GCC MEETING MINUTES
July 28, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, John Bell, Tom Howland, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MINUTES
MOTION to accept the minutes of June 30 - Paul / Tom / Unam
MOTION to accept the minutes of July 14 - Tom / Mike / Unam
EAST MAIN STREET TREE CUTTING
Steven Przyjemski – There was a mis-communication with Leah Brasbane, the conifers weren’t the best choice or placement. She’s cutting the stems & spraying the bittersweet soon. Have been comments that the plantings are too small & have been overwhelmed but that’s Nature. The invasives are the biggest concern. We need to keep those under control & the rest will survive.
Mike B – We lost the enclosure to the stream when bigger things overwhelmed the plantings.
Steven P – I’ll do it myself this time to get what we want.
Mike B – I’ll help.
Steven P – We have to make sure she sprays first. Then re-planting can proceed. We’ll decide what to plant that’s more appropriate for the area.
Mike B – We have time & room to plant larger native plantings & prune in fullness of time. We need to get the spread better.
Steven P – We’ll take the arborvitae out and replace them with a better native planting.
9 LAKERIDGE
Steven P – John Enos is not willing to re-plant the trees where we want them.
Carl S – He hasn’t produced the documents proving the re-planting plan he says he wants?
SP/ PN – He has produced some but they are not explicit in defining what the re-planting plan was.
Carl S – He may be thinking small shrubs whereas we’re thinking small trees / large shrubs.
Steve P – We need the tree habitat – need both tree & shrub habitat – and shouldn’t accept just shrubs.
Carl S – Maybe he can come up with suggestions –
Paul N – We already spoke to him about that but he doesn’t want to put them where we want them.
Steven P – The question is how big an opening there will be between plantings – we want him to plant them back where he cut them down but he wants to leave a 60’ gap between the trees for a view. He has video footage of his neighbor (Testaverde) cutting his trees.
Carl S – He was previously trying to get an administrative consent decree but never got there.
Paul N – He put in an NOI so we owe him an OoC – he paid for it.
Steven P – We are continuing with writing the OOC.
Carl S – We can be flexible, but don’t want to condone cutting trees on the pond or anywhere else.
Steven P – He’s not willing to give an inch.
Paul N – We have tried many times. We should put it in the OOC – make the position of the trees clear. The stumps of the cut trees were ground down but you can still see where they were.
Carl S – Continue to work with him & see what you can do.
Steven P – Says his neighbor cut his trees down. The neighbor says those trees were diseased. The documentation for that cutting seems legitimate – notice was given to the commission, the agent inspected them & gave approval.
Mike B – If he has an OOC he’ll have to follow it. When do we stop & issue an EO?
Steven P – We have to give him an OOC first. Then we can give him an EO with short timeframe.
OTHER EOs
9 Gloria Rd (tree cutting on Pentucket Pond) – being co-operative
21 Tenney St - being co-operative.
11 Silvermine Ln – still have to write the EO.
12 LAKE
If we issue a Positive RDA with conditions – must go the NOI route. In cases where there is a very small amount of work to do we can issue a Negative RDA with conditions.
44 ELM
Steve P - The new owners carried out extreme work with a bobcat within 5’ of the wetland. I issued a cease & desist order. The Building Inspector didn’t get us to sign the permit as there was no outside work on plan they showed him.
Carl S – Who put the deck on? The contractors should know better.
Steven P – Is this an NOI or EO?
Mike B – Should we get them to remove it?
Steven P – Their representative admitted they were guilty. But it took them a week to get back to us.
Carl S – We need to do whatever to get them to take notice.
Steve P – Even if they remove the deck & perform restoration work the damage will still be there.
Mike B – We should issue an EO to take it out & they’ll have to file an NOI to put it back.
Paul N – The current owner is a speculator.
Carl S – If this is a developer trying to make a quick buck by avoiding the regulations that’s very different than a homeowner who may be unaware of the legal requirements. Steve will issue an EO & we will ratify it at the next meeting.
HEARINGS
1 LITTLES HILL
Steven P – They provided a modified plan with new granite posts. They moved the no-cut markers as requested & added more, and also moved the tree out of the no-cut zone.
MOTION to accept the plan rev date July 27, 2005 for 1 Littles Hill (GCC-2005-13) – Paul / John / Unam
MOTION to close hearing – Mike / Paul / Unam
Steven P – What should we do about the Littles Hill OoC extension?
Carl S – There’s not a lot of precedent, so it will be difficult to do.
Paul N – We can take this opportunity to get him out from the original sub-division buffers, no more 35’.
54 POND STREET
Rep: .Aime Blouin, Owner
MOTION to accept the plan for 54 Pond St dated July 13, 2005 (GCC-2005-09) – Paul / Tom / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Mike / Unam
541 NORTH STREET (GCC-2004-049)
No representatives.
MOTION to continue to Oct 20, 8:00 – Mike / Tom / Unam
BLUEBERRY LANE (GCC-2005-020; DEP 161-0627)
Reps: Bill Ford, Owner; Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental; John Anderson, Attorney
Patrick Seekamp – This is a 10.88 acre parcel off Baldpate Rd with an existing long drive. There is one house on site, Mr Ford lives there currently. The house straddles the side of the proposed cul-de-sac. We propose to re-locate it on a newly created lot – slide it over onto its own lot. Then sub-divide for 4 additional lots to be serviced by a paved drive, septic, etc.
There is a large sloped red maple wooded swamp to the N side of the site, it drains to an off-site location. Also an IVW off the existing yard – wooded with highbush blueberry. There are also 2 other wetland pockets by the existing drive by the neighbor’s property (tree farm) and another by that drive. On the hillside, groundwater seeps down the slope. There is a big wetland system to the N with large red maples. The lower one is a remnant of a wetland that was cut off by the driveway.
Did a Winter delineation that was re-checked in the Spring. Some flag lines were extended all the way out to the property line.
There area infiltrators for roof runoff for each house. Are working with Mass Stormwater BMP.
Mike B – Are you looking for any variances?
Patrick Seekamp – There are no activities within 75’ except for the footprint of the Stormwater berm. Lot 2 has a retaining wall just off 75’. We can look at the grading on the lot to see if that wall really serves a purpose.
Steven P – Are there vernal pools on site?
Patrick S – Don’t know. There is a low depressional wooded swamp. It does hold water but don’t know if it’s a vernal pool. There is an isolated wetland in the middle of the woods but has not been studied. There are no Natural Heritage issues as the site is out of the habitat zones.
Steven P – If you go farther off the property what is out there?
Patrick S – There are no wetlands off property that we know of.
Steven P – The top wetland line doesn’t continue off the property -where does it go? It should’ve been extended 100’ beyond the property line.
Patrick S – It dead ends into a neighbor’s lawn area by their house. We need a permit to go in there – if thought it was needed they would’ve done it. It’s not a floodplain. The NOI application includes and aerial photo for overview.
Richard Thomas, Abutter, 64 Baldpate Rd – My concern is that right behind the house the water drains a lot. The brook runs under the house and comes up over the other side of house. There are vernal pools, also many tree frogs. The lot lines on this proposal need more space for the wetland area so we don’t drive out the tree frogs – they are very prolific in there now. There are vernal pools right off the swimming pool in my yard – right along the lot line.
Paul N – If there are vernal pools that would mean there are more extensive wetlands. Where’s the brook?
Richard Thomas – It runs under the house. There are underground streams everywhere.
Patrick S – Do we need a variance for the drainage? The activities are outside the 75’. Have a Stormwater BMP goes from a drain pipe from the roadway, to a headwall into a sediment forebay, to the detention area with rip rap. There is a slight amt of grading at the site slope encroaching slightly on the 75’. The whole BMP for the sub-division shows the planting plan for the Stormwater area.
Paul N – Is this a standard detention pond with rip rap?
Patrick S – It will probably be seeded with a conservation seed mix. Also erosion / sediment control. Do we need a variance? This is pervious area, and meets Mass BMP. We want to dump clean water into the wetland. All the impervious surface area drains into the Stormwater system.
Mike B – Where are you bringing road water?
Patrick S – I don’t know but will check.
Mike B – The wetlands area is so close we need to know what’s happening to it.
Patrick S – We may be tieing it into the existing drain lines on Baldpate Rd.
Carl S – Have you filed with the BOH for the septic?
Bill Ford – Yes, we’re just ready to do that.
Steven Garrett, 63 Baldpate – There is no record of this project being approved by the Planning Board. There is nothing in the file to say when it was approved. They said they had approved it with stipulations but hadn’t seen new plans.
Carl S – We can’t speak for the Planning Board. We should schedule a site walk.
Steven P – We need a 3rd party for vernal pool verification. We will hire them.
Patrick S – We want to use a local company.
Paul N – Can you tell me more about the detention pond?
Patrick S – It is small but water is being lowered into there gradually. There is a 5-6’ encroachment into the 75’ area but it is all pervious earthen berm.
MOTION site walk on Aug 13, 8 am – Mike / Tom / Unam
MOTION for a 3rd party reviewer to be selected by agent – Mike / Tom / Unam
MOTION to continue to Sept 8 at 7:30 – Tom / Mike / Unam
256 EAST MAIN STREET
Reps: Bill Manuell, Wetland & Land Management
Bill Manuell – We got the independent consultants letter. Had a site walk in early July and looked at the construction area (showed several photos from Sept 1980). You can see the horse barn. In 1980 none of the vegetation was in the photo except for the tree line. Another photo during a party in 1992. The area has been maintained as a lawn going back to at least 1980. At the site walk we discussed a mitigation proposal in return for a waiver for setbacks. In the interim the 3rd party review was done. The independent reviewer put the wetland boundary out into the field, and confirmed the other flags. The only difference is in the upper area. Atlantic Engineering is putting the NEE flags on the plan – he says it is an area of upland in this
area. We did see that this is an extremely transitional area – in the area disagreed on some holes were hydric & others weren’t, all within a close area. There are some indicator areas even in the mown area but doesn’t feel was a preponderance in that area. We are looking at the clear end of the wetland. It is certainly not a clear boundary. There has been a lot of disturbance on site, it has been mown lawn for 20-25 yrs. We will have the new flags on the plan for the next meeting & continue discussion re. mitigation / tradeoff for vegetation buffer along the ditch. Will provide a 15’ wide natural buffer of ditch. It was not an easy delineation.
Carl S – The area is transitional but that’s the nature of wetland.
Mike B – The wetland has advanced from those old photos.
Bill M – How quickly will an area change soils if there is a blocked culvert causing flooding? The culvert was blocked for a decade. There are some indicators in the upper soil levels – they’re the first to change in hydrology. If he (the independent reviewer) didn’t have knowledge of this property he didn’t realize that culvert flooding issues gave the hydric soils.
Paul N – He didn’t misinterpret. That’s what was happening.
Bill M – If it was a disturbed area – if there was temporary flooding by beaver …
Carl S – Yes but that happens all over the state.
Bill M – The culvert was replaced in the last 3 years. Soils never revert to upland soils profile if they were previously hydric.
Paul N – It would be interesting to see what vegetation would take over if it were left alone for awhile.
Carl S – If there was flooding & it was left alone it would become a resource area. We can’t say should go back to being upland if this was 30 yrs ago.
Bill M – The blocked culvert was driving everything. It flooded on an annual basis for a prolonged period and this field was blocked up with water.
Steven P – We measured the new line. It is roughly 40’+ closer to the house. That puts the house roughly 20’ from wetland. So the buffers move out accordingly. The 50’ mark then goes right through the middle of the house. The septic looks OK, by rough measurements, as it is on the other side.
Mike B – We are more concerned about the septic.
Steven P – NEE said there were lots of species of plants growing in the mowed grasses that he couldn’t ID because they had been mowed. If the area wasn’t mowed for a short time you could see what plants are in there. NEE was comfortable with his delineation.
Carl S – We are relying on soils as the most accurate indicator. Are you adding the new flags to the plans?
Bill M – Yes, and delineating the whole area of the new wetland delineation area. We dug one pit, it wasn’t hydric, we dug another, it did look hydric, or looked very close anyway. On disturbed sites the soils are not distinct.
Paul N – So you’re saying that hydric soils don’t transition back if the conditions change?
Bill M – Yes.
Carl S – The samples just indicate that the soils have been altered.
Bill M – NEE is looking at 100 years of use of the area. I look at the alteration from the culvert – that’s much more recent.
Mike B – Would wetland plants take hold there or not?
Bill M – FAC might.
Mrs. Evan Stanwood, 274 E Main – Talking of changes to land & soils, could that have been accomplished by a bucket loader in 1993?
Paul N – NEE mentions soil mixing by plowing etc.
Bill M – There is no evidence that those allegations are true. You can see from these photos that the landscape has not changed. There is a lot of room for discussion about mitigation.
Paul N – You would need a major variance with the new flagging.
Mike B – This could possibly be a stream again if left alone.
MOTION to continue to Aug 25, 8:45 – Mike / John / Unam
Steve will arrange NEE to attend the next hearing. The applicant has questions re paying for him to drive here from Amherst.
151 JEWETT STREET
No reps.
The applicants drove a bulldozer through 45’ of wetland to dig the perk pits.
MOTION to continue Aug 25, 7:45 – Tom / John / Unam
29 MEADOWVIEW ROAD
Rep: Bob Keeler, Owner
Bob Keeler – (Shows photos of existing deck, facing S.) The current deck is splintering & has raised nails so needs to be replaced. Would like to move the upper deck 4’ out & 6’ beyond there for lower deck. The current deck will be torn down – is 48-50’ away from the wetland.
Steven P – The wetland is 50’ away from the house. The deck is 45-50’away as a guesstimate.
Bob Keeler – There is a retaining wall at the back just before it goes down into the wetland. (Shows photo) It is all lawn & garden down to the wetland.
Steven P – There is 30’ of grass down to a small rock wall – there are wetland plants right after there clearly. How many sonar tubes will you be installing?
Bob Keeler – For the upper deck- 4 x 5 tubes. Not paving underneath. Don’t know what materials will be using as yet.
Carl S – We will issue a Negative RDA with conditions & require that notice be given to the agent when work begins.
MOTION to issue a Negative Determination with conditions as required by the agent – Mike / Tom / 4 Aye, 1 Abstain (Paul)
MOTION to close hearing – John / Tom / Unam
94 ELM STREET
Rep: Maureen Hanley, Norse Environmental
Craig Millman, Abutter, 83 Elm – This house dates back to the 1830s. We should not be allowing it to be torn down.
Carl S – There was a problem with information being provided to abutters with this project.
Maureen H – We have now given abutter information as required. I didn’t realize Groveland (sic) bylaw required abutter information be given that way. This is a Natural Heritage area. We have filed with them but haven’t had a response as yet.
Paul N – There is a brook here – how far away are you from there? These pictures are too small.
Maureen H – It’s an Intermittent Stream. I don’t know how far away it is. I can find out.
Mike B – Where’s the existing septic?
Maureen H – I’m not sure, it’s not on the plan.
Mike B – Septic systems are never allowed within the 100’ buffer. You need to check our regulations.
Carl S – That is absolutely not up for discussion on new systems.
Paul N – This is not meeting our setbacks.
Steven P – The haybales are at 25’ where 50’ is required, impervious is at 58’ where 75 is required. Also the flagging does not extend over the property line. We need to find out what the wetlands look like off property.
Paul N – This is increasing the impervious area.
Maureen H – Yes but we are moving it further from the resource area.
Carl S – As we are the spearhead board for the town on this project I ought to point out to you that other boards may have a problem with razing a historic building & putting a multi-occupancy unit here. Why is this an Over-55 project?
Maureen H – I don’t know why. The wetland delineation was done in approximately April 2005.
MOTION to hold site walk Aug 13, 9:30am – Tom / John /Unam
Laura R – There is no information about how you plan to demolish this building right next to the wetland. How do you plan to protect the resource areas during this part of the project?
Maureen H – I don’t know. I can get that information to you.
Linda Perry, Abutter, 89 Elm – There was a walk through this project years ago – in about 2002. Are there any records from that?
Laura R – I’ll check for those.
Brad Perry, Abutter, 89 Elm – This plan is for a sub-division.
Craig Millman, Abutter, 83 Elm St – It looks like they are keeping a portion of this lot open so they can have further development access into the rear.
Carl S – You can’t create your own hardship when sub-dividing the lot – like having to cross a wetland. Are abutters authorized to attend the site walk?
Maureen H – Yes.
Carl S – Has this been sub-divided yet?
Maureen H – I don’t know. I can find out from the Groveland (sic) Planning Board.
Carl S – If it hasn’t been sub-divided we have to walk the whole lot.
Maureen H – What if we resolve the wetland lines?
Carl S – If it’s not a legal lot you can’t do that.
Steven P – We can still look at the surrounding wetlands even if they are off-site. When I get an acceptable plot plan and more information on the site I will look for a 3rd party review for this property.
MOTION for agent to engage a 3rd party reviewer – Mike / Tom / Unam
Carl S – Do you need any other variances?
Maureen H – Not at this point.
Tom Leckrone, Abutter, 88 Elm – This plan shows only one septic but there are two units. Doesn’t it require more?
Maureen H – There are two tanks with one leaching field. Title 5 allows a smaller design for Over 55. Does Groveland (sic) need the intermittent stream to be shown on the wetland plan?
Carl S – I don’t know about Groveland, this is Georgetown. Have you checked our regulations?
Laura R – They have received a copy of our bylaw and regulations.
Carl S – An intermittent stream absolutely does need to be shown on the plan, it’s a resource area as defined in our regulations.
Brad Perry, Abutter, 89 Elm – Three years ago the applicant proposed 25 units on this property and it was denied. This is a portion of the original property – the new lot line is at the edge of the 50’ roadway to back. This appears to be an attempt to get the original project going again.
Mike B – If they have legally cut up the lots we can’t stop it.
Carl S – You can’t ask to fill the wetland because you can’t get in there anymore. That would be a hardship of your own creation. Also, the applicant has to have the legal right to file on someone else’s land. Are you legally representing the owner?
Maureen H – I think so.
Jack Howland, Abutter, Elm St – There are endangered species in this area– Blandings Turtles has been reported there.
Mona Cosmos, Abutter, 72 Elm – Can we use CPA money to purchase this historic building?
Carl S – As a representative of the CPC I can say that funds can be made available for historic preservation. We don’t know about this project in particular at this point. I will let the CPC know. Maureen, you need to gather a lot of information before you come back to us here in Georgetown.
Maureen H – I know.
MOTION to continue to Sept 8 at 8:00 – Tom / John / Unam
| 
