GCC MEETING MINUTES
December 1, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, Tom Howland, Paul Nelson, John Bell, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
OSC DEEDS
MOTION to accept for passive recreation – Paul / Tom/ Unam
Parker River Landing – Map 12 Lot 51, Map 12 Lot 52 and Map 12- Lot 53
Littles Hill - 8 Londonderry Lane, 1 Hillside Drive
MOTION to accept the parcel at 103 Central Street & endorse it for Parks & Recreation – Tom / John / Unam
FANWORT TREATMENT
Carl S – It seems likely that we will only get approval for partial treatment next year.
Steve P – It seems as though the partial treatment was very effective. Non-target species were not affected and plenty of cover was left for the bridle shiner to shelter in after the treatment. I have emailed Dan Nein and told him that it was effective and did not hit the non-target species. We were not able to positively identify the shiners in all our sampling this summer but hopefully we will be able to do that next year with the shock boat from Mass Wildlife. I saw plenty of shiners from the boat and while snorkeling, but we just didn’t find them in our traps. I will get an estimate for both whole and partial treatments.
Carl S – The partial treatment did seem to work very well, you can go out and look at pond and see that it did have an effect.
Steve P – We treated the most badly affected areas. The fanwort will never be eradicated. We’ll have to do a partial treatment every year.
Carl S – The partial may be more effective anyway. The whole treatment would be less concentrated & probably less successful.
Paul N – The barriers put around the partial treatment areas will not be effective in the deeper parts of the pond because they won’t reach all the way to the bottom.
Steve P – What they did was the marshy 1’ or less – it will be tougher in the deeper areas. Fragments are taking root again already. I’m leaning towards a whole treatment. The costs of both are almost the same
Carl S – The state has to take a stand – they have really held us up.
Steve P – This time we have a lot more data. We’re in a much better position this year. Dan Nein (NHESP) has not responded to my email so we’re probably looking at another partial treatment. I saw shiners but we don’t have positive identification from the actual study. If the town were having to do a whole treatment every 3-4 years it would be better. I don’t like using chemicals like this but it worked well.
Carl S – What shall we say on the CPC website to define the project? We can define Options 1 & 2 and say we are trying to work with the state on them.
Steve P – Partials would need to be done every single year in a new spot. That’s a lot of money. We still have enough in the original CPC grant to help fund this.
CAMP DENISON LAND PURCHASE
Carl S - Camp Denison has put forward a proposal to procure a parcel abutting the camp. The price has come down significantly. I would endorse getting the additional parcel for Camp Denison to give it a larger footprint & greater buffer. The initial stumbling block was the price. It is now $39,000 for 7 acres – that money would come from the CPC. The sponsor is Camp Den Committee – so we need to be involved & part of process. That parcel goes out to the rail trail so would provide additional access to the camp if the rail trail goes through. The parcel is really un-buildable remnants from other development but it gives them larger property (an additional 8 acres), greater buffer around it & access to the rail trail. It’s not fabulous upland but
still usable recreation land.
Steve P – Isn’t it still overpriced for a landlocked and un-buildable lot?
Carl S – That may not be a firm price. CPC funds are being tapped into heavily this time.
GCC – We are in favor of pursuing this parcel for Camp Denison.
Carl S – It has to go to town meeting & the taxpayers to vote for allocation of CPC funds. It’s already bordering existing land.
Paul N – The purchase would prevent someone coming in to purchase a corridor into it.
HEARINGS
256 EAST MAIN ST (GCC-2004-056; DEP 161-0613) NOI (Cont)
Construction of a new SFH 50 feet from BVW and Stream
Reps: Bill Manuel, Wetland & Land Management; George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering; Geoff & Jason Nadeau, Owners
George Zamboras – The latest change in the drawing is a change in the lot configuration – shown on this Planning Board plan.
Bill Manuel – Last time we met we were talking about mitigation. We submitted revised plans & a restoration plan since then – this is in line with what discussed. N said plantings were sparse, so we submitted a denser plan (2x). In July we talked about a 15’ wide mitigation zone along the stream. We have added that to the plan. The footbridge is also across there. There are granite monuments along that mitigation area. They stick up 2’ above grade as a visual reminder of where that buffer zone is. We talked about a 75’ arc from the corner of the house to restore that lawn to appropriate wetland vegetation. We gave a 70’ arc as the 75’ went into the wetland. That is shown on the new plan. We eliminated the
driveway turnout. From flag B2 to the road & from A2 to the road there is a 15’ strip – we will plant 14 red maples and 120 other native, local shrubs as well interspersed in there. They should thrive in that location as it is a very wet area. From flag A1 to the property line is upland but we will plant it with 6 red oaks (every 10’) and plant heavily with raspberry canes which will reproduce heavily. They will be thickly planted & in a season or two it will provide an impenetrable barrier for people & machinery. The monitoring schedule calls for a wetland consultant planting person to be on site when planting – 1 month after, mid-summer & at the end of the growing season (end Sept). That way, if something drastic happened we would still have September to rectify the problem. We are treating this like a wetland restoration project – looking for at least 75% coverage after two growing seasons. We can put the planting schedule in the OoC.
There are questions about the septic reserve area. The primary is adjacent to the house. The reserve is being squeezed out by the wetland line change made at the third party review. In excess of 100’.
Steve P – It gets close to the tank but is still outside the 100’.
Bill Manuel – The reserve area has been moved to another area of the property – over 100’. Nothing in the regulations prohibits it being on another parcel. We can put it on the same lot by going through a contorted method. There is concerned about the pipe thru the wetland. There is an area of upland we can route the pipe through over by the road. We could also do a directional drill under the wetland – like a gas pipe drill. We would go under the wetland with zero alteration. In reality in 20 years when the system needs updating we will do it in the same spot.
Carl S – Has the BOH approved this plan for the septic?
George Zamboras – It hasn’t been submitted to them yet. It will most likely be repaired in situ.
Paul N – The regulations talk about a septic system – that includes everything, not just any one component. This is showing the alternative being so far away. Will the BOH buy into something that crude?
George Zamboras – Many systems now end up being pump systems. It’s not unusual.
Bill Manuel – Pumps are becoming more normal now because of the high water table.
Carl S – Also, because less desirable land is being developed now.
Paul N – You would still require a variance because parts of the system are going thru a resource.
Steve P – Even if you drill down, at depth it’s still a wetland.
Bill Manuel – There are no pipes on this plan that are not compliant. We can’t say what might happen in 20 years.
Carl S – The Commission doesn’t allow new systems to go within 100’ of a resource area. Does that mean an entire system or just the components? From precedent it means a whole system if is a new one (which includes all the components).
George Zamboras – In the past, Title 5 regulations dictate the setback dimensions for the tank & soil absorption area but not for the individual pipe (gravity line). In most cases we are most concerned that the soil absorption field is outside the 100’.
Paul N – We have never done anything including a tank within the 100’.
Carl S – We’re looking at our GCC regulations, not Title 5.
Bill Manuel – What have here is compliant & you are pre-supposing we would need to make use of the reserve & they may never need to do that.
Paul N – We can’t just suppose there will be an invisible pipe in there – it will be there to connect these two components.
Carl S – We have to worry about what is happening now.
Steve P – If this did fail in 5 years, they would make a bid to move it closer in. At that point it would be an existing system.
Carl S – Before we can approve this we want to see BOH approval for the septic.
George Zamboras – We are going in with this drawing. Nothing will be proposed for the reserve area. There are no pipes shown. We already don’t pipe into the reserve, we just show where it will be.
Carl S – It has to be a functional system & show a reserve area. Technically it has to work in case it fails shortly after installation. The BOH will look at it & not approve it until they see what we say about the plan as well.
Paul N- We want everything outside 100’ of the wetland.
Steve P – This project needs variances for setbacks on the whole project.
Bill Manuel – We’re beyond that now. We have gotten guidance from the Commission & followed it. Now we’re down to the septic system.
Steve P – There is a grass swale is still protecting the wetland. It will be less protected if we let this project be developed. The stream is still serving a function. We’re losing a lot by allowing a pipe to go through the resource.
Paul N – As trade-off it’s a good one. A wet swale is not the same thing as a wetland.
Carl S – Do other Commissioners have any other issues?
Tom H – We had a vigorous debate about the wetland markers. Are we comfotable with that now? We changed the whole scheme of things.
Paul N – We took a 75’ arc off the building. We’re looking at the quality of the wetland, the existing hydric soils could’ve been there from times past.
Carl S – Let’s go over the variances.
Steve P – There is impervious parking at 50’. There are variances on all setbacks as well as the reserve septic system.
George Zamboras – The reserve area does not indicate any construction. We are not violating setbacks. The area is designated for possible future use.
Carl S – Yes, but they might deny you in the future to use that.
George Zamboras – Sure, but there may be public sewerage we could tie into by then.
Carl S – The issue isn’t whether it’s outside the 100’. How will you get there? From our perspective it has to be a fully functional system
Paul N – You show a 10’ sewer easement. That’s the designated path if you need to use it?
George Zamboras – Yes, it has to be shown to be approved by BOH. Easements can change, but it doesn’t have to stay there. The pipe crosses under the footbridge
Carl S – What if you can’t do that?
George Zamboras – We will go along the street line.
Jason Nadeau, Owner – There is about 12’ of grass there.
Steve P – The wetland doesn’t stop when it hits the culvert.
George Zamboras – We will go along the cement headwall running inside the property line. There is room there that’s privately owned where we could cross.
Carl S – Then you would be in the buffer zone. Any way you choose you would be in the buffer zone.
George Zamboras – That’s correct.
Bill Manuel – Unless we do a directional drill.
Paul N – Steve can put that in the OoC.
Carl S – We don’t allow new systems in the 100’ buffer zone. The town has been involved in putting pipes under the Parker River for water. We only approve plans that have everything we need to see. Don’t want to approve new components that could potentially go into the resource – even though this doesn’t show that they go there now.
Paul N – That information would have to go into the CoC to maintain the 100’ buffer for all components.
Carl S – We would have to modify the plan re. the easement so they don’t go through the wetland.
Bill Manuel – We could call it a sub-surface easement.
Carl S – Before we could approve it we would want to see the BOH’s endorsement of the system – that’s standard.
John B – Both zones are out of the buffer zone but getting from here to there is an issue. If we put it into the OoC it could be controlled.
Carl S – We would want to see comments on the easement. Are there any other comments on planting plan, monumentation? We are trying to give them direction.
Paul N – In the areas bordering the stream, how dense would you be planting?
Bill Manuel – 3’ on center for shrubs. They have 6’ area of diameter. We worked it out so they have crown to crown at maturity. We want make sure the area is healthy & vigorous – we’re planting for maturity rather than an immediate thick look.
Steve P – We would like to see a side sketch of the bridge with proposed materials.
Bill Manuel – It would be a wood bridge with no pilings. We just need to span the channel, not the whole restoration area.
Carl S – When you get BOH approval & make clarifications we’ve discussed we can meet again.
MOTION to continue to Jan 12, 2006 at 8:00 – John / Paul / Unam
94 ELM STREET (GCC-2005-15; DEP 161-0623) NOI (Cont)
Raze existing building and barn, new construction of: one undefined building and two Over-55 condominium units, septic tank, retaining wall, grading and utilities 58 feet from BVW.
Reps: Steven Ericson, Norse Environmental
Steve Ericson – The existing structure is a large house with a barn – not shown on the plan. We made a site visit. New England Environmental did the 3rd party review. The original design didn’t show condos 75’ away from wetland. They have been moved away now. All the septic is beyond the 100’ & 50’ no-disturb area.
Carl S – The Commission couldn’t walk the site as the flags had been removed.
Steve Ericson – They have been replaced now. We can meet all your requirements now. There will be disturbance when the structure removed. It is dilapidated and should be removed.
Steve P – Where is the reserve septic system?
Steve Ericson – Over on the side.
Paul N – Has it been perc-ed yet?
Steve Ericson – No. The original plan was approved by the BOH but this one hasn’t been yet. We came to the commission first before we test that. The original soils tests were good.
Steve P – Is the silt fence on this plan the line of work?
Carl S – Has this lot been legally separated from the other lot?
Steve Ericson – Yes. We have copies of the deeds.
Steve P – I’m looking at WF1A – that’s a long length without additional flags. These lines don’t go off property – we require them to be shown 100’ off. These lines should be contoured & aren’t shown.
Steve Ericson – There isn’t a lot of vegetation to hang flags on. We thought we were off-property but can extend that farther. We can monument this area any way you want – 50’ or 25’. The curvature on AutoCAD was off but has been corrected.
Carl S – The Commission has never been able to walk this line. It’s a very strange situation.
Steve P – We haven’t walked it since the flags were put back in.
Paul N – Why is the silt fence 25’ away?
Steve Ericson – Because the barn is there. We can move it
Paul N – Yes, it should be placed along the 50’ Do Not Disturb line.
Steve Ericson – We can move that.
Carl S – There is not a lot of detail for units 1 & 2. We want to see everything that will be there.
Steve Ericson - What you see is what will be there – this has been prepared from the architectural drawings. This footprint is exactly what it will look like.
Carl S – We need to see everything on the plan.
Steve Ericson – This is exactly it, designed by architect.
Steve P – How will you demolish the barn? That will cause a lot of disturbance. Is there room to do that within the silt fence?
Steve Ericson – We’ll take an excavator & dump it into a dumpster.
Carl S – Why can’t the unspecified buildings move out of the buffer zone? Why can’t the footprint shrink down?
Steve Ericson – It’s a matter of economics. That would impact our profit.
Carl S – I am obligated to examine options to minimize impact on resources.
Steve Ericson – We are moving further away from the resource. You are getting more protection from the new construction.
Carl S –There is one septic for both units?
Steve Ericson – Yes.
Paul N – The reserve septic is shown in the same place as the main system.
Steve Ericson – Yes. Title 5 allows you to put it within the existing system if have enough room – we can dig a trench in between the pipes and put the reserve in there.
Steve P – Is this BOH approved?
Steve Ericson – Not yet. We don’t know the status of that yet.
Paul N – Let’s note for future reference that both tanks are shown & the pipes are all shown – that’s what want to see on all plans we get in here in the future.
Steve P – We want all lines on the plan to be more precise. Show the 75’ and 50’ buffers as well. The monuments can be determined by the agent.
Paul N – Can you push Unit 1 10-15’closer to road – to give 80 – 90’ from wetland?
Steve Ericson – Yes.
John B – Are those 2 large trees coming down?
Steve Ericson - Yes.
GCC – Those are huge old trees. They must be over 200 years old. It’s a shame to lose them.
Carl S – The Commission hasn’t walked this yet. This is an unusual case with unusual circumstances. The flags were missing when we went out before. We weren’t able to see the wetland line at all.
Steve P – NEE (third party reviewer) looked at that & put his own in. He commented that there may be an intermittent stream in the wetland. We should have a look for that.
MOTION to hold a site walk Apr 22 at 9:30 am – Tom / Paul / Unam
MOTION to continue to May 18 at 8:00 – Tom / John / Unam
1 KINSON COURT (GCC-2005-028; DEP 161-) NOI (Cont)
Tree cutting and grading the top off the hill within 50’ of BVW.
No reps.
MOTION to continue to Jan 12 at 9:00 – Paul / John / Unam
187 NORTH STREET (GCC-2005-23; DEP 161-0631) ANRAD (Cont)
Delineation of 345 linear feet of Wetlands bordering North Street and Silver Mine Lane.
Reps: James Dolansky, Seekamp Environmental; George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering
George Zamboras – We last met at the site walk. You wanted a revised plan showing the area across the street as a vernal pool. That is shown on the new plan. We have also included the floodplain and FEMA Zone A – but it doesn’t have the base flood elevation. Silver Mine Lane isn’t shown on FEMA maps either. MASSGIS shows it – the limit of the FEMA line on this plan is a representation of that. Based on datum, the limit of the floodplain is at 95’. ArcView shows this as floodplain at the back of the lot.
Paul N – I’ve been looking at this site. The water level now is close to where the 100-yr flood is shown. Where would it be in a real 100 year flood?
Steve P – NEE agreed with our flagging and resource areas – the resource areas are an ILSF and a vernal pool.
MOTION to accept the wetland delineation in the ANRAD (final plan dated 12/1/05) and issue the ORAD indicating that the delineations have been verified – Paul / John / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – Tom / John / Unam
| 
