GCC MEETING MINUTES
October 6, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, Tom Howland, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MINUTES
MOTION to approve mins of Aug 11 with changes – Paul / Mike / Unam
MOTION to approve mins of Sept 8 with changes – Mike / Paul / Unam
MOTION to approve mins of Sept 22 with changes – Tom / Mike / Unam
187 NORTH STREET
MOTION to conduct site walk Thursday, Oct 13 at 5:30 – Mike / Tom / Unam
BAILEY LANE STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE
MOTION to appoint Arthur Ferretti, Kelly, Jane E, Nicole, Jim Gagne to the Bailey Lane Stewardship Committee expiring Oct 31, 2008 – Tom / Paul / Unam
Carl S – We need to work with them & develop a preliminary plan & then work with them for the future.
Paul N – We need to receive reports from all conservation area committees.
Action: Send spreadsheet of appointees - Laura
HEARINGS
94 ELM STREET
Reps: None
MOTION to continue to Dec 1, 8:00 – Mike / Tom / Unam
95 ELM STREET
Reps: Kenneth Kaumph, Owner / Developer; James Decoulos, Attorney; Marty Halloran, T-Square Designs, Engineer; Mary Trudeau, Environmental Consultant
Mary T – Last time we met we had the site visit & 3rd party review. Our flags were confirmed by the 3rd party. There was also a site visit with the commission & abutters. It was agreed that it was a reasonable representative of the wetland. There is a low lying depression in the front yard – we need to determine what meaning of that is within the local bylaw. Engaged Marty Halloran to run calculations to see what happens there under storm events.
Paul N – Is this parcel officially subdivided?
Ken Kaumph – Yes.
Marty Halloran – (Shows plan of the site with buffers & riverfront areas. Presented copies of the site study - “Hydrologic Drainage Study”.) Soils are Merrimac, Type A, classified as medium sand. I analyzed 1, 2, & 10 year storm events – for 24 hr periods. The table shows the total quantity & depth of water at 24 hrs. The 1 year storm holds 34 cubic ft & is gone within 1 day. We contend that this is not a significant amount of time.
Paul N – Have you done empirical tests on that?
Marty Halloran – Yes, with a perc test. The results were less than 2 minutes per inch, or .001 ft per minute – that’s conservative for sand – it’s usually .001 and .002. The area draining into there is defined by a stone wall, the road, peak of the house & another high point. It is just under 1 acre of area.
Steve P - It doesn’t hold 25 cubic ft?
Marty Halloran – Yes it does, but not for a significant period of time.
Mary Trudeau – There is no depth to this accumulation.
Paul N – We were shown a photograph of a man canoeing in that area.
Marty Halloran – Yes, but that was frozen condition, not normal conditions.
Steve P – Yes, but we need to take that into consideration as it happens every Spring.
Ken Kaumph – It happens every 5 years.
Paul N – So every 5 yrs you can float a canoe in there?
Ken Kaumph – Yes.
Mary Trudeau – Many times there are frozen conditions in town.
Paul N – It happens often in the Spring.
Marty Halloran – It does go into the ground, it doesn’t overflow.
Paul N – Where does the water go?
Steve P – We can flag that area as an ILSF under the ANRAD.
James Decoulos – It does not hold water for a significant period of time. (Shows photos of the area taken at the end of September)
Steve P – Yes but, this has been one of the driest summers in a long time.
Mary T – Everywhere in town will hold water in frozen conditions.
Carl S – We are skeptical about tests conducted in the driest part of the driest August.
Mary T – We used the methodology established by the state. You should look at the calculations in the same way. You should use the same assumptions.
Steve P – We should submit these calculations to a 3rd party engineer. This area is part of the bigger picture throughout town – we need to make sure of everything, that we don’t allow any action that could cause increased flooding in the area.
John Decoulos – Are you concerned with lateral discharge?
Carl S – Yes. We need to ensure that in the future the cumulative effect of this doesn’t create problems for others in the area.
Paul N – If we eliminate the capacity of the ILSF to process water, even if frozen, we are changing the drainage properties of the whole area.
John Decoulos – That can happen at every house lot in town.
Paul N – That’s why you’re here, so we can check it out and make sure it is handled appropriately.
John Travers, Misc Resident / Contractor – I have done a lot of building in this area – in fact, I just installed a septic system in the neighboring house from here - if you dig hole in the middle it will drain. Once every 5 years – only when frozen – will it collect water. It is usually gone in – the longest would be 10 days.
Paul N – Isn’t 10 days a significant period of time?
John Travers, Misc Resident / Contractor – Yes, but only every 7-8 years.
Mary T – If the ground isn’t frozen it will go away in less than that.
Mr Johnson, Abutter, 104 Elm – I live across from here. In Spring the water comes up in my basement. I need 10 days of pumping every year. There is enough for a canoe trip every 5 years. Frozen or not frozen, it comes in through the cracks in my floor. According to those calculations my basement will be 1’ above the catchbasin. I don’t know if it will be but my property needs protection and I am asking the commission to help me.
Ken Kaumph – The previous owner of the property, William Roy, has submitted a letter regarding the water in that area. It should help interpret what significant means.
Paul N – This area has occasionally flooded … you need to design something that doesn’t flood even under severe conditions.
John Decoulos – We have studies that show the extent of the water. It is not a significant period of time – there is no impact on wetland protection.
Paul N – Are you saying the Con Comm should not be involved?
John D –Yes.
Carl S – Have you read our bylaw?
John Decoulos – Yes. Read the definition of an ILSF – it says “a significant period of time”.
Carl S – We’re trying to follow our bylaw, not just throwing it out.
Marty Halloran – We need to know what a significant period of time is.
John Decoulos – If it is too strict it will apply to every property in town.
Steve P – The Commission has the right of determination.
Brad Perry, Abutter, 89 Elm – I was going around to take a look when the ground was frozen. At times there is significant flooding. As a neighbor, if the contour of land is changed the water will go somewhere. Mr Kaumph has a plan to channel the water to a catchbasin. If the Commission can work out whether that would work that could solve the problem. If the water is taken care of, we have no problem.
Mary T – We need to determine whether you have jurisdiction over this area.
Marty Halloran – If you hold whole town to this standard there will be a problem. Murch Park freezes every year – people used to skate there.
Paul N – I haven’t seen skating there. And I’ve never seen it flood by itself.
Marty Halloran – There will be flood areas all over town if you consider that an ILSF.
Paul N – That’s a large area to catch water – about an acre.
Marty Halloran –If the water goes across the street that’s different.
Ken Kaumph – As a builder I have to ask, is the source of water coming from the road? Everyone is processing water onto the road & I have to deal with it? I live in town & want to do it properly. I use common sense.
Carl S – At the next phase of your application – the NOI – we can discuss that. We are defining resources here – in the ANRAD.
Ken Kaumph – I don’t want to have to build a house in the winter. What is an ILSF? What’s it for?
Carl S – If you read the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act it provides a clear definition of what an ILSF is and all the benefits associated with protecting it.
Mary Trudeau – It either is a resource area or not. The WPA defines it closely, this area doesn’t meet that. It looks like a lawn except for the topographical features. ½ “ of water is held less that 24 hrs. It may be valuable for flood control but it is not an ILSF.
Paul N – It controls drainage right now. This is a large pocket of land
Marty Halloran – Then this whole area becomes a resource & everyone within 100’ has to file for everything? ILSF is important but this doesn’t hold water.
Carl S – We have to evaluate the report you’ve given us & focus on this issue for the next hearing. We need to give the applicant a closing date & give them an answer. Do we need any additional information from them?
Steve P – We need a topographical map.
Marty Halloran – (Shows approved septic plan.)
Steve P – This doesn’t show the topography of the area.
MOTION to continue to Nov 3, 7:15 – Mike / Tom / Unam
118 JEWETT STREET
Reps: James Tolman, Owner; Marty Halloran, T-Square Design, Engineer
James Tolman – I would like to withdraw my application without prejudice.
Marty Halloran – We will come back in the Spring with a new design.
Steve P – We will still need a 3rd party review of the site.
Marty Halloran – Yes, we understand.
MOTION to accept the withdrawal without prejudice. Local fees already paid can be put towards a new filing – Tom / Mike / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – Mike / Tom / Unam
11 MARTEL WAY
Reps: Costy Ricci, Owner; Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental Consulting; Ken Knowles, Meridian Engineering
Mary Rimmer – April 7 was the 1st hearing; May 14 the site walk. We have Planning Board approval. A similar project was approved in 1998 but the OoC expired so we re-filed with a modified plan. The new plan (8/17/05) answers Con Com concerns raised at the July meeting. The proposed project minimizes impact.
Ken Knowles – I pulled the grading in so there is at least 25’ no disturb – to meet GCC and Planning Board requests. The access from Martel Way is the closest to the wetland. It is the only way into the site. The back corner is 28’ away. The building is now under 9500 sf (down from 10,000). GCC asked for the location of the septic – it is all ooutside the 100’ buffer. It is the septic that drives the layout of this plan. This is the only area for it. For GCC & the Planning Board the new plan also shows existing trees we are saving. We pulled the haybales in to save the trees that are >24” in diameter.
Paul N – What’s each area on the plan used for?
Ken Knowles – The drive is 24’ wide on each side with a guardrail & retaining wall. It is a bituminous concrete pavement. There is gravel outdoor storage enclosed by a fence. Also the building. On the gravel area we will store steel beams, jersey barriers, etc.
Costy Ricci – Vehicles are stored at the job site, not here.
Paul N – Is there any vehicle servicing on this site?
Costy Ricci – No, that is done at the work site, not here. There is no fuel storage associated with this building.
Paul N – What are your usage patterns? How often will you access the site?
Costy Ricci – Not very often. Most bridges are 1-2 year projects & the materials stay there on the job site. This would be primary storage. We have another place in Georgetown but will need to keep both.
Mary Rimmer – The size of materials they work with is what drives the size of the building.
Costy Ricci – We have very expensive forms that have to be protected.
Paul N – You deal with more than just long stuff, also stacking.
Costy Ricci – Our materials are made to go on tractor trailers in special containers.
Carl S – It’s carbon steels – no chromium?
Costy Ricci – No. Most is weldable steel, grade 60.
Carl S – What are other alternatives do you have to the original plan?
Ken Knowles – We have four alternatives. We are looking for a more efficient way to lay everything out. Alternative A – we’re moving the building to the North, increasing the setback to the wetland to 38’ though at the S it is still 28’. We still need stormwater handling. This plan is closer at the S and eliminates the trees that the Planning Board wanted. In total it is 36,800 sf (the current plan = 36k sf)
Carl S – Is there a gain or loss in distances?
Ken Knowles – We gain at the North side where the current proposal has greater setback but less at the South with the grading and retaining wall.
Mike B – So in all cases the building has been minimized as far as it can go?
Ken Knowles – Yes, within 300 sf.
Alternative B = Brings the building farther to the S side to gain additional setback. It is the same foot print & storage footprint. We gain setback at the N&E but it is closer to the wetland as the corner is 17’ away. We also lose the trees the Planning Board wanted to save. This area of disturbance is greatest of all, almost 40k sf.
Alternative C = This is not a useable building for them. We wanted to see if we could have a wraparound septic. The septic can’t change – it has to be outside the 100’ buffer. This works out to be 9800 sf for the building. We gain setback at N. The S side is closer and we also lose the trees the Planning Board wanted.
Mike B – This isn’t a feasible option?
Ken Knowles – No, he can’t get his machinery in but we proposed this to respond to Con Comm feedback.
Mike B – Can you move it closer to the entrance?
Ken Knowles – We can’t do that because of the septic – the primary & reserve need to have setbacks. If the finger of the wetland to the N wasn’t there we could pull back but it’s in the way of the septic.
Alternative D = This is a combination of plans A & C – an L shape. It includes a narrow corridor, so doesn’t work for the applicant’s operation. We gain at the back side & E but are closer on the S side.
Carl S – Why is it closer at S?
Ken Knowles – For parking & storage. We have to allocated 1 parking space per 1000 sf.
Paul N – Will you use that much?
Costy Ricci – No, but we will use it to maneuver trucks. And if we moved out of the building it would be there for whoever came in.
Steve P – On the main plan you show the limit of grading. The silt fence isn’t the limit of work?
Ken Knowles – For the proposed plans the silt fence is the limit of work. (Shows overlays.)
Paul N – We’re really talking about variances. The plans aren’t very different from the original proposal. This plan needs variances on access, setback, …
Mike B – Everything is a variance except for the septic.
Mary Rimmer – This can’t be built with the 50’ setback. It is not a buildable area for a commercially viable building because of the wetland.
Mike B – You do have a buildable lot there and you have done due diligence. You have access, septic, we just have to discuss how close you are going.
Ken Knowles – Majority of the site has 25’.
Mike B – What’s the closest?
Ken Knowles – 28’, the silt fence is at 25’.
Costy Ricci – We will do anything needed – we can drive steel sheeting to provide silt fencing.
Mike B – What about the trees we are trying to save?
Ken Knowles – We can locate the trees by topo, indicating massing of trees along the back side for visibility from I-95, saving the large trees. This site is within flood zone C, not determined by topo, it is within the wetland. (Shows overlay FEMA map & assessors map).
Paul N – The number of variance you would have to have is many. How can we achieve setbacks & protection by scaling back this project?
Costy Ricci – I scaled back so much I wonder if is feasible now. I tried to make every accommodation. I have to have a 25’ buffer zone. I spend $250,000 into the local economy every year. I want to stay here & need this building to do it. I am a good steward in town. My business has very low impact. We do not handle hazardous materials. There isn’t a lot of traffic. It’s just storage.
Mary Rimmer – Is there anything else we can give back in terms of Conservation Restrictions to prevent further development. We are trying to be sensitive to your concerns.
Costy Ricci – Beavers.
Carl S – If they are a public health threat they can be dealt with. We can’t just go out & breach dams. What you propose for mitigation?
Mary Rimmer – 25 –50 ‘ buffer. We could look at other areas the Commission would like to improve. A Conservation Restriction would be useful in perpetuity.
Costy Ricci – There is nothing else available on Martel Way. Are there any other projects in town the Commission needs help with?
Mary Rimmer – We can offer bridges, boardwalks, …
Paul N – What if you moved the gravel area to your other site in Georgetown?
Costy Ricci – I would have to have double the equipment to travel back & forth. It would not be economically or operationally feasible.
Mary Rimmer – This project can be approved under the state regs, but we are looking for flexibility in the local regs.
Mike B – Precedence.
Ken Knowles – There are unique circumstance in that there are pre-existing conditions for a prior project. This is a pre-existing lot – not sub-divided.
Carl S – Yes, was a pre-existing lot.
Mary Rimmer – Any proposal for this site would face the same issues.
Mike B – Yes but, another company may want half the size.
Costy Ricci – But it may be a painting company. Work on this septic system is very very expensive – I could do it myself.
Ken Knowles – No matter who is in there, they need 7’ between the groundwater & septic. No matter what the elevation, the septic won’t change between this property & another.
Paul N – Most of the trees are disappearing too. How many feet of fill is going on top?
Ken Knowles – We are taking the elevation to 80’ from 75’ but it will be less by the access way. The gravel area is 73’ existing, 78’ proposed.
Carl S – The entrance is upland? You’re not doing a wetland crossing?
Ken Knowles – It is natural. It will have retaining walls on both sides & around the entire property. We will do the fill & retaining walls at the same time.
Paul N – How will you make sure that no fill goes into the wetland?
Ken Knowles – We will use a silt sock or orange high visibility fence to keep machinery operators out of that area.
Costy Ricci – We work that way every day. It won’t be a problem for my operators.
Carl S – The only question is about setbacks, not quality of work.
Mary Rimmer – The impact into the access area & wetland jog would affect any project on this site. There would still be construction on both sides. Another project may be smaller but it would be a relatively minor difference. There would still be a lot of site work for this lot.
Mike B – A smaller project might get the building closer to the front.
Ken Knowles – The only way to move the building would be to have a narrow building & that would still have the same setbacks.
Paul N – How about if you move it to the N, take a bigger hit at the indented wetland jog & get better setbacks at the S side. If we need to give something up let’s make it worthwhile. We could get up to 40’ rather than 28’.
Mary Rimmer – I don’t see how that helps you. It will be closer to the wetland for a longer stretch of the building.
Ken Knowles – It still need the same amount of storm water infiltration. We have to be careful of the grading to make sure the catchbasins & roof drains will drain. We looked at that initially but because of the septic & infiltration we had to go with this design.
Steve P – I can’t recommend approving this – it breaks every setback we have. But if there were some other mitigation plan we could look at it again.
Mary Rimmer – Costy Ricci needs this plan to make his business work.
Carl S – If this is the best we can do on this one, we have to think about other kinds of mitigation plans to go forward with.
Paul N – I would prefer to take an extreme variance in one place. If it costs more, but not overwhelmingly, then it should be looked at.
Ken Knowles – We can’t change the stormwater handling. We have looked at other options. 10,500 sf is the absolute minimum – we are already looking at other sites to make up the shortfall. Under other proposal options we lose on all sides. The original one proposed is the least damaging one.
Costy Ricci – Prior to the last meeting I spent about 3 months talking about design. This one is the best.
Ken Knowles – I can’t see how we can gain additional setbacks. We can gain nominally on one side, but lose on another.
Carl S – If we approve this now, will there be problems in 5 years with encroaching water?
Ken Knowles – The elevation of the building is higher than the road, so the road would flood before this building does.
Mike B – What’s the gradient?
Ken Knowles – 3:1 grassy slope. It wouldn’t be maintained very often.
Mary Rimmer – It can be constructed without impact on the wetlands.
MOTION to continue to Thursday, October 13 at 7:00 – Tom / Mike / Unam
| 
