GCC MEETING MINUTES
June 16, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, Harry LaCortiglia, Michael Birmingham, Tom Howland, Paul Nelson, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MINUTES
MOTION to accept the minutes of June 2, 2005 – Paul / Tom / Unam
6 NORINO WAY
Rep: Dan Duvall, Mirra Group
Dan Duvall - An Enforcement Order was issued in 2000 re. the wetland replication area off Norino Way, within the triangle area of the access road. Replication was delayed due to work on the access road. The project was started in 2003-4.
When working on the replication area they ran into mature trees in the proposed replication area. Their question was whether they should cut those mature trees to plant wetland plants. The
Commission recommended that this was not prudent and they should work with the agent to change that plan. Mirra posted a performance bond with the town until the project is complete. This issue should be revisited with the agent. The space is very tight there by the access road, they would like guidance on which way they should go. The project is 75-80% complete. They have so far avoided removing trees.
Paul N – What trees have they found in that area?
Dan D – Pines & various hardwoods.
Carl S – This file can be left open in perpetuity. The agent should make a visit to the site.
Dan D – Will do whatever the commission determines is best.
Mike B – Can you move the replication? Will it be contiguous with other wetland areas?
Dan D – Yes, though it will be tight.
Carl S – We should save the trees if possible but also get reasonable replication. We need a site visit.
Mike B – The trees may die anyway if the surrounding area is changed – especially the pines.
Carl S – Steven will schedule time for a site walk and inform the commissioners so they can join in.
Dan D – I will get plans of the area to Steve.
HEARINGS
CAMP DENISON MANAGEMENT PLAN
Carl S - This meeting is to initiate the review process of the management plan, to open the conversation between all interested parties and accept their comments over time. Paul has produced the delta document of differences between the two previous management plans, which look very similar.
Mike B – The MOU must be part of the new plan.
Tom H – A dual sign-off sheet is required for both Boxford and Georgetown commissions.
Carl S – Acceptance is contingent on everyone reviewing the document. Boxford will also review and publish their comments & revisions.
Paul N – The biggest issues seem to be permitting activities and serving alcohol.
Carl S – These certainly are issues we will need to wrestle with.
Harry LaCortiglia entered the room.
Carl S – GCC holds the liability because Camp Denison is a sub-committee. We need to address vegetation management – what, how and why. The stated plans need to specific about vegetation.
Mike B – We also need to address ongoing maintenance.
Paul N – Should also discuss allowing family groups to use the lodge – it will cause additional wear & tear, but that could be offset by increased income.
Harry L – In the original plan an area was set aside as a silviculture display area. This was not done. It needs to be elaborated on.
Carl S – We need to close the loop on the liability issue. What coverage do our volunteers have if they are injured? The plan should also address erosion control and plantings. The original plan didn’t address that so we should take the opportunity to do it now. This will not be a completely new document – the original is largely complete. GCC needs to address boating, alcohol, vegetation, erosion.
Mike B – Also Boxford.
Carl S – Yes, and other Georgetown Boards will probably have comments as well.
Harry L – This is a great opportunity to make it right. It should have been revised years ago.
Carl S – Other commissions didn’t have the opportunity to revise it.
Harry L – The public comment period starts now. Everyone should know that they can submit comments.
Mike B – Does it cover routine maintenance?
Paul N – It includes ongoing conditions, short & long-term goals. Look at the Camp Denison website for maps & documents.
Carl S – We must clearly identify the process, especially Boxford’s involvement, their jurisdiction to the 100’ mean high-water line, etc. How will we handle permits jointly? The management plan should have a section that deals with that process.
Paul N – We need to get Boxford’s comments before our joint meeting on the 30th.
Chris Comiskey – Open Space Committee (OSC) - Chris sent suggestions for revisions to the document. She urges the commission to remember that CD is a conservation area, thus, according to the Land Policy & Stewardship Guidelines, that means there should be no alcohol permitted. Alcohol is simply against policy. Please keep the OSC in the loop during this process.
Mike B – They have the same concerns that the Camp Den committee has. Bob said the request for alcohol was just thrown into the pot as an afterthought.
Chris C – Plantings at the camp should all be native.
Carl S – The commission’s policy is that all plantings in all conservation areas should be native.
Chris C – Include the OSC in e-mails about what is going on. OSC suggestions should also be sent to the commission in Boxford.
MOTION to continue the hearing until June 30, 7:30 – Harry / Tom / Unam
256 EAST MAIN STREET
Reps: Bill Manuell, Wetland & Land Management; Jason Nadeau, Owner & Applicant; Kenneth & Diane Nadeau, Owner’s parents
Bill Manuell – In 2001 an ANRAD was submitted to identify the wetland boundary. A BVW with intermittent stream exits through the culvert under Rt 133.
Harry L – Was that wetland line delineated?
Bill M – Yes. But no determination was made as it was withdrawn without prejudice. The discussion with the abutters had become ugly so the owners withdrew.
In 2005 a NOI was filed for a new SFH. The whole site is wide open lawn with a 3 family house and outbuildings. The stream is a grass swale coming from an area of purple loosestrife.
The culvert has changed since 2001. It was very undersized. To keep the area from flooding a chain was suspended through it and pulled back & forth to release clogs in the pipe. The 2001 flooding event overwhelmed it, the water dammed up and went over the road. The fire department pumped the water out from one side & shot it across the road to the other. The culvert has now been redone and does not accumulate any more. Wants to set the record straight re. the culvert & 2001 flooding event.
The property has been unchanged for 18 years other than the trees & grass are taller. There were allegations in 2001 that there was changing of the landscape. They have photographs of a party held in the yard that shows that the trees are recognizable and relate to the same trees that are present today. The property was always open and grassed from the late 80s and 90s.
The wetland boundary was staked in flood of 2001The owners are proposing to put up a modest 3 bedroom home for Jason Nadeau, the owners’ son. They performed perk / leaching tests in the summer of 2004 – it drained at 6-10 mins per inch.
There are currently 3 outbuildings in disrepair which will be removed. Those outbuildings have 2800 sq ft of impervious rooftop – with the proposed new home the impervious rooftop area is 900 sq ft less.
Carl S – Will this proposal meet our regulations?
Bill Manuell – Your regs are 50’ no disturb and 75’ no build. The leaching field is more than 100 ft away, compliant with the 50’ setback. The building is not compliant because when the setbacks were increased to 75’ it created a hardship for the owner. They only want to build a modest home. They propose to maintain the old no build setback – as it was, is and always will be maintained lawn – not destructive to native areas. In exchange they will improve the site: 900 ft less impervious area; no cut zone near the street, allowed to revert to native species and could be enhanced with plantings; control of invasive loosestrife area. The lawn has existed longer than the setback. It will be a modest dwelling in an open grassed
area.
Mike B – Will you disturb within the 50’ area during construction?
Bill Manuell – It is all lawn now, predating the regs. They will trade that waiver with an indigenous filter area by the street.
Paul N – Will any trees come down?
Bill Manuell – They will not remove trees. Where the area is shrubby and overgrown it will be removed. There will only be tree / brush removal by the dilapidated buildings.
Mike B - Can you put the driveway over the septic farther away?
Bill Manuell – Could look at that after our discussion.
Carl S – The commission felt there had been filling at the time of the previous filing.
Bill Manuell – We will answer those allegations with the set of photographs.
Carl S – We will want to see the photos.
Bill Manuell - Also have GIS comps between 1995 & 2000.
Paul N – Does the 900 sq ft reduced impervious area exclude the driveway?
Bill Manuell – If that area were included it would be an increase of 300 sq ft but could do a leaching trench. That could be up for discussion.
Paul N – Essentially, the impervious space has simply moved. Bill Manuell indicated this was the case.
Harry L – This plan says it is for Map 10, Lot 34-2. Has it been sub-divided yet?
Jason Nadeau – No. It’s just a temporary lot number.
Harry L –- So the subject property is the entire parcel, Map 10 Lot 34.
MOTION to conduct a site walk July 16, 8:00 am – Harry / Tom / Unam
Harry – There are wetland flags marked on the plan. We will have to see if we agree or disagree with them. Will we see those flags at the site walk? Do they currently exist in the field
Bill Manuell – Yes. The flags were placed by survey – originally in 2001 and looked at again in late 2004-05.
Carl S – Should we have an independent review?
Harry – It’s tough. This area has been mowed for a long time. There are probably no wetland plants left in that area. We will need a soils expert to conduct the independent review, similar to the site we worked on off of Elm St. We can’t use mowed vegetation as an indicator.
MOTION to hire an independent reviewer with soils expertise (as selected by the agent) to review 256 East Main Street – Mike / Harry / Unam
Public Comments:
Mrs. Eva Stanwood, 254 East Main St – Produced photos of the 2001 flood and nor-easter storm in April 2005(added to the file). Flags are shown in the water. Have lived at their address since 1977. The purple loosestrife area used to be a pond deep enough for ducks to nest and dogs to swim.
When True Lane was constructed large piles of dirt were placed in the field. Mosquito control used to dredge the stream. Overnight one of the piles of dirt was spread into the loosestrife area. Another pile is still there in a corner of the wetland. The other pile is in the other corner of the lot.
Mr. Stanwood, 254 East Main St – During the True Lane development a bucket loader came into the area between 9 – 12 pm. Working from the street the pond was flattened, the duck pond disappeared – it was either filled in or the berm was leveled, unknown which happened but the area was reworked that night.
Mr Stanwood and Charlie Blanchard went to the True Lane development hearing. Charlie was threatened after he approached Mr. Stanwood after the meeting.
There haven’t been cows in that area since 1977. The area was not flattened by cows. Now the water backs up onto the Stanwood’s property.
Harry L – Where do you live Mr. Stanwood in relation to this lot & where does the water come from?
Mr Stanwood – points to the plan and shows his property.
Bill Manuel – Water comes from the watershed and the culvert. It also comes all the way down from Tenney Street – this property is at the very bottom of the watershed – everyone else’s water comes to this property.
Mike B – The grade slopes downward across the lot to the street.
Bill Manuell – The roadway and substandard culvert made the problems here.
Harry L – Can I enter the property before the scheduled site walk? What’s the water like at the back of the lot?
Bill Manuell – I’d prefer to be there with you. There have been serious allegations re. loaders, etc – the commission needs to be there en masse. The forested area has 30 yr old trees – there’s been no activity in that time.
Paul N – The statement that there have been no alterations made are not true – we can see from the photos that alterations have been made.
Bill Manuell – Those are back-filled percolation pits, not alterations. The photos show where the perc tests were done. This is misinformation.
Mike B – The flood collapsed the culvert.
Harry L – We issued an EC for that repair.
Mrs Stanwood - produced photographs for the file.
Harry L - You shouln’t change the flow through a culvert when fixing it. The goal is to keep the invert elevations of the entrance and exit the same as the culvert that is being replaced.
Kenneth Nadeau – It was fixed in a panic.
Bill Manuell – In that photo the water is on the surface but frozen underneath – taken in April.
Carl S – Can abutters come on the site walk?
Kenneth Nadeau – Don’t think so. Don’t know them.
Mr. Stanwood – We don’t need to be there. Owner needs to keep the easement. The culvert was dug to connect to the easement but now there is no connection – it’s an easement to nowhere.
Paul N – Does it collect water?
Mr. Stanwood – Yes. Due to the re-working the connection was eliminated.
Mike B – Some water is still getting through. Are there multiple feeds to that point?
Bill Manuell – Yes. It’s the last part of the watershed.
Mike B – The basin comes down to that point then.
Kenneth Nadeau – We would never do anything to stop the water to flow through. Mosquito control dug that to get it to flow.
There are piles of dirt on the property. One was dumped in the corner by a friend. The pond is like that because the culvert was failing for years & years. Used to use chains to clear it. Wanted the water to flow – from Tenney Street to there. When the flood occurred in 2001 we called the Police and Fire Dept – it flooded anough in 2 hours to call GFD. It used to be a field and paddock.
Paul N – Has there been development on Tenney in that time?
Kenneth Nadeau – Don’t know.
Paul N – That’s where it’s coming from.
Kenneth Nadeau – It’s much better since the culvert was fixed. We never tried to stop the flow.
Harry L – Were there topographical changes all around this area during development?
Paul N – All development changes the topography. Every time they build on Tenney it will affect this (the water level in the easement).
Kenneth Nadeau – Mosquito control left debris behind – want it dug deeper now to get it to flow. Just want to build a home for son to live in town.
Carl S – Mosquito Control has exemptions. No one else can dig out the way they do. This is the start of the information process. We will go forward from here.
MOTION to continue the hearing to July 28, 2005 at 8:30 – Harry / Tom / Unam
Carl S – The applicant should bring in photographs as well. We are looking for all information from all sides.
Harry LaCortiglia recused and left the room.
151 JEWETT STREET
No representatives.
MOTION to continue the hearing to July 28, 2005 at 8:30 pm – Mike / Paul / Unam
Harry LaCortiglia returned to the room.
SHOPPING CENTER GREASE TRAP
Representatives:
Linda Meiggs, Lisco Development, Applicant’s Representative; James Doalnsky, Seekamp Environmental, Consultant; George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering, Project Engineer
James Dolansky – The application is to install a 1500 gal storage tank for the hair salon. Construction includes excavating the existing trap, cutting the tie to the septic, and replacing it with a holding tank. Materials will be stockpiled within the haybales during construction.
Carl S – Is this new tank larger than the old one?
George Zamboras – The old one was a grease trap for a restaurant. The hair salon waste – chemicals from sinks – can’t go into the septic. Are putting it into a larger concrete chamber as a holding tank. It is dual-walled, a tank within a tank. The outside tank is 2500 gal, the inside is 1500 gal – the outside tank is secondary & air filled. The levels inside the inner tank are monitored with an alarm system which is triggered at 75% capacity indicating that the tank needs pumping. The exterior tank must be visually monitored which is more reliable than alarms for that tank.
DEP needs to know who is receiving the waste and what kind of contract they have. – according to individual pre-treatment regulations.
Harry L – There is no outlet or discharge?
George Zamboras – Nope.
Carl S – Do you need a pre-treatment permit from the DEP?
George Zamboras – Now there is a self-monitoring certification. Sent the as-built to the DEP with documentation as to who’s managing the waste and installation plans, etc. We don’t want dyes and chemicals released into the wetland.
Carl S – Who is doing the pumping and where are they disposing of the material?
George Zamboras – Stewarts. They take it to Lawrence or South Essex depending on what his route is for the day.
Paul N – A silt sock is needed around the construction area and the catch basin. That’s the biggest conservation risk in the area of construction.
Carl S – Do we want to test the dirt that is being removed from the area of the previous release of chemicals?
George Zamboras – The existing trap is shown on the plan. There is some excess material between that and the new one. If 50 yds comes out 45 yds will have to be taken away.
Harry L – You should be aware that there has been prior contamination in that area.
George Zamboras – The excavation won’t be deeper. It is a regular pre-cast septic tank.
Harry L – Have you sent details of this project to the NHESP?
James Dolansky – Yes, but have not received a response in return.
Harry L – We can’t go forward until we hear back from them.
James Dolansky – We’ve filed with them before for other projects, there were no objections in the past.
Carl S – Our prime concern is runoff. We need more information on the system alarm and overflow alarm. We don’t want these contaminants in the wetland.
George Zamboras – The overflow goes into the secondary tank. About one week before that overflow occurs the alarm will go off in the inner tank.
Carl S – USTs are required in interstitial areas. We want to make sure it doesn’t fail.
Harry L – Why isn’t there a back-up or redundant alarm at the secondary tank?
George Zamboras – There are too many false alarms due to moisture. A visual check is better.
Paul N – How often do they check the level visually?
George Zamboras – I believe it is weekly.
Carl S – Who is in charge of doing that?
George Zamboras – Linda Meiggs of the Shopping Center.
Either Carl or I asked them to provide us with the periodic verification window/time period. I believe there was an `affirmative grunt’ from George.
Carl S - What are the percentages?
George Zamboras – Primary has 500% capacity. Secondary has 2-300% additional capacity.
James Dolansky – The work is being done on an impervious surface, there is no clearing or vegetation removal and no effect on the hydrology. Requesting that GCC issue an OoC when the NHESP response is received. The letter was sent to them on June 3rd, they received it on June 6th. Will call to see if they can expedite their response.
Paul N – Make sure if dirt is excavated to put it on asphalt. The rainfall needs to go in the catchbasin.
Tom H – The haybales should be changed to a silt sock.
Harry L – We prefer the excavated dirt to be hauled offsite.
MOTION to continue the hearing to June 30, 2005 at 8:30 – Paul / Harry / Unam
HEATHER ROAD WATER MAIN EXTENSION
Representatives:
William Simons, Mabbett Engineering, Geologist & Engineer; George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering, Engineer
William Simons – Mabbett represents the electric company formerly on Moulton Street. It is now a hazardous waste site that Mabbett is remediating.
Area has been contaminated with TCE which is migrating towards Rock Pond. Residences at the end of Heather Road are currently on well water. It was decided to extend the public water supply to those houses to take them out of the bedrock water supply (contamination is in the bedrock) to prohibit TCE from being drawn more quickly towards the pond.
Carl S – What stage is this remediation in?
William Simons – Remedy Operation Status, Source Area Remediation
Carl S – Has the plume reached the water wells?
William Simons – It has been picked up in 2 out of 4 locations in the pond at 1-4 ppb (5 ppb is threshold- Massachusetts is far more conservative than other states). Trace amounts in the pond means there is a significant plume in the bedrock – several thousand ppbs in the bedrock.
Pumping and treating is not possible in bedrock – pumping from that depth won’t clean it up more quickly as it’s extremely inefficient. It is much better to limit the source (what they’re doing).
Carl S – Will the installation of the water pipes affect the plume?
William Simons – The wells are at a depth of about 40 – 60’ – the plume is at 300’. The house closest to the site has a 75’ well which had trace amounts (house is not occupied presently). Other houses have been sampled twice / year.
Also tested the surface water and sediment. In it’s pure state TCE is heavier than water so it sinks into the rock.
Started the design of the remediation 1 year ago. Are currently pursuing easements and NOI for the project.
Carl S – What is the timeframe?
William Simons – We want to start in late summer / early fall. Have already started the internal re-plumbing work on the house that had the contamination, in preparation for the water line arriving. Are re-plumbing all houses inside & out.
Harry L – Abbreviations on the plan: UGE (underground electric) OHW (overhead wire)
William Simons – The public involvement group has already had a meeting at the High School – a PIP group. Information on all chemicals used in the process are documented & available at the George Peabody Library in Georgetown.
Paul N – When was the wetland delineation done?
George Zamboras – Nov / Dec 2004.
Carl S – Are you using digging equipment?
George Zamboras – Backhoe.
William Simons – Are decommissioning the private wells & filling them with cement / gravel.
Paul N – Is there silt fence by the road?
William Simons – The line is going into a trench right down the middle of the road. Haybales are going around the homeowners’ yards & landscaping.
Carl S – Did you get a variance for a trench that close?
Paul N – What abutters have you notified?
Mike B – This is a public interest project with no view / visibility problems.
William Simons – Have notified 300’ from the end of Heather Road.
MOTION to grant a variance negating the requirement to notify abutters across the pond – Paul / Mike / 4 aye, Harry LaCortiglia abstain
Carl S – Let’s make it clear that this waiver has been granted specifically because this is a project of public interest and safety and not a view change.
Harry – What if we don’t accept the wetland line on this plan and were to issue the OoC with the stipulation that we were not confirming the wetland line?
Carl S – That has been done before. We can say to go ahead with the project without accepting that this line is valid.
Mike B – We don’t want to delay work on this project.
Paul N –You have a trench marching down the middle of the road - isn’t that a sensitive area you’re working in?
Harry L – Have you notified NHESP?
William Simons – Yes, are waiting for a response. We’re also waiting for Kopelman Paige, Town Counsel, to work out the easement language. Want to start digging in August.
Paul N – These lines aren’t firm until you find out where the septic lines go?
George Zamboras – No, we know where everything is.
Carl S – Who is the PRP?
William Simons – Automatic Connector, now reformed as Thermo Electric.
Carl S – Who is the LSP of record?
William Simons – Paul Steinberg & William Simons.
Carl S – If we don’t hold a formal site walk there should be one with the agent. We can’t close this hearing without the NHESP response.
William Simons – Sooner approval would be better.
MOTION to continue the hearing to June 30, 2005 at 8:35 pm – Harry / Tom / Unam
Bill (Simons) will call to arrange a site walk with Steven P and a commissioner sometime in the next 2 weeks.
PAPERWORK
MOTION to authorize payment up to $3,000 to finance the paving and maintenance of the first 250’ of roadway at Camp Denison – Paul / Mike / Unam
MOTION to ratify the EO for 7 Gloria Road as documented by the agent – Mike / Harry / 4 aye, Tom Howland abstain
MOTION to adjourn – Mike / Harry / Unam
| 
