other documents.
Mark Unger – Things change when working on a farm.
Steven P – We need to know the bigger picture.
11 SILVER MINE LANE
Steven P – The property is up on a hill with a barn & paddock. The owners have clear cut the wetland, burnt brush, and filled the wetland area with mulch. They were halfway through the job when I originally went out for a site visit (in response to a neighbor’s complaint). I wrote a handwritten note to stop work. I went back 3 days later with a real stop work order & found they had continued working and had finished the job.
Paul N – The fill is so deep and wet it would break a horse’s legs if you tried to exercise them in it.
Steven P – They put down stone dust on top of landscape fabric. We should ask them to rip it up & restore the area to its natural state.
Carl S – Using the EO is the way to work with them. Otherwise the conversation is verbal back & forth.
John B – How much have they cleared?
Paul N – About 60’ diameter within 1’ of the wetland.
John B – Is it an old paddock?
Steven P – The fence looks brand new.
Carl S – This isn’t an old street.
Mike B – It is very wet in that area.
Carl S – This is a clear case of wetland filling.
Steven P – It would be good to get a wetland delineation so we can speak about where the wetland really is. There is nothing in the file.
Paul N- It is very wet. You sink in when you walk on the fabric they’ve laid.
Carl S – We need to deed to document that it was done.
Steven P – There is a cease & desist order in their file now. They’ve stopped – but only because they’re done. They are willing to fix it but also want to know what it would take to keep it.
Mike B – Restoration in that wet an area would come right back – especially with standing water on site.
Steven P – They laid 6’ rolls of black plastic right over the stumps etc – they didn’t clear the soil before they laid it.
Carl S – We need to get them in here.
Steven P – Before they replant, they will come in.
HEARING
12 LAKE AVE
Reps: Joseph & Michelle Muise, Owners
Joseph Muise – This house is a camp built in 1941 with footings behind the fireplace. They remain but the rest of the houses has sagged. We want to rebuild up to the normal level, just replacing blocks. There will be no digging just replacing.
Mike B – How will you raise the house?
Steven P – They can go in with jacks & I-beams. There will be no heavy machinery past the house.
Joseph Muise – We just want to bring it back to the original level. There will be no digging.
Steve P –All work can be done on the road side of the house, not the pond side.
MOTION for Positive RDA for 12 Lake Ave with conditions set by agent – Mike / John / Unam
MOTION to close hearing on 12 Lake Ave – Tom / Mike / Unam
1 SWANTON WAY
Reps: Michael Wierbonics, Wetlands Preservation Inc; Kurt Young, Wetlands Preservation Inc
Michael Wierbonics – We delineated the property in Oct 2005 and it was reviewed by a 3rd party recently. Feedback was received in a letter & sketch. They proposed movement of 6 flags.
Steven P – The flags were missing so we don’t have a good 3rd party review of the finger of wetland off the property – so it was not done. Potential vernal pools are not on this map though this area could support vernal pool species. According to the Georgetown bylaw vernal pools are assumed to be there unless they are proven not to be. Several have been mentioned and should be examined.
Carl S – Vernal pools should be included. Have you notified Natural Heritage?
Michael W – No, we don’t need to for an ANRAD.
Steven P – We should not accept the delineation until they have been defined.
Kurt Young, Wetlands Preservation – That is not part of an ANRAD. Part of an NOI. The ANRAD is only for wetland boundaries. It was agreed at the site walk not to include them. It is inappropriate at this time.
Carl S – We’re just asking to document them on the plan.
Kurt Y – This has been going on since Oct last year.
Paul N – Vernal pools do affect setbacks and it will affect the delineations. It does have an effect.
Mike B – If a vernal pool is close to one of those lines it will double the setback.
Paul N – The vernal pools should be taken into consideration.
MOTION to approve the ANRAD & wetland lines noting flag placement changes made by NEE (flag #s) and not approving the wetland line beyond the property line to the East, also noting that vernal pool establishment will be made at a later date – Mike / Paul / Unam
MOTION to close hearing on 1 Swanton Way – Mike / Tom / Unam
118 JEWETT STREET
Rep: Mr. James Tolman, Owner
James Tolman – I wrote a letter stating the situation. This project has been going on for over 5 years. I have been mislead and am upset with how it has gone. There have been problems with both Planning & Conservation. It is not necessary to have a 3rd party review.
Carl S – Our normal process is to have a 3rd party review.
James Tolman – I’ve already had 4.
Carl S – They are only good for 3 years. We are not singling you out.
James Tolman – More than one person should have come to the site walk.
Carl S – We had to hold off the delineation until after winter as we don’t do them in the winter. We have the right to have a 3rd party review with the applicant paying for it. You created your own hardship by not letting that happen & getting important information to the commission.
James Tolman – It has been five yrs, I can’t get anywhere. Why can’t you waive that?
Carl S – This is the normal process.
Jim Tolman – Consultants also work for the town. It has been done so many times over the years & it hasn’t changed. Why can’t the agent do it?
Carl S – The agent hasn’t been in position long enough. It could’ve been done by now with a 3rd party if you had let it go forward. The Planning Board challenges aren’t anything to do with us.
Steven P – I am new to the project so I looked carefully at it. 90% of the property is in the flood zone. Additionally, the applicant’s engineer drew the plans up showing 100’ buffer zone at 60’ away. The plan needs to be redrawn. We need to have in writing all the variances that will be requested.
Carl S – The Planning Board makes their modifications, everyone else makes their modifications and then it comes to us. We can’t roll over on our regulations because everyone else has worked on it already.
Paul N – We asked for changes made so the project could meet the regulations but Mr Tolman said he couldn’t do them.
James Tolman – You know what, this isn’t the most recent plan. I don’t want a verdict, just guidance.
Steven P – The floodplain is a big issue.
Mike B – There is water all around the site.
Carl S – We can continue as long as you allow us to.
James Tolman – I want to go back & work with my engineers again.
Steven P – You have to write the variances on the plan.
Carl S – When would you have additional information? We can extend as long as you like. If you say don’t continue we have to make a decision now.
James Tolman – It’s a matter of money.
Carl S – What timeframe do you need for an answer?
John B – Are you going to go to your engineer about a new plan? What about the delineation?
Carl S – If you don’t want to waste time, do the delineation in the meantime.
Paul N – It makes more sense to look at the regulations and then decide what you want to do.
James Tolman – I need to find out why I have the wrong drawing.
MOTION to continue 118 Jewett to Aug 25 at 8:00 – John / Paul / Unam
Carl S – Make sure your engineer has a copy of our regulations.
54 POND STREET
Rep: Bob Lynch, Atlantic Engineering; Aime Blouin, Owner
Bob Lynch – We rotated the septic system & moved it to 10’ from the property line. It now runs parallel to the waterfront. We can’t go back any further. We continued the delineation beyond the property line as requested by the agent.
Paul N – The minimum distances were changed.
Bob L – It is 86’ from the pond now. Elevations don’t change. The original system is not on the new plan.
Carl S – Are you closing the original & filling it with sand?
Bob L – We have to remove it entirely or fill it with sand.
Tom H – Is there siltation control?
Bob L – We moved the siltation up to well in front of work area.
Steven P – I think we’re good to go with the plan, it’s as good as we can get. I will start writing the OoC, you can have it the day after the hearing is closed.
MOTION to continue 54 Pond St to July 28 at 7:55 – Tom / John / Unam
11 MARTEL WAY
Reps: Costy Ricci, Owner; Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental; Mike Giuliano, Meridian Engineering
Mary Rimmer - Site walk was held on May 14, we asked for the hearing to be continued to receive comments from the Planning Board engineer. The wetland boundary was established in June 2004. This is a slightly revised plan incorporating comments from the Planning Board engineer.
Mike Giuliano – We have reduced by 2600 sf the impervious area. Roof drainage goes to the drainage system, designed for a 100 yr flood, it only discharges if it’s greater than 100 year event. The parking lot has catchbasins to stormcepter to catch sediment, which then goes to the other basin – for 100 year event also. There are 2 catchbasins for the driveway also. Have submitted this plan to the Planning Board also. We want permission to do both boards at same time. Larry Graham reviewed the plan for stormwater – he has no comments.
Mary Rimmer – There was a previous application for building in 1998. That lapsed. That project allowed structures within 12’ and grading within 8’. This is smaller. All construction is 25’ away. The shape of the lot prohibits access without going closer.
Mike B – This is a 9 acre site but this is the only buildable section.
Mary Rimmer – Yes, it needs to go exactly in the middle to get the septic in.
Carl S – Where’s the septic tank?
Mary G – We haven’t resubmitted for the septic yet. The tank will be located under the pavement.
Paul N – The idea of this plan is to maximize the use of land rather than working out how to work with our regulations. We need alternative analysis – we haven’t seen that except a change in the impervious surface.
Steven P – The silt fence hasn’t moved, but structures have moved towards the wetland. The structure is further towards the wetland – the silt fence is 10’ away at one point. So the 25’ setback is breached at the corner (79x3) and a lot of work is being done within the 25’ – almost the entire proposal involves work being done within 25’. This is destroying wetland. They are working well within the 25’ It is also destroying a lot of trees – as the plans go forward we are losing more trees & existing trees are not shown. We want to make sure they aren’t lost.
Mary Rimmer – We changed from grading to retaining walls to tighten that up.
Steven P – Got rid of the rip rap to make the slope more accommodating but it is all pushed closer towards the wetland. The work line has been cut from 28’ to 25’.
Mary R – The septic governs the design and use governs that too.
Costy Ricci – I am a bridge builder so everything is of substantial size – 40-50’ trucks come into the site & offload. Jersey barriers take a lot of room to off-load. We need a lot of room to maneuver. My business is in Georgetown now, but need more room. The Martel cul-de-sac was designed to turn big trucks around. I would like to have a building 1.5 times that size. Have cut down the size already. To keep my business in Georgetown I have to have that much room.
Paul N – Can you go vertical?
Costy Ricci – It would be very very difficult with the materials they work with. They are very heavy so you can’t stack it higher than 10’ or so.
Mike B – Trucks not looping around the site.
Paul N- Can you rotate the building 90 degrees? That would be better than you have now.
Carl S – We have to compromise our regulationss everytime but we have to protect resource areas.
Mary Rimmer – We can provide alternate layouts with explanations as to why they are not feasible. We have been going for years looking for a solution. The 75’ setback doesn’t allow for commercial development.
Mike B – What about 50’?
Mary Rimmer – Have given a request for a waiver.
Paul N – Yes but there is no statement as to why you need the waivers, you just say you want them.
Mary Rimmer – We don’t have alternative schemes. We were determined not to have an adverse effect in 1998 but the regulations changed.
Mike B – The wetland has changed as well certainly.
Mike Giuliani – Beavers.
Costy Ricci – The beavers are ruining my property from backup from Rt 95. At what point do we stop that?
Paul N – Is there anyone else on the cul de sac?
Mike Giuliani – There is a lot but no building.
Paul N – Can you move anything to another lot?
Carl S – We need you to take another hard look at modifications. Can you do any better?
Costy Ricci – We have played with it many times. It’s the septic system that comes to haunt us. If there were shorter distance between the road & building it would be more advantageous.
Paul N – What if you rotate the building?
Costy Ricci – We can’t do that due to the septic. It won’t perk anywhere else.
Steven P – The septic system could be longer & skinnier – why not look at a different shape?
Costy Ricci – We did look at that.
Carl S – We request that you look at that. We need to see the septic outside the buffer. If the design could be changed to get the building away from the BVW it would be advantageous.
Paul N – Try to re-orientate building.
Mary Rimmer – We can show for the next meeting to demonstrate why it wouldn’t work.
Chris Ryan, Meridian – The skinny septic option meant distances between the reserve area and other septic areas was too great.
Mike Giuliani – We will try it & bring that back.
Steven P –Why does the gravel area have to come to within 10’?
Mike Giuliani – That’s the storage for jersey barriers.
Steven P – Trucks have to put them there, there will be run off from them etc.
Carl S – You have to have heavy equipment to move those.
Costy Ricci – Yes but, it’s infrequent – only every 4-5 months. This is dead storage. We are never there.
Paul N – Can you change the shape of the building to contour around the wetland? Put you offices in there?
Costy Ricci – Our offices are only 15x15 on the mezzanine for office. There is no fuel storage on site.
Mike B – Why not change the shape of the building – rotate the building & notch out around the septic.
Paul N – That pushes everything back to the 50’ buffer zone.
Carl S – Has a septic plan been submitted to the BOH?
Mike Giuliani – It was submitted before but expired. They will look at it after we have finalized with GCC & the Planning Board.
MOTION to continue 11 Martel Way to Aug 25 at 8:15 – John / Tom / Unam
1 LITTLES HILL LANE
Rep: Craig Spear, Camelot Realty Trust
Craig Spear – This is the 1st house at the bottom of Hillside Dr. It’s a tight lot and the last house with a 35’ no disturb zone, the others have no work within the 100’. We can build it with a minimal front yd. 6-7% grade. There is very little variability on the placement of the house on lot. We will have to pin location of the foundation with surveyors.
Mike B – Is everything within the buffer?
Craig Spear – Pretty much.
Carl S – What about the Open Space that was being transferred to the town with this deveopment?
Craig Spear – Yes, the transfer of Open Space should be put on warrant for Fall Town Meeting.
MOTION to continue to 7:45 on July 28 – Tom / Paul / Unam
SHOPPING CENTER HOLDING TANK
MOTION to accept the plan with the NHESP notification – John / Mike / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – Paul / Tom / Unam
NORTH ST & WELLS AVE
Rep: Kurt Young, Wetlands Preservation
Kurt Y – We want permission to do perk testing on site. We could cross the wetland via old road / path – lay down timber mat.
Action: The applicants will not start any work on the perk tests until they have come back to the GCC with detailed access plans into the site.
| 
