GCC MEETING MINUTES
December 15, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, Tom Howland, Paul Nelson, John Bell, Mike Birmingham, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MINUTES
MOTION to accept mins of November 17 as amended– Mike / Tom / Unam
MOTION to accept mins of December 1 as amended– John / Paul / 4 Aye, 1 Abstain
47 WEST ST
Reps: Jim O’Brien, ENPRO; Richie Morello’s business partners
Jim O’Brien, ENPRO – I have been involved with this site for over a year but not as the LSP. Tim Toomey was there but is not involved now so ENPRO services are now working on behalf of the developers. There was a Consent Order issued regarding PCBs levels in excess of Massachusetts reportable concentrations. That soil (the smaller area in extent) has been encapsulated with poly & fenced off. Valerie Thompson of the DEP has gone there & done a visual inspection. The encapsulation currently meets requirements.
Carl S – I thought the DEP said to remove that soil by a deadline.
Jim O’Brien - No, that was another stockpile that has already been removed & shipped offsite.
Paul N – Where is the current pile?
Jim O’Brien – In the ground – within a couple feet of the surface. This area exceeded 2 ppm – that’s the threshold value under the regulations – two oither areas tested at 6.6 ppm & 74 ppm. It is now covered with poly barrier & fenced with snow fence – that meets the isolation requirements.
Carl S – Were some of these piles off the property?
Jim O’Brien – No, that was the dioxin – that’s a different contaminant stream. They are sampling onsite for dioxin – that was orchestrated by the developer, Richie Morello. We are expecting those results back in the next 2 weeks.
Carl S – Dioxin is ultimately derived from PCBs – if you burn them you get dioxin.
Jim O’Brien – Yes. There may be a direct correlation between the two. I don’t know who did the sampling. Only a few labs in country will do the sampling.
Steve P – I’m wondering who dug that sample out of the ground.
Jim O’Brien – ENPRO took the sample. The lab doing the testing is out of Texas.
Paul N – Has anyone been to the site recently? I was there & took pictures. The plastic over the PCB area is shredded & the fence is down.
Jim O’Brien – We will send someone out there soon to fix that.
Paul N – We were on-site in late November.
Jim O’Brien – I will send someone out within a week. Valerie was out there recently. Call us and we will come out there with you. Several months ago there was offsite dioxin sampling – just off the roadway on West St – in an area owned by the town. There were very low levels of dioxins there. They are ubiquitous in the environment. Were they formed on the property or is that just what exists in the soil in Georgetown?
Carl S – There was a fire on the site. If were PCBs there that may be how the dioxins got there.
Jim O’Brien – That could be. ENPRO has prepared a scope of work & cost proposal to proceed. We are awaiting approval from the developers (Morello) saying whether they want it modified to eliminate the contamination altogether or conduct other studies.
Paul N – Is there a timeline for it to be accepted?
Jim O’Brien – We are waiting for them & will move forward.
Paul N – Can you work out there in the winter?
Jim O’Brien – We can do sampling. The removal wouldn’t happen until later. The removal of the contaminated material from the property can be quite costly due to the nature of the contaminants, especially if there is a massive removal. Disposal is very expensive. The developers may decide it isn’t a viable project. We want to get an understanding of the concentrations & to stay within guidelines & regulations to move forward with the project to safeguard public health. You can impose activity & use imitation on the property – engineering controls on the property. The contaminants can remain on site if you put that in place. It can be applied to residential as well as any other type of property. In development of the property the
developers will be able to control how is developed, who will move into the property etc. There would be restrictions on sales – stipulating no gardens, only Over 55 etc– the restrictions would be put in covenants.
Carl S – How can you guarantee these contaminants won’t leach into the town well fields?
Jim O’Brien – These particular contaminants don’t leach well. And they don’t break down well – they will be there for a very long time.
Paul N – There are two drainage areas towards the front of the yard & a creek which is currently rip-rapped towards the rear of the yard. Have these areas been tested?
Jim O’Brien – Yes, some so far. There is no sign of leaching into the water stream – it’s relatively clean.
Carl S – Is there a RAM plan? We don’t have enough factual information. This is being worked on piece by piece rather than according to a comprehensive overall plan.
Jim O’Brien – The proposal made to the developers now is a comprehensive study to take it all the way to risk assessment, evaluation & closure. It is more likely than not that the site will have an activity reduction covenant.? (An ”activity reduction covenant” restricts the activities that can be conducted by residents, i.e. no vegetable gardens, etc)
Paul N – Will that affect how you sample?
Jim O’Brien – No, we have to sample comprehensively.
Steve P – Are you proposing a grid test or hot spot test?
Jim O’Brien – The sampling plan is not the same tight grid sampling that DEP uses – the grid blocks have been enlarged. The amount of sampling the department had requested was so overwhelming it almost killed project – the developers said it was not viable.
Steve P – If you made grid blocks larger, can you take samples from multiple spots in there?
Carl S – You could do grid sampling on the site & do a statistical sample.
Steve P – I prefer a grid sample. A composite sample.
Paul N – You could miss a detection of contaminants in a large quadrant though.
Steve P – We need to push towards more samples. It may be impractical to do 5’ square but it does need to be reasonable.
Paul N – What is the largest grid you can do & still have effective sampling?
Jim O’Brien – Frequent & spatial distribution of sampling is dictated by the site history & what was done there – we look at historical records and anecdotal evidence. Phase I info. Unless we take everything & sample it it comes down to a level of interpretation.
Paul N – There are hot spots out there. We want to isolate where these areas are.
Jim O’Brien – When we look at the history of the site we can see where there were activities that could present a problem so we have a smaller grid there & change to a larger grid where there is less evidence that there is a problem there. We are required under regulations to get a representation of the entire property. We are working with a PHD risk assessor (Susan Sondstrom, Groton Ma) to determine what the grid should be.
Paul N – And, She looks at where the cars were stored, topography, etc.?
Jim O’Brien – Exactly. We sample for the worst case scenario – what are the risks to public health from this bad site. If we have spots where the material absolutely can’t stay there then it’s taken out. Otherwise it might be left there to keep the project alive & keep the clean up going.
Carl S – Once you start the process you have to finish – you can’t walk away. There are liability & responsibility issues.
Jim O’Brien – I can’t speak for the developers but they can only do what they can do. This land was an investment. In good faith they purchased the property and are trying to do the best they can to bring the project to fruition & get something back on they investment.
Carl S – That’s the whole purpose of the brownfields program.
Paul N – After the risk assessor’s report comes in do we send DEP a sampling scheme for more rational sampling?
Jim O’Brien – We have a work plan with the developer. If they say OK we do it & submit the results & state our case to the DEP & GCC.
Paul N – Do you submit your sampling scheme to the DEP first?
Jim O’Brien – The Department doesn’t pre-approve scopes of work.
Carl S - Under LSP program that is delegated.
Paul N – What happens if the DEP is still saying has to be 5’ intervals & you don’t do it. Have you agreed that with them?
Jim O’Brien – We’re talking to them.
Carl S –What’s the timeline? We’ve run out of funds to pay our representative, Jim Luker.
Jim O’Brien – ENPRO is prepared to commence sampling as soon as we get the go ahead. We have a window of time to meet the regulations and produce the deliverables. The clock is running for the developers.
Steve P – Our representative is not being paid to do his job. We need proper representation. We need his consultation. There is about $750 outstanding due to him. It is very important that he is here at meetings to represent us.
Jim O’Brien – That is beyond ENPRO’s control but I & his partners will convey that information to him.
Carl S – Is the EO open-ended datewise?
Steve P – Only until the pile has been removed. The fines currently stand at $13,000.
Carl S – You can’t work on the site without an OOC or EO.
Steve P – They need a plan for what they propose to do & go forward from there.
Carl S – When will that information arrive with you?
Jim O’Brien – We have a dollar amount report but don’t have the authority to present that to you.
Carl S – We have to either renew the EO or extend or modify. Work has occurred there under an EO.
Jim O’Brien – The stockpile has been removed & there is additional maintenance work to do on the PCB area – other than that no other work has been done in some time. Mr Morello arranged sampling 2 months ago. It’s a very long process to get the sampling data back.
Paul N – We were about to decide whether to do a new OOC or EO. We don’t want to do complex work under an EO.
Mike B – Let’s go forward now with the EO until we get a plan.
Carl S – We need more data fleshed out. We are operating with an invalid OoC & an expired EO.
Paul N – Let’s do an EO just to get us through until we get an idea of the bigger picture. We need to get more information to write a new OoC.
Jim O‘Brien – At this point you don’t know what we’re proposing to do so you don’t know what to condition.
Paul N – We don’t even know if you need a maintenance EO.
Steve P – Just to fix what’s there – the ripped plastic, and downed fence.
Jim O’Brien – We need to repair the physical barrier, not do anything intrusive.
Carl S – Steve should issue a new EO for maintenance & we’ll deal with longer term issues when we get further details.
MOTION to have Steven Przyjemski write a new EO for site maintenance as necessary for 47 West St – John / Paul / Unam
Paul N – When will we know something we can work with?
Carl S – We need communication & updates.
Jim O‘Brien – When work has been done on site Geoff Brown has to let you know. We will continue to do that.
HEARINGS
NORTH STREET & WELLS AVENUE (GCC-2005-018; DEP 161-0629) ANRAD
Reps: Kurt Young, Wetlands Preservation; George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering; John Kiley, Applicant
Kurt Young – Since last hearing the Commission has been given new site plans. We also walked thru the isolated areas subject to flooding, and looked at the vernal pools. The vernal pools have been delineated in the field and the independent reviewer looked at them on site. We have been responsive to the Commission’s questions and are looking forward to closing the hearing.
Steve P – We still need a single page plan.
Steve P – Why does the vernal pool line stop abruptly? The topographical contouring doesn’t follow that.
Kurt Young – That’s where the water-stained leaves indicate it goes.
Steve P – I think the vernal pool extends farther down that wetland line.
Kurt Young – Look at the topo change – it shows a channel.
Steve P – You can still have a vernal pool within that. This is a legitimate concern.
PaulN – The only time it would be critical is if we found endangered species there.
Steve P – A vernal pool has solid 100’ setback vs 50 – 75’. We want to give them the most accurate information for them to go forward with.
Kurt Y – The field flags have been checked and GCC has looked at those flags.
Steve P – That doesn’t add up to me.
Paul N – The issue is, there might potentially be a vernal pool beyond that line. We don’t want to take that out of the equation.
Kurt Young – Can we take it off the table?
Carl S – How can we issue an ORAD with something left out?
Kurt Young – You can say certainly areas are excluded.
Steve P – Our reviewer checked the wetland flags but not the vernal pool.
Mike B – Why don‘t we just call it a potential vernal pool.
Kurt Young – That’s fine.
Steve P – That’s protected like a firm vernal pool under our regulations.
Ron Stadnicki, Abutter, 4 Swanton Way – At the last meeting you said these plans would be available 7 days or sooner before the hearing. The didn’t happen, these plans were only delivered today. I’d be uncomfortable if the GCC made a decision today without more time to review the new plans.
Paul N – We’re only talking about an ORAD, not actual development. It’s 90% the same.
Ron Stadnicki, Abutter, 4 Swanton Way – So the applicant says. Could they have changed something in the meantime? My concern is whether there was intentional foot dragging to deliver these plans. I want to make sure all vernal pools have been identified. I asked for a copy of these plans myself & called the office & couldn’t get them.
Kurt Young – The only change I’m aware of is the addition of the ILSF delineation.
Peter Honeker, Abutter, 569 North St – Why were the plans sent back & forth like that for just a couple of small changes?
Laura R – There was a clerical error on the new plans that were delivered a couple of weeks ago so they took them back. They asid they would bring new ones but they didn’t arrive until today.
Mike Canning, Abutter, 24 Wells Ave – I understand what you’re saying but ethically the GCC can’t sign off as they and we haven’t reviewed them. You can’t rectify plans after they have been accepted.
Paul N – We have spent a lot of time out there – countless hours. This plan hasn’t changed.
Carl S – This is a common process. There are many revisions of a plan. This can sometimes be a long process.
Mike Canning, Abutter, 24 Wells Ave – Steve immediately noticed some differences. What else might there be?
Tom H – Should we continue to Jan 12th to give the abutters time to look at the new plans?
George Zamboras – We were unaware that there was a problem. The best course of action would be to let people have a chance to review them.
Paul N – We don’t need new plans drawn up. We can continue for 5 more minutes at the next hearing.
MOTION to continue the hearing to Jan 12, 7:30 – Tom / John / Unam
PENTUCKET ACRES CA (GCC-2005-33) RDA
Reps: Tim Vaters, Chairman, Pentucket Acres Stewardship Committee
Tim Vaters – The hearing was continued due to lack of notification of abutters. A lot of large vehicles turn around there and they have eroded the street from the edge of the parking area to the middle of the street.
Carl S – If you do this project how will you keep the trash truck out of this area?
Tim Vaters – We’ve proposed the addition of a timber border to protect the edge from trash trucks. The school bus doesn’t come down that far any more. It’s not practical to stop them from turning there. If we can get the town to do the work it would be compacted & with the border added it will be protected. It may take a small amount of maintenance.
Mike B – Who is paying for the work?
Steve P – Jack Moultrie said he can use left over material and will do it when their guys are available at minimum cost. But Jack wouldn’t deal with it until the project has been approved by us. We should make the plan flexible to allow Jack to do what he thinks is best. I will oversee the job to make sure it is reasonable.
Tim Vaters – At a minimum we would like to see that the asphalt roadway abutting this is repaired – it is eroded into the street.
Carl S – There should be some flexibility in the project.
Steve P – The plan presented is an excellent option.
Carl S – This won’t be done until spring.
Tim Vaters – That’s right. This is the core of opening this area up – to let people know they can use it. We will add a small sign only – most people wouldn’t know it exists. With a sign and handicapped spot – we can let people know it’s there & to be used. It is more of a turnaround now rather than a piece of property for public use.
Carl S – We did a whole walk through last year.
Steve P – We spoke to the police about monitoring any partying activity that the abutters are concerned with. They will put the property on a hot-spot list of places to monitor at specific times.
Tim Vaters – (Shows example of proposed sign.) This is the same as the sign we ordered for Hampshire Woods – poly wood whatever so won’t deteriorate. We have a quote from the firm in Topsfield, for $385. We will put it on the side of the area so trucks won’t go near it.
Carl S – The area also needs our normal Con Comm restrictions sign.
Tim Vaters – One has been there for awhile already – about 15 years.
Mitch Kroner, Bob O’Hanley, Abutters, Georgetown Fish & Game Club, Lake Avenue – We are all for this project & use of the pond. We’ve always let the public use our boat ramp and would like to dredge it out. Club members use it & we let the public use it too. We don’t want people using this conservation area wandering onto the range – we need signage to warn them not to go there.
Carl S – I assume you’ve got signs everywhere anyway.
Bob O’Hanley – Yes, but if they meander over “here” they could be in trouble. We need a sign re the firing range.
Mitch Kroner – The area needs delineation.
Carl S – We aren’t proposing anything outrageous, just want protective signage.
Steve P – In addition to signage on your own property there should be better signage there anyway.
Mitch Kroner – Will you offer boat access to the pond from this area?
Carl S – No. The Fish & Game Club would need to file for dredging your boat ramp.
Mitch Kroner – Can you access your property by boat? Do you want to open that up to boats?
Tim Vaters – No. There is very rarely high enough water to access. This area is only for bird watching, etc.
Steve P – We can meet to discuss your boat ramp another time.
MOTION to issue a neg recommendation with conditions including: a sign and to allow construction to follow Jack Moultrie’s best recommendations – Paul / Mike / 4 Aye, 1 Abstain
MOTION to close hearing – Mike / John / 4 Aye, 1 Abstain
4 ROSEMARIE LANE (GCC-2005-34) NOI (New)
Reps: George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering; Greg Nolan, Atlantic Engineering; Joseph Cifuni, Owner
George Zamboras – This project has two components. The existing SFH was constructed in 1995, with an existing deck. The applicant wants to convert the deck to a 3-season porch & add a new deck & stairs. The area at the back of the house has a gentle slope for 25’ then a 10’ section at 3:1 then at the very end is a very steep drop-off causing a lot of erosion. We would like to take the existing limit of work done for the original lot & stabilize the slope by constructing a retaining wall. The entire area is in FEMA Flood Zone A. Parkwood Construction applied for ZBA relief from the flood elevation – it was 87’, they granted it down to 83’. The rear portion grading of the lot is very steep & is eroding.
Carl S – Can you explain the drywells on this plan please.
George Zamboras – If you look at the FEMA map the whole area across is FEMA Zone A. Hayes Eng said the 100-year flood elevation was 101.5’.
Paul N – You can’t change the FEMA line without data from an engineering study.
Steve P – Floodplain is now at 81.5, that’s only ½ ft above the wetland line.
George Zamboras – The issue is that you have to submit documentation to get FEMA to change map – that’s just to change map though. They rely on local & state government to enforce the flood zones – the FEMA map’s primary purpose is to regulate what dwellings need insurance.
Joseph Cifuni – FEMA gave us an official document saying we are not in a flood zone.
George Zamboras – Hayes Engineering got a similar one for construction of the development. GCC must’ve agreed or the sub-division couldn’t have been built.
Steve P – There is no old file from the building of the sub-division.
George Zamboras – FEMA dictates what the flood elevations are if they haven’t done detailed study.
Carl S – That means they have accepted someone else’s data.
George Zamboras – They provide the methodology for calculating. We have followed that methodology. That gave us 86.6’
Paul N – So then the town allowed this to be built at 81’?
George Zamboras – Yes. If you overlay the FEMA & topo maps, it will follow the contours. Based on evidence of our observation of maps – doing contours we conclude that the 100-year flood is at 86’ elevation. The retaining wall is to bring the yard into a more gradual slope. We are going to 88’ – pulling 90’ at the base of the wall.
Paul N – So, it starts as a gradual slope & then flattens out?
George Zamboras – It’s not intruding closer to the wetland – we just want to put a retaining wall. We are adding flood storage. We are filling behind with stone & adding dry wells to replace 1200 sf flood storage.
Carl S - The wall is at the wetland line?
Steve P – What is that surface?
George Zamboras – Yes, it is at the wetland line & is eroded surface.
Carl S – Is it eroded from construction?
George Zamboras – No, it’s just too steep. There was no ANRAD with this. We would like to use the months til spring to review the pros & cons of the project – to go forward with the assumption that the wetland line is OK. Is this OK with GCC? What would alternatives be to this plan?
Paul N – Where is the erosion coming from? Water flow?
Joseph Cifuni – Nothing will grow there, it’s so steep. It’s ledge.
Steve P – Where’s the water coming from? How much water is flowing down there?
Paul N – Do you see standing water in the wetland behind you – how close is that to the steep slope?
Joseph Cifuni – It’s about 10-15’ from the slope.
Carl S – What size back yard do you have? When you build a house on a wetland you will see it again years later.
George Zamboras – Approximately 30’ of back yard.
Carl S – How high will the retaining wall be~?
George Zamboras – It will be 7’ high in the middle with a stockade fence on top, lower at the sides.
Paul N – All this work is in the Do Not Disturb area.
Steve P – The silt fencing is actually in the wetland.
George Zamboras – It’s an already disturbed area. We’re trying to correct an existing problem. It will keep on eroding if not fixed.
Carl S – Once a steep slope has lost its surface soil it’s very hard to get anything to grow there again.
Paul N –What would happen if you were required to put natural sloping into the wetland?
George Zamboras – We wouldn’t go on with the project. It is a limited back yard now.
Carl S – Without seeing it it’s hard to say what we think. We need to look at it on a site visit. We also need to find the files from the original sub-division. We can schedule a site walk for the spring. Is there any other option you would consider?
Mike B – Is that all ledge over to the right?
George Zamboras – Yes. We could look at other alternatives.
Carl S – We need to look at alternatives to minimize the impact. We can revisit the discussion after the site walk. We need to see it.
Paul N – I can understand what you’re doing but we aren’t in the back yards business.
Joseph Cifuni – We are taking the base of the existing slope & bringing it back up.
Paul N – Yes, but there are other ways to do it that might be less intrusive.
Steve P – It should go farther away from the buffer.
George Zamboras – I know we’re pushing the envelope but what we’re working with now is unideal. All we’re doing is moving the wall to the most active used part of the yard.
Paul N – Adding the decks uses up a lot of good yard .
Joseph Cifuni – We just want to make it level & resolve a safety issue.
Paul N – Why not put in a gentle slope?
Joseph Cifuni – We would just leave it as it is then.
George Zamboras – We would be chopping a third off this space with adding a gentle slope.
Paul N – You don’t use it so why is it a problem that you’d lose it? It’s not a critical area?
Carl S – This problem was made long ago. We need to see if there are alternatives.
George Zamboras – The Commission has always been consistent on that point.
Steve P – You can always plant something – you can always get some planting scheme to work.
George Zamboras – We’ll continue to sometime until April to discuss alternatives.
MOTION to hold a site walk April 22, 10:30 – John / Paul / Unam
MOTION to continue to May 18, 8:30 – Tom / Mike / Unam
95 ELM STREET (GCC-2005-021; DEP 161-0626) ANRAD (Cont)
No reps
MOTION to continue to Jan 26, 7:30 – Tom / John / Unam
| 
