GCC MEETING MINUTES
September 22, 2005
Attending: Carl Shreder, Tom Howland, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
Pentucket Acres CA –Sign, parking, invasives, naturalizing
HEARINGS
151 JEWETT STREET (GCC-2004-027) ANRAD (Cont)
Delineation of 1,500 linear feet of Wetlands bordering Jackman Brook and an isolated Wetland that may contain a Vernal Pool.
No representatives.
Steven P – Checked on potential vernal pool. It doesn’t look like a solid one but will be included in the ORAD. This is a very wet property in general.
Carl S – Do we have everything we need in the file?
Steven P – Yes. The final plan is dated 11/12/04. I will ask the applicant for more copies of the plan.
Mike B – Make sure to note on the ORAD that they went across the wetland while perc testing.
MOTION to accept the ANRAD plan dated 11/12/04 – Mike / Paul / Unam
MOTION to close the ANRAD hearing – Mike / Paul / Unam
256 EAST MAIN STREET (GCC-2004-056; DEP 161-0613) NOI (Cont)
Construction of a new SFH 50 feet from BVW and Stream
Representatives: Bill Manuel, Wetlands & Land Management; Jason Nadeau, Geoff Nadeau, Applicants
Bill Manuel – Should come back with a plan with potential mitigation– as discussed at the July site walk. We will submit concepts of mitigation for discussion. We hope to finalize that concept and come back to the next meeting to close the hearing. In the field we saw there is an intermittent stream of mowed lawn. It would be beneficial to provide re-vegetation along there for shade, nutrients etc. We talked about restoring 15’ either side. The horse barn is also to be removed so we also have area to be restored in that area. We want to find a win - win solution for the applicant & the commission. This area has been a horse paddock over 20 years. Some of it was wetland so we will get some of that buffer back & use the rest. Ideally
we’d like to keep the 15’ corridor straight back & give more back where the barn is. We propose a bituminous driveway – for plowing rather than gravel. It will be 50’ from the stream. If we need infiltration on the downhill side we can add that but the grade is so gradual it will run off gently anyway.
Paul N – Proposes losing a section of the drive to reduce the impervious area. I believe this was agreed to, so this could be indicated here.
Bill Manuell – We will come back with specific methodology to immediately establish the landscaped zone along the stream as an initial part of construction.
Carl S – What about reverting the barn area to its natural state?
Paul N – Take an arc 75’ from corner of the house & take that as buffer – the variances would only be at the front and it would concentrate the mitigation in the hydric soils area.
Steve P – The benefit doesn’t necessarily outweigh the cost – flooding in town is contributed to by projects like this. This breaks all our setback laws except the septic.
GCC – Discussion re. siting of the secondary tank which is to be located 360’ from the main tank. Waste will be pumped through a pipe to the secondary tank. The pipe will run above ground through the wetland area & buffer.
Mike B – Will there be monumentation along the wetland buffer?
Bill Manuel – Yes.
Carl S – The monuments need to be in granite to last for decades, no matter who lives there.
Bill Manuel – We would like to talk about the management plan for the restoration area,
Paul N – We will stipulate the review process of the newly created restoration area.
Bill Manuel – It will be done to a pre-defined schedule.
MOTION to continue to Nov 3 at 8:00 – Mike / Tom / Unam
The new plans are to include: Plan should have everything; driveway infiltration (is this what was proposed earlier or are they going to use special bricks on the driveway?); monuments on both sides; 30’ corridor along stream; 75’ arc from NW corner of house; planting schedule / plan & monitoring schedule; access between the lots; septic and/or reserve; elimination of a portion of the driveway.
NORTH STREET & WELLS AVENUE (GCC-2005-018; DEP 161-0629) ANRAD (Cont)
Review over 5,500 linear feet of delineated Resource Area, to confirm the wetland boundaries on the site.
Reps: Mike Wierbonics, WPI; Curt Young, WPI; John Kiley, Hawthorne Developers
Curt Young – Want to bring everyone up to speed with since the last meeting, address the issues, and get direction re resource area issues. We reviewed the site with the independent reviewer. Changes were made to some flag lines, made modifications to flags in the field & on the plan. The site walk failed as no commissioners attended. As a result we re-delineated the edges of potential vernal pools. They will be surveyed over the next week in time for the next public hearing. At the next site walk we’ll review for the edge of the high water mark. These vernal pools are in convoluted areas, especially at the back.
Paul N – Vernal pools are defined by the high water mark.
Curt Young – The reviewer identified small potential vernal pool areas but it is inaccurate as the area of inundation is small. One of the areas under discussion as ILSF needs clarification. There are two in particular – one at the edge of the Pearson Lane access and another in the middle of the site in the depression shown. In your bylaw there is a definition of ILSF areas but it is not clear re delineation. It says a “significant amount of time” - there should be a seasonal high water mark, hydric soil conditions. We want input re what we should be able to see to define a “significant period of time”. We are seeing water staining of leaves on surface but we have been working at the site since the snow & haven’t seen accumulation or
flooding. The concern is that we don’t see hydric soils or a seasonal high water mark.
Carl S – It’s not necessarily exactly a wetland per se but we are still concerned about it.
Curt Young – Yes but, we want to know what is a significant period of time.
Steve P – The regs say that the ILSF area doesn’t need to show hydric soils or vegetation. This area does have heavy staining. It is in a bowl, you can see it clearly when you stand there and it is also supported by the topography.
Carl S – Why do you want a definitive definition? If it is an ILSF it is.
Curt Young – Yes, is a depressional area but
Steve P – The small area is open to discussion but on the larger one there is no question.
Curt Young – Yes, it is a bowl, and there are water stained leaves. But we want an idea of how to look at these areas & determine exactly.
Paul N – Each one has its own characteristics & is unique.
Carl S – We have to observe them over a period of time. That would be proof for each one.
Curt Young – We don’t always have an opportunity to observe so we’re looking for more science to determine.
Paul N – There is heavy growth in that area. You may not be able to see the character of the areas (ILSF?) you’re looking at. Lost the context on this one.
Yvonne Buswell, Abutter, 9 Knobb Hill, Byfield – I can give you seasonal pictures of the area.
Carl S – That would be helpful. We need to collect data over a period of time. We also welcome anecdotal evidence from abutters.
Steve P – Data collected and averaged over 2-3 years is Science. Pushing it through quickly is not Science. The pitch of the hill is 3:1. You can’t tell by the plants. This isn’t a wetland but it needs looking at.
Curt Young – It needs defining.
Fred Bodenrader, Abutter, 560 North Street – There has always been standing water at this site behind my house in Spring. There are also dumped piles there. There are always tadpoles & frogs. The standing water is 8-10” deep for most of the Spring. The pools may be smaller than they used to be but they’re still there. I saw a blue-spotted salamander in that area. NOTE: this is the anecdotal information on the VP that was discussed in WPI’s letter.
Yvonne Buswell, Abutter, 9 Knobb Hill, Byfield – Where is the depression - which side?
Curt Young – It spans the property boundary. 2/3 is in Byfield. It is on Richard Johnson’s property. The wetland boundaries have been reviewed. Once we re-schedule a site walk we can get on with the application.
MOTION to conduct site walk on Sat Oct 1, 8 am – Mike / Paul / Unam
Steve P – We needs 5 copies of the updated plan by then.
Ron Stadnicki, Abutter, 4 Swanton Way – Shouldn’t there be a buffer line shown for vernal pools & BVWs at the Mass Electric site? There is a BVW over there.
Curt Young – They are only allowing one abutter to attend the site walk.
Ron Stadnicki, Abutter, 4 Swanton Way – Yes but this project is impacting 50 abutters.
John Kiley, Hawthorne – The owner’s attorney said for that for liability purposes they shouldn’t let anyone on the property.
Gail Bodenrader, Abutter, 560 North Street - How many people are attending the site walk? There are many developers but only one abutter?
John Kiley, Hawthorne – This is a preliminary process on private land. If an NOI is filed we will work with neighborhood groups.
Carl S – We can’t force them to allow abutters on the site walk.
Fred Bodenrade, Abutter, 560 North Street – A number of abutters have signed forms to say it is OK for the commission to go on their property. We are not restricted to one member on our property. We want to show what’s on our properties.
Carl S – We will do that, time permitting.
Steve P – We can check all those areas out anytime.
Ron Stadnicki, Abutter, 4 Swanton Way – Are there copies of the new drawings for abutters?
Curt Young – Yes, when the new plans are ready..
Steve P – They should be made available 2 weeks before Oct 1st.
John Kiley, Hawthorne – They will be available from the GCC office.
Steve P – The wetland lines have been looked at by the 3rd party reviewer. Most of this discussion is on vernal pools & the ILSF areas.
Carl S – This is a very preliminary part of the process. We have to agree on the wetland lines before anything can go forward.
MOTION to continue to Nov 3, 8:45 – Mike / Tom / Unam
187 NORTH STREET (GCC-2005-23; DEP 161-0631) ANRAD (New)
Delineation of 345 linear feet of Wetlands bordering North Street and Silver Mine Lane.
Reps: George Zamboras, Atlantic Engineering; Mr Pybus, Owner
George Zamboras – This is a 1.5 acre lot with an isolated wetland in the middle and another BVW. We want delineation for potential development on site. The wetland delineation was done by Seekamp on Sept 28, 2004 but couldn’t get scheduled into a meeting. We would like a site walk asap to get through this process.
Paul N – Is there hydraulic connection with the land on the other side?
George Zamboras – No, it’s a bowl. The elevation of the area inside the property is 94 feet, North St is at 98 feet, and Silver Mine is 100 feet.
Paul N – Is there a culvert or detention pond?
Mr Watkins, Abutter, 1a Silver Mine Lane – A culvert runs along our property.
Steve P – We have obtained an estimate for a third party review - $550. I will schedule NEE to do that asap.
MOTION to conduct site walk on Oct 1, 11 am – Mike / Tom / Unam
Carl S – Can abutters come on the site walk?
Mr Pybus – That’s fine as long as they are accompanied by GCC.
Suzanne MacLeod, Abutter, 1A Silver Mine – The wetland area on the map is actually a vernal pool. I know that from continuous observation over 10 years living next door. It is very wet every year in spring & low lying.
MOTION to continue to Nov 3, 7:30 – Mike / Paul / Unam
44 ELM STREET
Reps: Greg Hoffman; & owners
Greg Hoffman – The owners bought the property & have been renovating it. They have filed an NOI as an EO was issued to cease & desist in July. There was a pile of debris behind the house, they brought a bobcat back there to clear it. The lawn is in the wetland and the bobcat sank down into the muck and skinned a tree. While investigating Steve Przyjemski saw an unpermitted deck. We have talked to Steve about our ideas. We intend to stabilize the site, add silt fence, get the grass growing & file an NOI for any other work including deck. The house was built in 1950 and had 2 decks. (Shows photo of previous decks – with metal shed on the deck & shambolic retaining wall.) The retaining wall continues under the new deck. The closest sonar
tube is 3’ to BVW. It is already in & stable. The owners realize they messed up and should’ve come to GCC. They have an offer of mitigation and propose to bring a section of lawn back to natural vegetated wetland area. They would like to establish a new lawn out front - during restoration of the house the front lawn was wrecked by machinery.
Mike B – What is your proposal?
Greg Hoffman – The lawn is dead from construction activity on site.
Mike B - What is the size of the replication area?
Greg Hoffman – 1:1.
Mike B – We require at least 2:1.
Greg Hoffman – The silt fence is in. It didn’t seem that real damage was done to the wetland.
Paul N – What else is going on there?
Greg Hoffman – They added a second story onto the house.
Paul N – That also required a permit as it is a significant change within 75’ of the BVW.
Greg Hoffman – The owners just moved here from Stoneham & didn’t know what the bylaws were.
Paul N – The Wetland Protection Act is for the whole state.
Greg Hoffman – No one is living in the house yet, it is still being plastered. We can make the replication area 2:1.
Paul N – How far out does the wet land go?
Greg Hoffman –About 30’ from the deck to the end of lawn. It can be mowed. We want to try to get a permit for something that has already been constructed & offer a mitigation plan. The house was built in 1950, they requested a waiver to the no-build zone in their application. They could extend the restoration area to where debris area was. There is an old shed there now on a concrete block foundation.
John Lancaster, Abutter, 47 Elm – They haven’t hauled any fill into the area. I want to support the applicants, they haven’t hurt anything. I have been living there for 50 years. This house is now greatly improved.
Paul N – What does the wetland look like?
Steve P – It’s grassy & wet.
John Lancaster, Abutter, 47 Elm – It floods in Spring but dries later.
Steve P – The footing closest to the rock wall is literally 2” from the other side of the rock wall.
Carl S – If this had come before us as an NOI with a deck 3’ from BVW … we would never have passed it.
Steve P – The work site looks clean. The only problem was in the back where they cleared with a bobcat.
Greg Hoffman – The deck goes over the retaining wall which is impervious. They would like to start on the front lawn while it’s still the growing season.
Steve P – It would be a good thing to stabilize that surface from heavy rain.
Carl S – We can condition that under the EO. The NOI is for the deck, so we’ll do the grass under the EO.
Greg Hoffman – We are willing to trade the shed for deck. That would reduce the impervious area out by the wetland. We would plant it as a wetland.
Paul N – You need a silt sock on the right.
Greg Hoffman – If we come back with 3:1 replication and demo of the shed, would the commission look well on that?
Mike B – Precedence.
Carl S – We need to ask why we should grant a variance?
Greg Hoffman – We want to offer something to make the commission comfortable.
John Lancaster, Abutter, 47 Elm – It makes the house more livable because people wouldn’t walk in the wetland if they have a good deck. In spring the water can go under the deck & soak in the ground & go away. It can go right under the deck & percolate.
MOTION to continue to Nov 17, 8:45 – Tom / Mike / Unam
| 
