GCC MEETING MINUTES
November 17, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, Tom Howland, Paul Nelson, John Bell, Mike Birmingham, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MOTION to accept minutes of Oct 20, 2005 with Paul’s changes – John / Mike / Unam
CAMP DENISON EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT
Corey Wade – Camp Denison Eagle Scout Project
Photos of before & after. Maps of trails.
Action: Send letter to Corey confirming completion of project.
25 BAILEY LANE
GCC – There is no hardship to justify waiving the fees for this NOI. There is no legitimate reason to waive them and we can’t just waive fees for public officials.
Mike B – If we tell him not to file for the road that’s like making a judgement without a hearing.
Steve P – We will be putting in a lot of time over the next years that he is working on this project. He is being vague about everything he wants to do.
Carl S – He may have to file multiple NOIs. It might be best to segment the project into separate parts and file for each as he goes through those steps. We don’t want to give a general OoC covering any and all things he might want to do.
Paul N – He should have an engineer produce actual drawings for this application.
GEORGETOWN-ROWLEY STATE FOREST
Rep: Charles Miller, 146 Elm Street
Charles Miller – The State DCR (Dept of Conservation & Recreation) is evaluating statewide ATV use in the GRSF. This issue has festered for 10-15 years. Certain areas are set aside for their use. That has been moderately successfully. I was on the advisory commission. The contact person for ATV users has disappeared so there is no organization. NH, RI & CT have imposed ATV restrictions.
Carl S – Almost all MA sites have been closed. That has compounded our problem as they all now come here.
Charles Miller – In the forest very few are MA registered vehicles. The riders are from MA, but the vehicles are registered out of state. I have lived next to the forest for 43 yrs, there are a lot of them but now they have 3 times the horsepower they used to have. Over behind Penn Brook School there is a footbridge and a piece of path where I have estimated 200 cubic yards of soil has been washed into the wetland from ATV erosion.. The stream was originally about 25’ wide and is now about 75’ with the remainder washed into the stream. The state says they can go through at low speed to prevent erosion but they don’t. A lot of meetings are focused on the abutters but the real issue is the damage being done out there.
Carl S – The real issue is that people have them & will ride them so they come here from everywhere. State created this problem. So when they close this area they will ride on our conservation areas.
Charles Miller – They’re already riding on the water land. Enforcement is an issue. We can’t enforce because we can’t catch them. The Regional Director has ordered law enforcement people not to chase them.
Carl S – Yes, there were fatalities when people were escaping.
Charles Miller – Enforcement would be easier if the area were closed. There must be strong enforcement. Two yrs ago an Environmental Policeman on Boxford Rd was chasing them but he stopped.
Carl S – What’s our authority on state property? I believe that if the Wetlands Protection Act applies to private individuals, organizations, and public organizations can take action. We do have jurisdiction (if it is in Georgetown).
Steve P – Especially if they are causing damage to the wetlands.
Charles Miller – Beaver issues have to go thru the local Con Comms. Mosquito control is exempt but nothing else is.
Carl S – From a wetland perspective damage is occurring.
Paul N – How do we enforce it unless we say they can’t go into the area?
Carl S – We should jump on the state for not enforcing.
Charles Miller – The state can be selective in enforcement but the Wetland Protection Act is not elective.
Carl S – Trails are attractive for more exciting riding. These are not just local riders, they are coming from outside the area. We have the same issues on our own lands – because they’re going to GRSF. Try persuading first & then go to enforcement.
John B – It’s not everyone doing it – only 10% are causing damage.
Charles Miller – I believe it’s only 10% of people who are doing it properly.
Carl S- It’s a matter of population concentration. Even if they are being responsible they still cause a lot of erosion.
Steve P – What’s the action plan?
Carl S – We need to document the damage. Take some pictures. Offer to help with enforcement.
Mike B – Point out to the state that it is damage that they are allowing in that area.
Charles Miller – I am willing to volunteer time to get that information.
Action: Collect info & inform state with Rowley.
Charles Miller – If Rowley & Georgetown got together we could employ an Environmental Police officer. The quiet users are being forced out of state parks by these irresponsible users.
HEARINGS
PENTUCKET ACRES CA (GCC-2005-33) RDA (New)
Reps: Chris Comiskey, Tim Vaters – Pentucket Acres Stewardship Committee
Tim Vaters – To use better, see existing area commonly used in nborhood for large vehicle turning. Rdway has been eroded. Plan to repair asphault – eroded from trucks. Put border to secure asphalt, regrade lot to be flat for better parking (incl ADA). Coarse gravel base covered with finer gravel layer. Stop settling.
Paul N – Won’t it settle down through the larger stones?
Steve P – Maybe, but that can be topped up as it settles over every few years.
Carl S – Will there be additional turning capacity after the area is improved?
Chris Comiskey – No. The main problem is with the trash trucks which have damaged the street edge.
Tim Vaters – We plan to use the timbers & rebar to keep the edge from moving. That’ll give excellent water flow & drainage. The area is currently undefined & has been abused. It collects water which is stting in large puddles in the middle of the area. The goal is to get the Highway Dept to do the work. I talked to Jack Moultrie – he replied cautiously but said he had leftover materials that he could use to complete the job for us.
Steve P – Jack said he’d be able to do it when he has time.
Tim Vaters – He wanted to do it by the bookand needed a general idea of what we were doing. We’re just patching an area of the road, installing the border & graveling.
Carl S – Discuss the methodology with him – maybe he has a better way to do it or better materials. There may be an issue with the edging timbers and winter plowing.
Steve P – When we get a determination we can work with Jack M to get it done reasonably.
Tim Vaters – If we do it this way with asphalt at the same time, the surface of the timber will be matched at the top of the asphalt & won’t be a problem with protruding rebar or timbers. If we add new asphalt the edge would work well.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett – I am not an abutter to this project and have no financial interest in it. If Jack M is doing this he won’t do it in a way to make problem for his own highway department. What about signage for the area?
Chris Comiskey – We are getting to that later.
Mike B – Are there abutter issues?
Chris Comiskey – This are will mainly be used by people in the neighborhood who can walk there. Some expressed concerns about traffic but we don’t believe it will be widely used. It’s only a 4-acre area, people aren’t going to drive from miles around to come to such a small area.
Tim Vaters – There have been concerns expressed about kids partying in the area but there are other areas to party nearby – they don’t need to do it here.
Chris Comiskey – The management plan outlines a plan for ADA compliant parking.
MOTION to waive fees – John / Mike / 4 Aye, 1 Abstain
MOTION to continue to Dec 15, 8:30 – John / Mike / 4 Aye, 1 Abstain
Action: Write a letter to abutters describing plans for the area & informing them of the next hearing date.
11 MARTEL WAY (GCC-2005-006; DEP 161-0618) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Costy Ricci, Owner; Ken Knowles, Meridian Engineering
Ken Knowles – We revised the plan to address the comments of the GCC. Pulled the retaining wall back by 7.5’. Reduced the size of the building to 70 x 130 ft and pulled it forward to put the primary & reserve leach field farther away.
Paul N – The discussion didn’t stop there. We also spoke of re-gaining land by re-positioning storm water infiltrators on both sides of the property.
Ken Knowles – The building is now 33’ away on the front & 37’ on the left side – there is more separation on this one.
Paul N – Have you moved the infiltrators?
Ken Knowles – We went back to a HydraCAD computer model and revised the outlets. When water comes out it won’t build up so quickly so we could reduce the size to accommodate the wall.
Mike B – What is the tightest area to the buffer zone, not including the wall?
Ken Knowles – From flag A48 it is 33’ to front wall. The retaining wall is 30’ from flag A38.
Mike B - The retaining wall goes all around?
Ken Knowles – It butts into the building & becomes part of the foundation.
Paul N – You said the building had to be this depth so you could get a full trailer in. Why does this end of the building need to be extended this far?
Costy Ricci – It’s for storage – dead storage in that area.
Carl Shreder – We already talked about that. You cut this back 5’ from the last plan?
Ken Knowles – Yes.
Paul N – The whole idea of the Conservation Commission process is that alternatives have been examined. I don’t think we’ve seen alternatives that are acceptable.
Costy Ricci – The size of this building meets my needs now. It doesn’t include expansion in the future.
Carl S – We shouldn’t be looking primarily at the applicant’s business operation.
Paul N – What else can we base our analysis on?
Carl S – That’s not what we do.
Paul N- This breaks every setback we have. How can we justify this going forward?
Ken Knowles – This lot is unique. It is surrounded by wetlands so no zone can build here without asking for waivers.
Paul N – Yes but not clear that all the functions ……….
Carl S – We were looking at mitigating projects and impact on resources.
Paul N – They are nice, but our purpose is to eliminate the need for mitigation.
MOTION to deny the NOI because of the need for too many variances against setbacks (Section 15 – Setbacks); and inadequate alternatives proposed by applicant (Section 8.9 Alternative Analysis). The OoC with denial should include a statement that the applicant may re-propose the project in a new NOI. – Paul / Mike /
Ken Knowles – The Commission’s real charge is protection of wetlands. This application does provide protection to the BVW with stormwater controls and construction controls.
Paul N – The state literature says that buffer zones of 100’ may not be enough to really protect wetlands and we are looking at a proposal with 30’ setbacks.
Mike B – What good are our setbacks if anyone can say they built a wall here & it is OK. Why should we set that precedent?
Carl S – It’s a challenging lot.
Mike B – Yes but a giant store could come in and say that we allowed this project to build within 30’ of the wetlands so they should be allowed to do it also.
Costy Ricci – I’m shocked this is happening as I thought at our last meeting that we had agreed on a solution.
Carl S – We did have some informal discussions. The Commissioners were asked what we wanted from the applicant. We have to make a decision. We can’t keep doing this over & over week after week.
Paul N – I asked for more mitigation on the northeast and southeast side of the property based on moving infiltrators and some impervious surface.
Costy Ricci – We moved things to meet your concerns. I thought we agreed.
Ken Knowles – You didn’t ask for anything else.
Paul N – It is not our job to propose alternatives.
Costy Ricci – I thought we had agreed that you would approve it if we did certain things.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett St – I am not an abutter to this project and have no financial interest in it. Has the Commission asked for alternative anaylsis for a building footprint that meets the Regulations’ setbacks?
Paul N – Yes, we were shown a number of alternatives but none of them could meet the 75’ setback - that is impossible but they could have met the 50’ setback.
Harry LaCortiglia – Did the applicant refuse to provide that?
Steve P – They did show us many alternatives but those other options were not acceptable to the applicant. Many were shown but none of them were acceptable to them and they said they could not accept those alternative plans.
Carl S – This was previously filed and given an OoC with a building twice this size in 1998.
Ken Knowles – That building was only 12’ from the wetland.
Carl S – This was revisited post 1998, in about 2000 / 2001.
Steve P – This current project would be accepted by state regulations but not under the local bylaw.
Carl S – Not matter what he does he has to file for variances.
Costy Ricci – At the last meeting we made adjustments – why was this not done (eg, denied) then?
Paul N – Yes, we should’ve probably done it then.
Costy Ricci – We discussed it all. I don’t think it’s right, don’t drag me back in here.
Laura R – Mr. Ricci, I have watched this discussion from the beginning. What I have seen is the Commission trying very hard to come on board with your proposals. They’ve looked at it and asked for information from every possible angle. That’s why it has taken this long, they’ve been trying and trying to come to acceptance of your plan.
Paul N – What we ended up with is 7.5’ gain on one end & 5’ off the other.
Costy Ricci – It’s 7.5’ back.
Paul N – I came in with a proposal for 50’ setback & you rejected it.
Ken Knowles – Yes but it didn’t meet the operational needs of the applicant.
Carl S – Yes, we did tell the applicant to modify the plan. Based on our discussion I thought that was best we would get.
Paul N – It should either be right or not put there.
Costy Ricci – You should’ve told me that at the last meeting.
Paul N – I came in with many alternatives for you.
Costy Ricci – This plan will meet my immediate needs only. I can’t come back in & ask to double the size of the building. I want my operations next to my home, my present site will be maxed out. If I have to look for other dead storage space I will do that. The material I use often needs to be close by.
Carl S – We did tell the applicant to go make modifications and we would look at them.
John B – This is a very tight lot.
Tom Howland – I don’t feel good about this either way. We’re trying to put a round peg in square hole. We wanted to feel that if we heard your changes it would give us a good feeling but it hasn’t turned out that way. This is a tough one. It’s not fair, I agree, that if we left you with that impression it was wrong.
Paul N – I agree, but that’s what happened. What bothers me is that after you got this done it’s still not in the plan. Nothing we talked about in the Oct 13 meeting has appeared in the plan. Ken, Steve & I worked on it here in this room & nothing we talked about is in this plan.
Ken Knowles – A lot of what we talked about that day can’t be put into the plan. As an engineering plan – can I reduce it by that size? Yes. Can applicant use that? No. Can another applicant use it?
Paul N – Of course they can, what limits you is the need to get 4 semis in side-by-side.
Ken Knowles – Any building you put on this lot will need variances. It doesn’t matter what they propose.
Mike B – Was the NOI of 1998 approved?
Carl S – Yes but it was allowed to expire without being extended by the applicant
Steve P – Another project proposed for this site might be outside the 50’ or 65’.
Paul N – That’s why this lot was available for sale, because it was difficult. Our Bylaw / Regulations weren’t in place in 1998.
Mike B –One of the variances we’re allowing, the other was approved before. These variances will set precedents. The variances on either side of the entrance are acceptable. This lot is a buildable lot, just not to this size.
Paul N – The Regulations changed in 2004. You often see things that were built before then that couldn’t be built now.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett St - The structural setback from the wetland can’t be achieved. Does this go against the 50’ No-Disturb setback as well?
GCC –Yes it does. The setbacks are between 30 – 33’.
Paul N – We came close to achieving the 50’ setbacks in a plan we proposed.
Harry LaCortiglia – Did the applicant supply that?
Carl S – No, that was a plan Paul Nelson put together. The applicant produced a number of plans with better setbacks but they said they were not practical for their uses.
Steve P – Alternatives were not given outside the 50’
Paul N – That’s why in the motion I said a new NOI could be proposed with a new plan.
Carl S – We gave the applicant direction, what we wanted & what they could do & what changes we wanted to see.
Mike B – Yes, but then we wanted to see it on paper, in the plan.
Carl S – He said - Is it worth it for me to expend the funds to do it? - Implying that we were willing to entertain the proposal. We should’ve said at the time that the plan was unacceptable.
Mike B – Yes, it has been previously approved a long time ago but it breaks every setback and regulation we have.
Paul N – Yes, we have
Costy Ricci –We talked about this at the last meeting. You could’ve said all this at the last meeting.
Paul N – I did, I said the whole thing shouldn’t be accepted as it breaks every variance.
Costy Ricci – At the end of the meeting it seemed it would be accepted.
Carl S – They also asked for issues & problems, and whether this is something we would consider.
Ken Knowles – You should’ve said the 7.5’ and 5’ setbacks weren’t going to be acceptable. You should’ve said it then. Why waste another month & engineering fees and send him away with changes if you’re going to deny it anyway.
Paul N – Each member has their own perspective on it. Carl said you should go away & put your plans on paper.
Mike B – Would we feel better if we locked into the OoC determining what the building can be used for? Stipulate no chemicals, etc?
Ken Knowles – We’re in a watershed protection district so those provisions exist under the town brief anyway. If the applicant outgrows the property he would have to come back to file again.
Mike B – Where will these variances carry us in the future? We will be setting a big precedent. This project comes nowhere near to our Regulations.
Steve P – We have had enquiries from a number of big stores about land next to the new Access Road – Target and Lowes have both been in. What if Walmart comes in enquiring about the land on 95?
Mike B – They could squash our setbacks on basis of what we decide here.
Ken Knowles – Any other building on this lot would require setback variances.
Mike B – No, a small office building might need less space.
Carl S – Yes but they would also need more parking & septic.
Mike B – A Theoretical Walmart would be hard to deal with after we set this precedent.
Ken Knowles – We need variances because the lot is so small. If we had a large lot we wouldn’t be asking for them.
Carl S – We need to come to a resolution. Vote your conscience. We can’t keep going on with no resolution. We did give the applicant direction last time even though that was not a committment. This is a challenging case.
Mike B – This is going to come up in the future. We want to be able to say we didn’t set the precedent.
Paul N – The precedent is very far-reaching. Even with an expired OOC. The laws of the land evolve. Old laws aren’t enforced after new laws have been enacted.
Mike B – It broke the variances of that time as well.
Ken Knowles – It was 12’ from the wetland.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett St - There were no setbacks at that time.
Carl S – There was the Bylaw only.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett – Things were decided at the whim of the commission back then. Some applicants got one treatment & others got another.
MOTION to deny the NOI because of setbacks, an excess of variances, inadequate alternatives, and buffers. The applicant may re-propose the project at another time. – Paul / Mike /
– 3 Aye, 2 No
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett St – Is the Commission going to close the hearing or give them an opportunity to revise their plan?
GCC – They have been offered many opportunities to provide revised plans. None of those were judged to be acceptable by the applicant.
Paul N – MACC says a new NOI needs to be issued with new application.
MOTION to accept the plan 10/31/05 under state regulations – Mike / John / 4 Aye, 1 No
MOTION to close the hearing – Paul / John / Unam
BLUEBERRY LANE (GCC-2005-020; DEP 161-0627) NOI (Cont)
Reps: Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental;
Patrick Seekamp – The plan changes have been made including - the septic tank on Lot 1 & grading on Lot 1 that needed to be revised to pull back from setback. Now we have a better design with nothing within the 100’ buffer zone. We have plenty of room to work around the back of the lot.
Steve P – This plan looks possible now.
Patrick Seekamp – The last plan didn’t show the no-cut bounds that were needed so we changed that to show it more as it will be with additional boundary markers.
Steve P – We can always back off and install fewer if need be. They will be leaving more trees on property. I will go out to discuss the trees after the road goes in.
Paul N – Were the test pits in the wrong place?
Steve P – Yes, but can accept them as they are shown on the plan. If they move it they will have to come back in here with a major change to their NOI. It is a risk for them. The septics haven’t been accepted by the BOH – this is preliminary only. If they have to move them they will have to come back to us.
Patrick Seekamp – We can’t push them within the 100’ anyway & the BOH has to approve them yet. We have to come back with any change into the buffer zone.
Steve P – I have already written the OoC. We are seeing on this plan exactly what we talked about and I have written the OoC with that. This plan is fine with me.
Paul N – There are no variances in this at all?
Steve P – No, it’s a solid project.
MOTION to accept the approved plan dated 10/28/05 – Paul / John / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – Mike / Tom / Unam
8-10 PINE PLAIN ROAD
Reps: Nelson Tidd, Judith Tidd, Owners
Nelson Tidd – This property has been in litigation since last April. We would like to ask for a 6 month extension until that matter has been resolved.
MOTION to continue to May 18, 2006 at 8:00 – John / Tom / Unam
LITTLES HILL
Rep: Craig Spear, Camelot Realty Trust
Craig Spear – The OoC was delayed due to circumstances beyond our control, a legal situation. We have been diligently trying to complete the sub-division. Have all the roads, most of the sidewalks, and all detention ponds,
Paul N – Are there no new lots?
Craig – No.
Mike B – Has the open space land been given to the GCC yet?
Craig Spear – Only one has been deed so far, the other deeds are bouncing back & forth with counsel.
Carl S – They won’t be transferred until the drainage issues are resolved?
Craig Spear – Yes, we added drainage in the open space area but I suggest we don’t deed it over until all work has been done. The loaming & seeding are done. At Littles Hill Lane there is only one spot where the road is in the buffer zone. We brought the paving & curbing up past that area. Some of the houses are 105’ from the buffer zone. The area by the big detention pond at bottom of Littles Hill Ln has been paved, all sidewalks are complete, etc.
Carl S – When did the OoC expire?
Craig Spear – Late August. I applied at least 30 days prior for an extension.
Carl S – We have modified our Bylaw since then.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett St – Only the local OoC needs extending. The State was already done. The open space lots are going to the town – what is the decision re the third, smallest lot? Are you giving it to Park & Rec instead of GCC?
Craig Spear – All 3 parcels were originally going to the Selectmen (i.e. the Town under the management and control of the Concom). The last parcel by the rail trail is also going to selectmen & they will give it to Park & Rec,
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett – It is only legally under Ch 40-Sec 8C if accepted & then goes to GCC.
Steve P – We need to revisit this offline & make sure we do it properly. Has the flooding issue been resolved?
Craig Spear – The Planning Board engineer & my guy resolved how to fix it, a letter is to be sent. I will check to make sure it was.
Paul N – Why?
Craig Spear – There was seepage out of the side of the hill – it caused a wet spot in someone’s driveway. We added a subsurface drain under the drive.
Carl S – Was this the result of the recent heavy rain?
Craig Spear – No, it’s a bigger problem. There was also a leaking sprinkler system. That has also been addressed. Sarah Buck is sending a letter saying that what we did is adequate. It’s not in the buffer zone, but I understand it is my responsibility to fix it.
MOTION to extend the Little Hills Sub-div OoC for 3 yrs under the new bylaw – John / Mike / Unam (from same date as state)
Action: Look into donation of open space parcels
44 ELM STREET (GCC-2005-024; DEP 161-0632) NOI (Cont)
No reps.
MOTION to continue to Jan 12, 2006 at 8:30 – John / Mike / Unam
95 ELM STREET (GCC-2005-021; DEP 161-0626) ANRAD (Cont)
Reps: Ken Kaumph, Owner; Marty Halloran, Engineer; Mary Trudeau, Wetland Consultant; James Decoulos, Attorney
James Decoulos – We submitted our position paper with all documentation. We were discussing the issue of Significant Time at our last hearing. We have 5 points: (1) This is not an ILSF – The Georgetown Bylaw provision is for an ILSF of 25cf threshold. This establishes a new resource area which the Regulations can’t do, that’s for the town to do. (2) In the Regulations it does not provide for only frozen ground conditions. (3) We supplied a hydrology study – 10 year storm w/o infiltration – 2500 cf – less than state. (4) There is no observation of standing water in this area – especially after 10.5” rain in October.
Paul N – I have photos of water standing in that area.
John Decoulos – How can you define this area when there is no recorded way of delineating as the water doesn’t stand for long.
Paul N – CMR Act
JD – Lgst
Paul N – If this is in contention go to the formula with 100 yr storm …
John Decoulos – We’re talking about defining a significant period of time.
Paul N – We’re talking about extent, not volume. We are implying a mathematical exercise.
Mary Trudeau – This is a 2 point test – is the watershed capable of generating the volumes necessary. If it can, then we can do a hypothetical test.
Carl S – We are also talking state vs local.
Paul N – If you look at map Marty used it shows a dramatically smaller watershed than should be. Looking at the landscape, there are 2 small hills about 1000’ apart with the property in question at the low point between the hills. I have pictures of water flowing down the sides of the road into the driveway of the original property then to the area in question. You used .9 acre in your model as the watershed, but that did not include most of the road between the hills and none of the properties which drain onto the road.
Marty Halloran – There is a stone wall at the South, the water hits that & goes into the area.
Paul N – Water is all flowing right down the road & into this area. And it also comes from the hills across the road.
Marty Halloran – Is water only coming from flow down the road?
Paul N – No, comes from driveways as well. We estimate that the watershed area is an additional 14,000sf – not including the rest of the watershed, only the road.
Marty Halloran – If we berm the road than none gets into the area.
Paul N – Yes, but where does it go then?
Marty Halloran – That’s the town’s problem. You can’t dump water on our property.
Paul N – A berm would dramatically change the quantity of water. We need to find a mechanism to handle it. An ILSF provides a syncing capacity for stormwater as one property of an ILSF.
John Decoulos – It goes so fast the water isn’t absorbed.
Paul N – Yes, it is very pervious. If we no longer have it there then where does the water go?
Carl S – You can’t cause it to drain on other properties either.
Marty Halloran – Septic sand is even faster than this.
Ken Kaumph – We don’t put the water on the neighbors’ land. We are putting in a drywell.
Marty Halloran – So then it won’t stay,
Carl S – Your assertion that this area only collects water when frozen isn’t true.
John Decoulos – There would be bare spots in the grass to show if there were standing water – there are no hydric soils or wetland vegetation. If there were puddling for long periods of time the grass wouldn’t grow.
Mary Trudeau – There are no wetland indicator plants.
Paul N – (Shows photo) There is no grass, you can see erosion at bottom of photo.
Mary Trudeau – Wetland plants would grow if the water stood but the soil is so permeable they won’t grow there.
Paul N – Yes, it is very permeable, that means it is a valuable resource. It doesn’t have to be a pond of water to be a resource, but it does a job nonetheless in disposing of large quantities of water.
Ken Kaumph – Are you trying to protect habitat? What are you protecting – what’s the desired result?
Carl S – The benefits of an ILSF include recharging groundwater, filtering pollutants, and flood control. There should not be building in flooding areas, to allow them to deal with floodwater – it’s the same as New Orleans. You can’t just ignore it.
Ken Kaumph – We’re planning to recharge it into the ground. We want to truly understand how make it work.
John Decoulos – An ILSF does have resource value but this area isn’t one.
Carl S – You have to prove it doesn’t stand.
Steve P – The state calculations say 7” per 24 hrs. Paul can show you a photo of a lesser storm that collected water.
John Decoulos – What is a significant period of time? You can’t be arbitrary.
Marty Halloran – We have a real life model – we had a 2 yr storm. The water didn’t stand for 24 hrs. What is a significant period of time? It has to stand for every applicant that comes in here.
Paul N – The minimum has to be applied. 25 cf
Marty Trudeau – The State ILSF says ¼ acre at 6” … that can be visualized. What do you mean by 25 cf? You can’t visualize that.
Paul N – They use 6” average depth to do volume calculations.
Harry LaCortiglia, 144 Jewett St – Have you considered a 3rd party independent review for the engineering calculations?
Mike B – We need that for a definitive definition. There is no other evidence – tree root buttressing etc.
Paul N – This area’s function is to absorb stormwater. This is an aggravated situation as a lot of water accumulates in one place. This area sinks a lot of water. When you change the permeability it will change it ability to do that. Do you have a stormwater management plan? That is suggested as part of the ANRAD process.
Ken Kaumph – This is what we were planning to do. Were going to grade it so water goes into the drywell which will be deeper than 6’. Even if the gravel is frozen the water will go in. The channel will be managed with grading.
Carl S – The Planning Board noted when the lot was subdivided that this area is a flooding zone.
Ken Kaumph – But they agreed to sub-divide the lot. It was an ANR lot.
Steve P – They only look at zoning – how many feet of frontage, etc, nothing else. But they did make a note of flooding issues with the property. If we don’t regulate it then it won’t be regulated.
Marty Halloran – The Building Inspector has jurisdiction over everything.
Paul N – Only after the fact.
Carl S – I’d like to have an engineer look at the calculations.
Mary Trudeau – If someone came with this & admitted it was an ILSF – and came with an NOI showing the handling of that water, would the Commission accept it?
Steve P – Caution
Ken Kaumph – You can’t put a septic in a resource, right?
Carl S – Never seen it in all my years.
Paul N – It could be handled with a variance.
Mary Trudeau – Have you seen that done before?
Carl S – Not with a new septic.
Steve P – You created the hardship. You were made aware of the flooding issues by the Planning Board at the time it was sub-divided.
Carl S – We can’t just ignore the Bylaw. It is more stringent than the state but less defined.
Mary Trudeau – We’re making a strong case that it is not a significant periodd of time. Is less than a day significant?
Marty Halloran – In the middle of a storm most places in town will meet your definition – but not 24 hours later.
Paul N – We need to take care of the stormwater that comes thru that area. An ILSF is not just defined in term of wetland but flood control.
Carl S – We are grappling with definitions & terms & interpretations. A 3rd party rev of engineering calculations would help.
Mike B – We have to have that to check.
Carl S – Hopefully that additional engineering interpretation will help us make a determination.
Marty Halloran – Do you need an engineering consultant or original consultant?
Carl S – We are looking at something specific – we’re not talking about hydric soils, buttressed trees, etc. This is a very specialized subject here.
Ken Kaumph – Are you concerned that this will flood the neighbor’s property?
Paul N – That is a very big concern.
John Decoulos – How will he flood someone’s basement from here?
Carl S – We see it all the time.
Paul N – People all over town have water in their basements and don’t know why it’s there. It’s very much a conservation issue.
Lisa Kumph, Owner – If the engineer finds in our favor will you agree? Does it go to a 4th party, 5th party etc?
Carl S – No, we need our own consultant. We do it once and that’s it.
Marty Halloran – We need a hydrologic engineer who is also an environmental consultant.
Mary Trudeau – This has to apply to all properties across town, fairly.
Ken Kaumph – You don’t have enough info to go on now?
Carl S – We want to gather enough information so the Commissioners can make an interpretation & make a decision.
Lisa Kumph, Owner – What would get you to make a decision? What do you want to hear?
Carl S – I want to hear that I have all the facts I need to make a decision.
MOTION for a 3rd party engineering review, to be selected by agent – Mike / Tom / Unam
Mary Trudeau – We need to know does it meet the state definition of ILSF, and ponder the significant period of time issue. What does it mean?
MOTION to continue to Dec 15, 9:00 – John / Tom / Unam
| 
