GCC MEETING MINUTES
October 20, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, Tom Howland, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, John Bell, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MINUTES
MOTION to approve minutes of Oct 6 with changes – Mike / Tom / 4 Aye, 1 Abstain
MOTION to approve minutes of Oct 13 with changes – Tom / Mike / 4 Aye, 1 Abstain
MOTION to approve appointment of Bob Gorton and Bob Morehouse to the Camp Denison Committee; AnneMarie Curtin, Eric Sotnek, Ian Sotnek and Linda Curtin to the Bailey Lane Stewardship Committee – Paul / Mike / Unam
MOTION to pay NEE for third party reviews at 95 Elm and 187 North St – Paul / Mike / Unam
MOTION to allocate funds for training courses for Steven P, Laura R, Paul N with MACC -– Paul / John / Unam
MOTION to issue the EO to Mark Unger at 25 Bailey Lane with $100 a day fines for the first week, to the max fine of $300 per day after that time – Mike / Tom / Unam
HEARINGS
1 KINSON COURT (GCC-2005-028) NOI (New)
Tree cutting and grading the top off the hill within 50’ of BVW.
Reps: Mark Mansfield, Ken Surette, North Star Developers; Bob Prokop, Wetland Consultant
Bob Prokop –The applicants are looking to relocate a driveway. The original plan had no work in the buffer zone, construction of the driveway has been moved closer into the house – the retaining wall is at the outside of the buffer. Due to the steepness of the relocated drive the work involved excavating into a small hill within the 100’ buffer. Their preliminary plan involves excavating 25’ into the buffer zone. The applicants want to take off the top of the hill, grade back for a new retaining wall, replant with a variety of upland trees & shrubs.
Paul N – This plan doesn’t show where the house is now.
Bob Prokow – I don’t know what the plan shows.
Paul N – The house has been rotated 40 degrees from its original position.
Mark Mansfield – It is 10’ outside the buffer zone.
Steve P – We need an accurate site plan.
Carl S – How many feet is this area to the resource?
Bob Prokow – About 136’ to 130’.
Mike B – How many trees are there on top? How many are you proposing to cut?
Bob Prokow – The arborist (SM&B Arborist) said there are 13 trees to be taken down. Looking at the wetland, it was orginally defined as a BVW. I disagree. It shows an intermittent stream but it’s really an Isolated Wetland- 15’ of the stream is a ditch from 15 yrs ago with no connection to the stream. It doesn’t hold enough water.
Carl S – We’re more strict than the state regulations.
Mike B – And Isolated Wetland is still protected just as much as a BVW would be.
B ob Prokow – Yes, it still drains but 30-40 yrs ago it drained into the stream. The digging of the ditch lowered the quality of the wetland. If we closed off the ditch it may become a vernal pool again. Now it’s a small isolated pocket after the ditch construction and doesn’t hold water as it did in the past. I would’ve filled the ditch in to get the vernal pool back. It is clearly a vegetated wetland but isolated. In terms of excavation, the water that drains into the wetland comes from the top of the hill. The watershed that cuts across the property doesn’t drain into this wetland but drains into Kinson Ct.
Carl S – The house has been built & is now 2-3’ from a steep cliff & is a problem. This is not how we should do business.
Paul N – The applicants moved the house & cut into the cliff. They knew what they were doing, they were not totally in the dark.
Bob Prokow – Yes, but it was a steep driveway and they tried to fix it.
Paul N – I’ve been out to this site a couple of times. This is not a steep driveway, especially compared to many sites in Georgetown.
Bob Prokow – Even though they are infringing on the wetland, we would like to get a recommendation from the Commission – we are changing the grade on the outside 20’ of the buffer but will revegetate that.
Carl S – How high would the retaining wall be?
Bob Prokow – I don’t know.
Paul N – Even if you take 6’ off the top of the hill someone could still stand on top & look in the windows of the house.
Bob Prokow – Probably.
Carl S – I’m looking for engineering options and I don’t see any proposed here.
Bob Prokow – The only other option from the engineer (Lawrence Ogden) – (reads letter) “The hill is primarily ledge with an overburden of fill and vegetation. All unstable overburden should be removed and the ledge exposed. Attached are conceptual sketches showing two stone retaining walls and regarding of the hill. This concept would require the removal of material on the face of the slope. The new walls would be designed and constructed once the existing ledge is exposed. The walls would be backfilled to allow areas acceptable for landscaping.”
Paul N – That’s what we talked about at the site visit.
Mike B – Why do you need to lower the grade?
Bob Prokow – We have to remove the trees from the top.
Carl S – The corner of the foundation is right next to the cliff. You have put the house within 5’ of a high, unstable cliff.
Bob Prokow – We know we will hit ledge. The aim is not to blast but to remove it another way
Ken Surette – The ledge is 8-9’ above the drive. That’s the start of the retaining wall. It’s a 3:1 slope.
Bob Prokow – Ultimately there will be disturbance in the buffer zone. The engineer says we need a 2nd retaining wall. If we cannot build a second wall the project is a no go at this point.
Carl S – We’re stuck with a problem here. The house is there. We would prefer it in a different location but that isn’t possible unless the house is moved.
Bob Prokow – The 1st 25’ of the cliff is on the downside of slope, it drains away from the wetland. Intrusion into the buffer zone and wetland will be 15’ tops.
Steve P – That’s a very steep slope. The slope is also a big concern, not just the distance from the resource. 3:1 is a good sized slope.
Paul N – Taking the trees off the top of that hill will create erosion.
Carl S – There will have to be some sort of retaining mechanism. We want to minimize the impact of this situation – not just lop the top of the hill off because it’s more convenient.
Bob Prokow – You should see what the hill looks like.
GCC – We’ve all been out there on site visits, many of us have been there more than once. We’re very familiar with the site and its problems.
Mike B – We are looking for alternatives to this plan.
Carl S – We need to see some analysis. Some retaining wall has to occur, 2 tiered at least.
Paul N – Tiering, only take off one side near house. There are things you can do here. The quick & dirty solution is to take the top off. That’s not what we’re looking for.
Bob Prokow – We want to limit that grading to 15’ into the buffer zone.
Carl S – Solidify your options, give us details & information about what the work will entail. Just for the record, an Isolated Wetland is the same as a BVW under our regulations & bylaw.
Mike B – This plan you propose is extreme. You need to come back with alternatives.
Paul N – As you look at alternatives, present them to our agent before your next meeting.
Steve P- We need to review the plans 1 week before your hearing. Don’t bring them into us the day of the meeting.
MOTION to continue the hearing to Dec 1, 8:30 – John / Paul / Unam
541 NORTH STREET (GCC-2004-049; DEP 161-0612) NOI (Cont)
Perc testing within 100’ of BVW.
Reps: Jacob Murray, Apple Associates; Pam Margaritis, Owner
Jacob Murray – At the Jan 27 hearing we got permission to dig perc holes outside the buffer zone. On Apr 15 we had perc holes scheduled with the Georgetown BOH but it was rescheduled. There is still no resolution to the boundary dispute with the abutters, so we are holding the more restrictive property line closer to the dwelling. Once GCC approvals are in place then we will contact the abutter & resolve the boundary issues. Then we will move the proposed testing areas to the rear of the property. We are here to show you the new location of the perc tests out of the buffer zone. Some is within the buffer zone but would be stabilized afterwards. The perc tests will be conducted in the next 2 weeks with the BOH. We propose to reconfigure the house to fit, with no
disturbance in the 50’.
Carl S – Are you perc testing within 100’?
Jacob Murray – No.
Paul N – Perennial streams are protected up to 200’.
Mike B – This stream is shown on state maps as a stream of second order.
Jacob Murray – I’m not aware of that.
Pam Margaritis – There is a lot line dispute. The line was approved by the town in 1988, but was recorded differently. I don’t want to upset the neighbors so we are moving it into the back part of the lot.
John B – There will still be an issue even if you move it there.
Steve P – We should have a third party review. This is close to the 100’ and this may be a perennial stream. We need to know what we’re dealing with. Even so, everything will be right on the line – is that really the buffer?
Paul N – We Did a site walk in the winter, but nothing could really be determined due to the snow cover.
Carl S – The wetland line hasn’t been approved. This may not be the true line.
Mike B – We have a number of issues - a potential perennial stream, and this is also within a Zone II area, etc. We have to have a third party review. If the stream is declared perennial then all the buffers downstream change as well.
Carl S – Yes, that would affect the setback for the entire length of the stream. That’s the first course of action.
Paul N – We can also do the wetland delineation at the same time.
Carl S – According to our regulations we can’t do the delineation after Oct 15.
Tom H –The stream is flowing across the road right now. It is perennial.
Carl S – We’ll have to continue this hearing until Spring when we can do the delineation.
Mike B – We also have to determine the setbacks.
Paul N – Look at the culvert – it is partially blocked to form a skating rink… Opening the blockage will create more flow through this stream.
Mike B – The stream is feeding this area.
Jacob Murray – We haven’t done any test pits yet. We’re all set to go except for the property line dispute.
Carl S – We are concerned that this is so close to the line. If the line drifts by even 10’ you would be percing in the buffer. We never allow septic in the buffer.
Paul N – Nor would the BOH.
Carl S – It is critical that we know where that line is.
Jacob Murray – Can we do the delineation now?
Carl S – No, there is no delineation in the winter. We need legitimate data coming in. No field work can be done between Oct 15 to Apr 15.
Pam Margaritis – Can we not do anything until Apr 15?
Mike B – If we recognize this as a perennial stream it would be a 200’ buffer. We don’t want to downgrade the stream & buffers without a third party review.
Carl S – Yes, if the line changes that much then this may be irrelevant discussion.
Paul N – If we look at it as perennial – we have to determine that first.
Mike B – If it is, then we’re working with 200’.
Paul N – Then they would have to request variances for everything on the whole site. And the septic would be within the setback.
Steve P – We need more information.
Carl S – We need to determine the stream definition and the wetland line.
Mike B – We’ll have to schedule it into the Spring.
Jacob Murray – Can we do perennial or intermittent on the plan?
Paul N – The Riverfront Protection Act stipulates a 200’ setback. We need to figure that out first.
Mike B – It will all be covered if we have a 3rd party review.
Paul N – It’s better for you too if he comes back & says the stream is intermittent.
Carl S – Even if you dig the perc tests now we wouldn’t let you put the septic there if it is a perennial stream. We don’t allow that in a BVW setback either. If you had a bigger space to work with it would be different, but you don’t.
MOTION to engage a third party reviewer & continue the hearing to May 4th, 2006 at 8:00 – John / Tom / Unam
STONE ROW – LOT 14 (GCC-2005-031) ANRAD (New)
Delineate 8,226 linear feet of BVW and 2,016 linear feet of Riverfront Area.
Reps: Larry Beals, Beals Associates, Consultants; George Agganis & TJ Conti, Owners
Larry Beals – (Shows an aerial photo from Mass GIS.) We have filed an ANRAD with drawing of resource areas.
Carl S – How many acres is this site?
TJ Conti - Just over 30 acres.
Larry Beals – The area includes forested upland and BVW. There has been extensive analysis by 2 firms – Seekamp did the work originally & then Beals. We are now doing the design & have verified the wetlands in the field using both vegetation & soils.
Carl S – When did you do the delineation?
Larry Beals – In April – June this year by Seekamp and checked by us in Aug – Sept. It was closely scrutinized by vegetation & soils. The blue marks on the map show the river flowing along the property line with the River Protection Act- 100’ inner riparian & 200’ outer riparian zones, BVW & riparian resources. If you agree with these resource areas we would like to move forward with the Planning Board. Once the wetland has been established then we will know what we can & can’t do with the site.
Mike B – Is this within an NHESP area? Zone II? Floodzones~?
GCC – Nope.
Carl S – We do conduct site walks but not now. Oct 15 is the cut off until Apr 15. The third party review & site walks would take place after then. This is according to Georgetown regulations.
Larry B – Yes but, it says it should be done when herbacious vegetation is present and it still is.
Carl S – You did your delineation within the timeframe, and we have to wait to do the same.
Mike B – Those are the actual dates in the regulations.
Larry Beals – We did it then.
Carl S – We need to do our delineation as well & can’t do it until Spring. We have to see the same plants you did. I can’t set precedents – we have to follow the regulations.
Paul N – We just denied another party a site walk/delineation until Spring.
Larry Beals – That’s a problem for us. The regulations say … it’s unfair!
Carl S – You filed at this time.
Larry Beals – We wanted your input on the project but if you can’t do the delineation until April we will go to the Planning Board first.
Carl S – We can’t give you information if we don’t know where the boundaries are.
Larry Beals – Two experienced firms have done the delineation. There are clear boundaries. It goes from upland to wetland within a few feet. I am confident that these are accurate. I can go to all other boards except this one. So I will go on without GCC input. I don’t see your regulations saying that.
Paul N – Do we have a copy of the latest drawings?
Steve P – Yes.
Carl S – In an ANRAD we have no idea what you intend to do with the lot. Our input can only be towards the wetland line as we don’t know what you’re proposing.
Larry Beals – Are you open to informal discussions? We have ideas for the site, managing stormwater, where to protect, etc.
Steve P – We can meet offline.
Carl S – We can’t give specific advice, but it would be helpful if we had an idea of what you area proposing. We can take an unofficial look at it. The official look has to be in open forum & within a public hearing.
Larry Beals – I’ll come in with our concept plans showing habitat areas, resource areas (some more significant than others) and how to stay away from there. It’s hard to change when we go farther into the process.
Mike Gauthier, Abutter, 3 Stone Row – You made a reference to meeting unofficially. Have you made those arrangements with anyone else? Do you do that regularly?
Carl S –Absolutely not! Occasionally an applicant will show us something & we don’t take action – just showing us ideas. Commonly an applicant will call us & run their ideas by us as they are planning. It’s not official until they have been formally submitted to us.
Mike Gauthier, Abutter, 3 Stone Row – How do we do this?
Paul N – The applicant comes in with layouts – not a commitment – just to discuss those ideas with the agent. Just ideas.
Carl S – We can’t make a decision until we have defined the wetland line. We can’t say one way or other.
Mike Gauthier, Abutter, 3 Stone Row – Could we request to have a representative at that meeting?
Larry Beals – It is well advised for us to meet with them. The neighbors are interested in what happens there – we want to keep them as part of that process. We wouldn’t want them to be left out. Nothing can be approved until the NOI.
Carl S – All speculations are meaningless until voted on at the NOI stage.
Larry Beals – With environmental planning & land use planning it is useful to involve the board. We have to do abutter notification again for the NOI..
Mike Gauthier, Abutter, 3 Stone Row – Is that a yes or no?
Carl S – It’s a Yes.
Lonnie Brennan, Selectman – Let’s clarify this, a quorum of this board will not deliberate outside a public meeting.
Carl S – That’s correct but it was not implied that we would. The agent talks to them. It’s not a secret meeting of the GCC.
Lonnie Brennan, Selectman – There will be no deliberation or anything without everyone present who wants to be part of the program.
Paul N- That’s what the agent is for - to work with applicants on determining how best to develop a parcel from a conservation perspective.
Carl S – According to Open Meeting law the Commission cannot deliberate outside a public meeting. It is common for them to ask the agent to hold discussions on their behalf.
Steve P – I meet with all sides.
Kevin Jarvis, Abutter, 64 Jewett – I am an abutter to the back of this property, 150’ of my stone wall abuts this area. There has been clearing right up to the wall, with wetland flags. I was not sent an abutter notification of this meeting.
Laura R – That’s right, the residents of 62 & 66 Jewett were included but you were left off the list. I’ll investigate.
Steve P – We need to look at the abutter notification again and encourage everyone to attend.
Bob Hamilton, Abutter, 13 Noyes – What is the definition of a wetland area? I’m referring to the on the right of the map that says a stream is running through there. That stream meets with a culvert under I-95 & is not shown on there.
Steve P – I’ve also been told by an abutter who came into see me that Wheeler Brook runs up through this property. That isn’t shown on this plan. That’s why we need a third party review.
Scott Backman, Abutter, 485 North St – You mentioned another plan, a conceptual sub-division plan … can we get a copy of that?
Larry Beals – The only thing we filed is that one here. There may have been another – maybe the original Stone Row sub-division plan.
Carl S – Are there any more questions? We will continue to the Spring for a site walk. Can abutters come on the site walk?
Andrew Curry, 10 Noyes Rd – There is very high ground water along Noyes Rd & downstream. Please take that into consideration, the sub surface & surface groundwater hydrology. That needs to be considered!!
Barbra Comunale, Abutter, 13 Stone Row – There are problems with high ground water on Stone Row resulting in cellar flooding in many areas.
MOTION to engage a third party review & continue the hearing to May 4, 2006 at 8:30 – Tom / John / Unam
Kim Lien, Abutter, 4 Stone Row – Who can go on the site walk?
MOTION to conduct a site walk – April 22, 2006 at 8 am – Mike / Tom / Unam
George Agganis - We’ll show them anything we already have. We have conceptual plans of what we would like to do but it is up to what the town, boards & neighbors want. We will show you anything anytime. It’s a necessary evil, this part of the process, but we will have to have a letter of indemnification signed by each person for liability before they can come on property. We can talk to the abutters – contact us anytime, we will show you what we’re thinking & walk the property.
Carl S – With some large projects the applicant allows the abutters to elect a group representative.
George Agganis - Sure. What might alter things is the wetland line. The abutters can come get information anytime. My cell phone number is (978) 314-4344. TJ Conti’s cell phone is (978) 609 0688.
Carl S - Abutters will contact the applicant, sign the letter & then can come out on site walks.
10 MARIONS WAY (GCC-2005-025; DEP 161-0633) NOI (New)
Installation of in-ground swimming pool 75’ from BVW.
Reps: Arthur & Kelly Ferretti, Owners
Arthur Ferretti – We would like to install an in-ground pool. We could not get outside the 100’ mark. The furthest we could get is 75’.
Paul N – This diagram is what you intend? It shows the 75’ buffer cutting the edge of the pool.
Arthur Ferretti – No, the decking will be outside the 75’ mark – away from the wetland. Only the fence will be within the 100’.
Paul N – That isn’t impervious, so it’s OK.
Steve P – I worked with the applicant a lot. It’s a tight space, this is the only place it can go. We need to see siltation but otherwise it is outside all the setbacks. You should make sure any water pumped out of the pool goes in exactly the opposite direction of the wetland
Paul N – The silt fence is the only thing not on the plans.
Steve P – The wetland lines are off a full-scale plan established within the last 2 yrs. The lines are good – I checked them.
Arthur Ferretti – There may be some small trees between the 100 – 75 that we may want to remove. May ask Steve to look at them and help us with them?
Steve P – Actually, they aren’t trees, just small saplings. They’re not a problem.
John B – Do you recommend this project, Steve?
Steve P – Yes. It’s outside all our buffers.
Paul N – Do we have everything we need?
Steve P – Yes.
MOTION to approve the NOI without accepting the wetland lines as shown, with siltation & brush removal to be done with Steve P – Mike / Tom / Unam
Carl S – The OoC should say that the pool drainage should go away from the wetland.
Kelly Ferretti – We are looking into non-chlorinated systems.
Arthur Ferretti – We are trying to search out more natural chemicals. If this is approved, how long is it good for?
Carl S – 6 yrs – 3 years for the original OoC with a possible 3 yr extension. Just let us know 30 prior to expiration of first one if you need an extension.
MOTION to close the hearing – Tom / John / Unam
65R THURLOW ST (GCC-2005-032) ANRAD (New)
Review over 3,400 linear feet of delineated Resource Area.
Reps: Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental; Richard & Frada Spencer, Owners
Patrick Seekamp – This is a large area with wooded swamps out back, some steep slopes, the pond has been flagged with 100’ buffer zone. Flags A25, 24 & 22 mark an intermittent stream like a dredged ditch. The wetland line flares out there as a BVW.
Paul N – That intermittent stream shows up on GIS
Patrick Seekamp – It is a dredged ditch.
Paul N – GIS also shows a pond where you show wetland. It’s large enough to show up on GIS.
Patrick Seekamp – It’s not flowing in July, so is not perennial. The areas of wetland that go along the SE property boundary go off site along the stone wall. There is a small area where it goes along the wall & then back onto site. The offset distances to the stone wall are shown – onto the property owned by others to establish the buffer zone & setbacks.
Paul N – What about the streams on site?
Patrick Seekamp – There are none close to the wetland boundary. I don’t know if there are others.
Paul N – This site is close to NHESP habitat areas & is half in the floodplain.
Patrick Seekamp – We submitted a Natural Heritage map with our application to show that the site isn’t within their area. The site is approximately 14 acres. Only resource boundaries are shown on the plan – we will add the buffer zones after the resources are agreed. The hatch markings show depression contours where the valley rises around it. There is a fairly large pond with good bass & sunfish populations.
Carl S – Is that a natural pond?
Richard Spencer, Owner – No, it is man made.
Patrick Seekamp – The pond has to rise fairly high before it flows out of the pipe – to control the pond depth. The existing birm & path / haul road is where the pipe goes thru the birm & into the wetland. The pond is hydrologically connected to the wetland.
Paul N – The spike of the stream shows up on GIS as well.
Patrick Seekamp – That depends on when the photographic flight was taken. If it was done in Spring it may have had standing water. We see that a lot in dredged ditches. When the flight took place you couldn’t see the ground as there is heavy white pine cover.
Carl S – Timelines. We cannot conduct a third party review until Spring.
Patrick Seekamp – I’d like to comment that any company reviewing lines are out all year long. Ther is no reason we can’t flag the wetland when the leaves are out of the way. We can see the topography. We apply science. We are comfortable delineating after October. We’re concerned if there is snow, but otherwise it isn’t a problem.
Carl S - Our regulations state that delineations are only conducted between April 15 and October 15.
Sylvia West, Abutter, Meadowview Rd – I don’t know how this project would affect me as I don’t see my property on your plan. I’m on the corner of your property.
Richard Spencer – It wouldn’t affect you down there.
Patrick Seekamp – We want the wetland line to be approved so we can know what is wetland / upland for when we come back for an NOI for a proposed project. The abutters are not losing the opportunity to comment at that phase.
Carl S – The independent reviewer will be identified & booked asap as well as the site walks.
Steve P – We will contact you within 2 weeks to let you know when they will be.
MOTION to hold a site walk on April 29 at 8 am with a third party review booked by agent before then – Mike / Tom / Unam
MOTION to continue to May 4, 2006, 9:15 – John / Mike / Unam
BLUEBERRY LANE
Reps: Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental; Bill Ford, Owner
Patrick Seekamp – Last time you identified a list of concerns, we have addressed them all. The site plan has been updated to include them. The biggest was the issue of the potential vernal pool within the wetland boundaries. Steve P & I went out and flagged what we thought was the jurisdictional limit. I looked at it again with Steve & we agreed where to plot it on the plan with the 100’ line. This was a significant change, one lot had to be re-graded to meet the bylaw for setback. On Lot 1 there was a grading change at the back of the lot. We have a tight construction area at the back of the lot. We’ll probably come back for a change to this in the future.
Paul N – Steve P had issues with that construction area as it is within 5’ of the buffer zone.
Steve P – The septic system is within the buffer zone as well.
Patrick Seekamp – The septic has been moved outside now. (Looks at plan) Oh, Steve’s right, the tank is within the 100’.
Steve P – That whole site has to be re-designed. The perc tests have not been done, so that might be a change in future, we can’t approve without it.
Patrick Seekamp – I understand that the BOH approved them all.
Paul N – They are not shown on the plan, so we need to see those.
Patrick Seekamp – All the systems have been designed & approved with Deb at BOH. The monumentation is at reasonable distances at the isolated wetland & vernal pool.
Steve P – We require 35’ distances for monumentation, unless is on a straightway.
Paul N – It needs to be placed especially close when the line is so close to the house as they will go around it or put something on top of it.
Patrick Seekamp – We could certainly put more bounds in.
Steve P – It’s not just that one house. On tight bends it needs to be much closer – between 15’ to 20’ apart. We can sit down & discuss that.
Carl S – The distances depend on the topography.
Patrick Seekamp – It might make sense to have Steve work this out on review when we’re looking at the lots.
Carl S – Yes but, as far as plan approval goes we like to see the monumentation shown on the plan.
Paul N – The Littles Hill OoC had the distance between markers specified differently for straight lines & curves.
Mike B – As get farther away
Bill Ford, Owner – We can’t look at it until the trees have been cleared. We’ll work with Steve that way.
Patrick Seekamp – We can condition that in the field with the agent.
Carl S – We can do them generically in the OoC & that will then be reflected in the CoC.
Patrick Seekamp – The erosion control is also the limit of work. We can go with silt sock but haybales can be better at times.
Carl S – Invasives can come in with haybales.
Patrick Seekamp – Siltation control isn’t always as good with the silt sock. We are staying away from the wetlandl lines they’re not being disturbed.
Paul N – We can put in the OoC that haybales may be used in areas where the agent specifies they should be. It should also specify how they should be disposed of afterwards.
Patrick Seekamp – That’s a good way to handle it. We’ll make those additions to the plan. There were no wetland flag changes by the third party reviewer – despite the fact that we flagged it in winter.
Steve P – Is the existing septic system being abandoned?
Patrick Seekamp – Yes.
Carl S – Lot 1 will be reconfigured?
Bill Ford – The house will be re-positioned on the lot.
Steve P – We can’t pass this plan with that line of work boundary so close to the house.
Carl S – We need to see how it is going to be. We want to see how you want it & how it’s going to be. That doesn’t have to wait until Spring.
Patrick Seekamp – Can that be in the OoC?
Carl S – No, once we approve the plan that’s the way it is.
Bill Ford – We are moving the existing house on Nov 14. I’m asking for your assistance to work this out so we don’t miss that window.
Carl S – How quickly could you get that modification made to the plan?
Mike B – For both the house & the septic the plan has to be tight.
Carl S – If you can get us a firm plan we could work quickly.
Phil Rice, potential buyer – The delineation is to protect the wetland at 100’. It doesn’t matter when you get outside the haybale line. You don’t need a setback from a setback.
Carl S – It’s in our jurisdiction if it’s within 100’.
Phil Rice – Someone might want a different type of house from what is on that plan.
Carl S – We just had a hearing where someone moved a house on a lot & caused a problem.
Phil Rice – If I can fit a house in there, can’t you just approve where the house will go rather than exactly what it is?
Carl S – No, we need to see exactly what will go where and how you plan to work out the septic area and work area.
Steve P – How are you going to backfill the foundation within 5’ of the limit of work line?
Patrick Seekamp – We work from inside the footprint.
Tom Gagney – Is it possible to approve 4 out of the 5 lots & then go on from there?
Carl S – It could be done but the application hasn’t been filed that way. This application is for the whole sub-division.
Fred Thompson – Can we pull that lot & then come back with it later?
Carl S – We can fit you in on the Nov 3rd meeting & you would still make your window of time to move the house.
Steve P – If you get plan in earlier it’ll work better – I would like to have it 1 week before your next hearing.
Carl S – When have the final location we can move forward. We don’t approve a plan without seeing everything on it.
Paul N – We could have the OoC ready at your next meeting.
GCC – The new plans should have: additional monumentation; reconfiguration of Lot 1; movement of the house & septic.
MOTION to continue to Nov 3, 7:10 – Tom / John / Unam
| 
