GCC MEETING MINUTES
September 8, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, John Bell, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
CAMP DENISON LEARNING CENTER
Steve P – Originally suggested that they file an RDA but the work they’ve submitted looks much more extensive – adding a septic tank just outside the 100’ & pumped up the hill. We should maybe change our recommendation to an NOI.
Paul N – An OoC will structure the work they are doing.
Carl S – We have to follow our usual procedure. We can’t set unusual precedents with our own property.
Steve P – Within 100’ there is only a small area to be disturbed.
Carl S – We also need to know how they are financing the work. That needs to be established before we go any further.
HEARINGS
1 TAYLOR ST (GCC-2005-22; DEP 161-0630) NOI (New)
Upgrade of failed septic system 50’ from BVW.
Reps: Sandra Starr, Representative (Thomas Carbone, Atty)
Carl S – This plan shows a tank & leach field at the side of the lot.
Steve P – The tank will remain in the exact same spot. They are taking the existing tank out & replacing it. We need control over the stockpile of excavated materials. They said it is going straight into a truck to be shipped out immediately.
Paul N – They are also removing the sand that the existing system is sitting in. They’re taking it all out & refilling with new material.
Steve P – There are no options to locate it somewhere else on the lot. I have asked them to install double siltation fencing. Most of the property is within the 100’ buffer.
Paul N – Looking at the gradients it looks like this will be a hill afterwards.
Sandra Starr – There will be a retaining wall with an impervious barrier during work time.
Carl S – Is there an underground wall to prevent leaching towards the resource area?
Sandra Starr – Yes, it’s shown in the General Construction Notes on the plan.
Paul N – There’s a drain pipe running from the site into the wetland – where does it go?
Sandra Starr – It goes from the wetland into a catch basin. The direction of the flow is from the wetland into the catch basin.
Carl S – In many cases of systems within the buffer we have mandated annual or 2-yearly pumping in the OoC. If we don’t add that we will probably have them coming back in 5 years with a failed system.
Sandra Starr – This system is designed for a 2-bed home. It was a 3-bed but was cut down to 2. There is a deed restriction to keep it as a 2-bed.
Paul N – We could put perpetual conditions to limit it to 2-beds.
MOTION to accept plans dated July 22, 2005 with stipulation of 2-yr pumping, 2-bed restrictions, double siltation control, & no stockpiling of materials – John / Mike / Unam
MOTION to close hearing – John / Mike / Unam
BLUEBERRY LANE (GCC-2005-020; DEP 161-0627) NOI (Cont)
Relocate an existing SFH and construct 4 additional SFHs with associated appurtenances within 100’ of BVW and IVW.
Reps: Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental; Fred Thompson (Owner’s rep)
Patrick Seekamp – Conducted a site walk and looked at 2 questionable areas re vernal pools. One is in an isolated area behind the existing house, another in a pocketing area within the stream inside BVW basin. We studied each of those areas in a one day study – dug thru sub-strate looking for evidence of snails, clams, shrimp etc. In the isolated area we found no evidence of them. They are the only critters that stay in a vernal pool outside spring. We also looked at the hydrology. We didn’t feel the isolated area would pond for long enough – there should be 6” water max & would have to stay for 2 months – we thought this area wouldn’t pool deep or long enough. (It doesn’t show indication of long / deep pooling.) The other
area at base of hill has 10” of mucky peat in the bottom – well broken-down plant materials. This is potential vernal pool substrate.
Carl S – That sort of thing forms over a long period of time.
Patrick Seekamp – Yes, but it is also typical of the swamp area which it is in. The stream area does pond water but can’t say how long.
Paul N - Even now it’s soft and muddy, it wouldn’t take much rain to get it to pool.
Patrick Seekamp – It is easier to see in the Spring. We found small fingernail clams. We also looked in the part of the swamp that doesn’t pool & found them there too, so it doesn’t prove that that area is a vernal pool. We measured off the wetland boundary to determine what we think is the outer extent of the ponding – shown in plan. Since then the area has been plotted approximately on the plan showing the presumed max extent of ponding. The blue flag was at the study plot where the fingernail clam was.
Paul N – There is lots of evidence of pooling & scouring in that area.
Patrick Seekamp – If we were looking just at the state regs it wouldn’t qualify. The Georgetown bylaw is not clear on how to identify vernal pools.
Paul N – Bylaw allows us to call it a vernal pool if we think it is one.
Patrick Seekamp – Yes but, that’s not fair.
Carl S – We are being conservative, and this is a valid bylaw.
Patrick Seekamp – The only way to prove it one way or the other is to wait until Spring. I explained that to the owners. The wetland delineation is not an issue.
Steven P – NEE (New England Environmental, third party reviewer) has no major flag changes. The vernal pool is to the extent of flooding not just pooling. Everyone has their own interpretation. It’s best to be worked out in the field.
Patrick Seekamp – The state says it is portion of area that could support those species breeding. We should drop down to the area of true pooling rather than flooding because the animals need an area of water that will stay for 2 months at least – if the level of flooding drops the eggs won’t survive – they dry out.
Paul N – Small areas occurred in other places as well.
Mike B – How will this affect the building layout? Is it still outside the 100’?
Patrick Seekamp – The 100’ line just touches the driveway. We have to revise the grading plan to accommodate that.
Steven P – There is also another potential one in the top corner. Bruce mentioned it when he was there. I’m pretty confident that it is a potential vernal pool.
Carl S – Will it still be outside 100’?
Steven P – We can’t presume that.
Paul N – It’s right behind the house.
Steven P – Roughly 35’ by flag P1.
Fred Thompson – That puts us at 110’. It’s OK to document but it doesn’t change our plan.
Patrick Seekamp – We need to nail down where the potential vernal pools are.
Carl S – If you want to wait til Spring we can do that but we can still make a determination now that they are there & you can make a plan accordingly.
Patrick Seekamp – That’s fine & we will add conditions to protect those pools.
Carl S – The next step is to come to a conclusion & look at the report from the 3rd party, so we can come to consensus.
Patrick Seekamp – We only want to revise our plan one time. Is there anything else we should consider?
Carl S – Do you have a planting plan in mind?
Patrick Seekamp – Yes, there is one for the sub-division as a whole. We can show it when we submit the new plan.
Fred Thompson – There is also a deed restriction on the care of new trees as they will be on the owners’ properties rather then town land so the owners are required to care for them.
Carl S – We have no issues with plans, ????????
Patrick Seekamp – I understand what you need & can meet that.
Carl S – How are you setting up the lawns?
Fred Thompson – There will be cutting of trees as the root disturbance kills them anyway. We are not cutting in the wetland.
Paul N – Show the significant trees you are keeping & also what are taking down on the next plan.
Patrick Seekamp – We are clearing just to the limit of grading.
Paul N – Trees can be preserved all around the site. You don’t have to clear cut everything.
Carl S – Work out where the foundations are going then decide on the trees to be saved.
Patrick Seekamp – Each lot will be unique so we will work it out with Steve on site.
Paul N – We need a pre-approved plan to start so Steve should know what trees we can save at that point.
Steven P – There will be 2 stages of grading - one to get road in & then do the house lots. We can identify the trees to be saved in between.
Patrick Seekamp – The storm drainage is all handled at BMP from the beginning of the road. I think it is a dry bottom catch basin. We are adding storm captors in line, treatment infiltrators before gets it to the forebay so there is extra handling capacity – over 80% of Stormwater. We over-designed for that. This has been 100% approved by the Planning Board. They know we have to amend the plan.
Carl S – We need to pin down the vernal pools. We can’t go on until we have come to a conclusion as to where they are.
Patrick Seekamp – We will meet with Steve & come to an agreement. On the next plan we will include: monumentation, limit of clearing proposed, erosion control, revised lots re vernal pools. We want to come back one more time with the revised plan for discussion & approval. Trees not on that plan.
Mike B – Vernal pool monuments at 100’ & everything else at 50’.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett – Are you showing primary & secondary leaching fields?
Patrick Seekamp – The septic designs are not on here.
Carl S – That is not available now but will be on the final plans.
MOTION to continue to Oct 20 at 9:00 – Mike / Paul / Unam
94 ELM STREET (GCC-2005-15; DEP 161-0623) NOI (Cont)
Raze existing building and barn, new construction of: one undefined building and two Over-55 condominium units, septic tank, retaining wall, grading and utilities 58 feet from BVW.
No representatives.
Applicant requested continuance to Oct 6.
MOTION to continue to Oct 6th at 7:30 – John / Mike / Unam
7 TRESTLE WAY (GCC-2005-017; DEP 161-0624) NOI (Cont)
Construct a 10’ x 15’ addition within 30 feet of Pentucket Pond.
Reps: Robert Lynch, Atlantic Engineering; Neal & Carol Stockwell, Owners
Robert Lynch – We have added an infiltration chamber tied into the existing storm downspout tying in the addition & existing roof. The outflow will go out through the existing pipe. The tank capacity is 70 cu ft with a foot of stone all around.
Carl S – We asked for additional vegetation buffer with native vegetation – there was a lot of purple loosestrife which the additional plantings were to replace. We don’t like to build this close to the pond, we want to establish this buffer between the house & water.
Neal Stockwell – That’s fine, we just need help in determining how to do it. Will talk to Steven P.
John B – Considering where the house is on the lot, now with the infiltrator we don’t have a problem with the plan.
Carl S – The plan doesn’t have description of the vegetated buffer but we can add that to the OoC.
Steve P – I’ll work with them to get a suitable planting plan in place.
MOTION to accept the plan dated 9/8/2005 granting the variance in return for a mitigation plan including additional drainage work on the plan and a native vegetation buffer (developed with the agent) to be added to replace the removed purple loosestrife – Paul / Mike / Unam
MOTION to grant the variance to allow the applicant to remove purple loosestrife from the BVW under the direction of the agent and in accordance with the OoC – John / Mike / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – John / Mike / Unam
2 CRESCENT MEADOW LANE (GCC-2005-016; DEP 161-0625) NOI (Cont)
Installation of an in-ground swimming pool 68’ from BVW.
Reps: J & Deb Cote, Owners
J Cote – The pool has been re-oriented. We spun it around as far as we could – the pool contractor didn’t want to get any closer to the retaining wall. 40% of pool is within the 75’, it is still 68’ from resource. The surrounding area of deck will be permeable surface of blocks. ZBA would not grant setback variance for a pool.
Steven P – The pool discharge must be outside the 75’. Add a drywell to catch the overflow.
J Cote – The gutters from the house go into a drywell so we could add it into there.
Carl S – We are trying to keep chlorinated water out of the resource areas.
Steven P – As this is proposed it is reasonable with an additional description of how you are handling the overflow water. Submit it and I will add it to the OoC.
MOTION to approve the plan dated 9/8/05 with additional drainage outside the 100’ buffer – Mike / John / 3 Aye, 1 Abstain (PN)
MOTION to close hearing – John / Mike / Unam
151 JEWETT STREET (GCC-2004-027) ANRAD (Cont)
Delineation of 1,500 linear feet of Wetlands bordering Jackman Brook and an isolated Wetland that may contain a Vernal Pool.
No representatives.
Steven P – The applicants are not coming to this meeting as they feel there is nothing more to address. They cut through the wetland during the perc testing. An NOI will be for a house in back with the septic on the road. It will be destructive but we have to close the ANRAD. There is a potential vernal pool in the bottom of the lot which needs to be confirmed.
MOTION to continue to Sept 22 at 7:25 – John / Paul / Unam
MOTION to adjourn – Paul / Mike / Unam
| 
