GCC MEETING MINUTES
April 7, 2005
Attendees: Carl Shreder, Harry LaCortiglia, Michael Birmingham, John Bell, Tom Howland, Paul Nelson, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
MINUTES
Jan 13 – MOTION to approve with agreed edits - Harry / John / Unam
Mar 24 - MOTION to approve with agreed edits - Harry / John / Unam
6 CARLETON DRIVE
Rep: Matt Broussard working with East West Realty Trust.
GCC-2002-04; DEP# 161-0403
OoC issued Nov 8, 2002
Appl - Presented a review of project changes made to the site design. The site program is not different but elements of design for circulation and stormwater management have changed.
They want to get GCC approval as the change is a general improvement over the original plan as it represents a change to the informal design. They don’t want an amendment to the current OoC.
Harry L – Do we consider this an insignificant change?
Appl – Yes, but it is an improvement.
Paul N – AB said 8/29/03 was the last GCC approved plan. There have been several more versions since then that haven’t been approved by GCC.
Carl S – The footprint of the building has changed, location of the building, and filling of local wetland without replication. There has been discussion of making replication towards the front of the lot rather than cutting trees & making a new one elsewhere. It would possibly be more valuable in that area.
Harry L – Is the non-permeable surface area larger?
Appl – Changes were made to the plan prior to the plan they saw. This plan has 1/3 acre less pavement. The most significant improvement is the stormwater handling. There are 4 components:
1) Drainage of the access drive - the original was pitched back towards the wetl. It didn’t appear to be functioning due to saturation & grading down to the level of the wetland. It has been changed to provide a grass filtration strip alongside the road on the Rt. 95 side. The road bed itself will be graded to provide a west to east sheet flow of rain/drainage across the road.
Paul N - Won’t this entail a heavier use of salt if there is sheet flow across the road in winter?
Appl - There was not a coherent response, though they indicated they would not (for sure?) use sodium chloride.
2) Pavement – is still broken into the same paved areas but now drained into 2 catchbasins. It was a single catchment with stormwater treatment chamber but that has been substituted with a sedimentation chamber & bio-retention area with bio-filtration media to promote biological breakdown of contaminants. There will be a large amount of vehicle traffic. As there will be such intensive use they have added a secondary system for peak flow control. These naturalize over time & it doesn’t need maintenance. They will send information about the system. This is a Low Impact Development strategy.
Carl S – How close is fuel to the wetland?
Appl – It is outside the 100’ buffer zone. It was inside the water resource district so it was moved.
Carl S – Is there an SPCC plan?
Appl – It has been developed & reviewed by the fire chief. They will get that plan to GCC.
Harry L – Is there a shut off in case of catastrophic accident?
Appl – There is no valve but is large tank volume capacity with a containment dike to prevent rainwater entering.
Harry L – Would a breach be contained in the tank?
Appl – On the North side, catchbasins are used to discharge to an underground system capturing the overflow. This is more for larger vehicles storage.
Carl S – The plan used to have an oval truck-turnaround.
Appl – We can still turn a tractor-trailer in the area. There will be no chemical storage outside, inside only. There will only be PVC pipe, lumber and soil stored.
Harry L – What separates the work area from the wetland area?
Appl – They are separated by a non-climbable fence with screening, berms. The gravel areas and paved areas drain to the catchbasins & wet basins. Primary treatment is in the wet basins. Drainage from the front goes to the grass-filtered drainage swale & there is a proposed impervious [asphalt?] area which will receive the drainage from the pervious areas surrounding. This, then, feeds the grass drainage swale Have brought all treatment areas into compliance.
Harry L – Is there TSS removal?
Appl – It is in excess of 80%. Hydrocarbon removal is over 90% The limits of construction are at or within the original design. There is less pavement. The gravel area is the same shape & is hemmed in by a no-disturb zone. This was changed due to circulation factors. It is no closer to the wetland than in the original plans – mostly farther away.
Paul N – The site has been walked. The wetland flagging is on the silt fences. 25’ buffer zone. Before regs. Old business. Has anyone ever questioned the flagging?
Carl S – Probably. There was a lot of wetland to the rear of the site. This was the original equipment storage area during the construction of I95. We need the opportunity to compare the original plans & the new one side by side.
Appl – They will put together a graphic that could be appraised together. They picked up this project where it was dropped 2 yrs ago – it has already been through the Planning Board. Appl wanted improvement over the original concept. They can provide new information next week.
Did we talk about having them re-flag at this meeting??
Action – Applicant will get information to GCC asap & GCC will book them into soonest meeting.
EAST MAIN TREE CUTTING
Rep. Jack Moultrie
Carl S – We want to get off on the right foot, to work co-operatively, and have open channels of communication to ensure that there are no mis-communications.
Jack M – Spoke to GCC about the tree cutting. Gerri sent the original notification – but that land is not under the control of GCC, it is deeded to the town for sight issues. It was agreed with Alan Bennett to take them down and chip the brush for erosion control. AB didn’t seem to have an issue with that so went ahead. AB asked if they would be excavating but weren’t so went ahead. There wasn’t any ill-will.
Carl S – It seems JM did due diligence given the information available at this time. We want to go forward with open channels especially with the new agent starting so we don’t get into a situation where there might be a violation in the future. GCC got involved after a public complaint was made to the GCC & DEP. Need to know what’s going on.
JM – The cutting was triggered by (14 or so ) resident complaints that they couldn’t see when pulling out onto public road. It was a public safety issue. Paul had brought the regs in but they didn’t seem to fit this situation. JM wouldn’t go into the wetlands unless there was a severe threat to safety – but follow up with notification.
Carl S – Will there be erosion as a result?
JM – Told them to chip brush and spread it on the bank to prevent erosion. The site still needs a clean-up now that the snow has gone. Hasn’t seen any sign of erosion as the wood chip layer is thick.
Paul N – The replanting plan asks for erosion control.
JM – Didn’t take too many trees off the slope. The replacements can’t be sensitive to salt & can’t grow so high that sight line is obscured again.
Michael B – We need to protect & enclose the stream.
Paul N – GCC has money that can be used for it. It would probably take less than $3-4k to put it right. This could also be a good volunteer project.
Harry L – Are there any kind of restrictions on what could be done there?
GCC – None.
JM – We will need signage &/or a police detail if people are working down there. He will liaise to arrange those things. No more cutting needs to be done.
Paul N – GCC will come up with the replanting plan & liaise with JM.
Action: GCC will determine replanting plan and liaise with Jack Moultrie to get it implemented.
NPDES II REGS
JM – They are getting ready to file a second report.
They worked with MVPC to put a stormwater plan together.
Also worked with the Parker River Clean Water Assoc to make a plan to pick up all the trash around ponds & brooks. This can get touchy as we need permits from landowners for right of entry along streams. These areas haven’t been cleaned for 25-30 years (GCC used to allocate $400-500 pa). Logs, tires and trash are all found and the streams are flowing much less than they used to . The stream beds need to be clear to flow as they should. We should remove the debris out of the center of streams. Volunteers could do the hand work and ask the Highway Dept to work there if power tools are needed. JM has written to GCC with an outreach project proposal.
BOH Bylaw – They are stenciling the catchbasins to meet those standards. The outfalls have been mapped by GIS. Identified serious contaminants from those. The plan needs to be aggressive but flexible. Rock Pond is not as much a concern. The greatest concern is for the beach at Pentucket Pond. There is a discharge pipe from houses picking up from failed septic along there – but this has not been addressed.
Carl S – What is the timeline? When will we need to have it ready for kick-off?
JM – Soon. We can either fund it or be fined. We have increased funding for drainage but the density of town is very high / city-like and it is a large area. The situation needs to be addressed. We really need to sewer downtown. The question is, where we pipe it to & how to handle that discharge. There is natural re-charge situation for the wells, but it’s a hard sell to the public sending that kind of water into the aquifer area. The water has come out of that aquifer so it needs to go back in there to re-charge – close the loop. We really need a treatment plant but that committee didn’t get off the ground. We have a situation where the downtown can’t grow because we can’t add any more septic systems to that area. It needs
a group meeting. We could actually reduce the town tax rate by helping the downtown to grow. It would be ideal in that area – good soils etc.
Jm will keep us informed as it all goes forward & they work out how to go forward. They are working with the Parker River Clean Water Assoc & Don Bate, Alan MacIntosh from MVPC.
There will be a clean-up detail for downtown from the prison. There is so much trash everywhere. There used to be trash barrels but they were used by households so were taken away.
Carl S – Send GCC a letter with details of where it’s going. We need to document our involvement.
PARKER RIVER LANDING
Reps: Mark Mastrianni, Pulte, Jay Billings, NE GeoScience
Look into the impact of proposed withdrawals thru irrigation.
Appl – Have been to GCC about irrigation wells before. In Aug 04 came for approval of the irrigation system. In Nov 04 they returned with more information. It was agreed they would hire a hydrogeologist to study the impact on the wetland. They got permission to drill a 6” well to test. They submitted how they would do the test & how to submit the wetland impact results. Irrigation was submitted on the April plan showing the location of wells & sprinkler heads.
Carl S – How many gallons?
Jay – The well was installed in bedrock at 26’, drilled to 40’ in total. They installed steel casing in there. Then drilled an open hole to 260’ with an air hammer. They can be exact as can see as soon as it hits water – there were fractures at 21’; water bearing zones at 220 – 236’; a minimum water drawing depth of 210’. They pumped 55 gals+ per min over a 6-hour pump test. Selected attempt to 22,000 gals / day – mimicked irrigation over 6 hr test. 62 gals / min for 6 hrs. They monitored before, during & after the test to discover whether it was a regional decline or due to their pumping.
Carl S – Did you test during frozen January? The seasonal low water table is in Oct/Nov. Testing in between the seasonal high & low is non-ideal. High flows now would mask the effects. There isn’t enough data and not enough testing. Would five 6-hour tests change the results?
Jay – Fig 3 spikes came from melting. Put 2 in to compensate for the melting messing with the data. Did that to differentiate the natural changes in water levels from the pumping changes. How long does it take for changes to show up? Freezing helps to limit the effects of recharge during the test. Is there hydraulic communication between wells & soils that feed the wetland? It depends on the orientation of the fractures. Pumping & measuring is the best way to measure that.
Carl S – How does the water re-charge?
Jay – It definitely comes from somewhere. There is no connection at all between the fractured rock & the wetland. They saw no statistically significant changes in the water levels at the well points.
Paul N – What about a time delay?
Jay – Yes. They left the data loggers in. They will be irrigating 3.5 acres of land, pumping > 100k gals / day need something something – 22,000 seems high in comparison, so would probably be less.
GCC – What about recharge? Is the aquifer in contact with the surface?
Jay – Mostly consumptive water use. 80%.
Carl S – Will that make a difference in July?
Jay – We don’t know where it’s pulling the water from. We can’t say about re-charge because don’t know source. Don’t think July would be a problem as there is no connection. Typically we see a very defined draw down curve. Pumping wells did have that curve & then recovered very well but there was no change in the wetland.
The drainage system has a filtration component near the wetland. This could help offset the differences that would be realized. We are not surprised by the test results.
Harry L – Would it be impractical to run a pump test simulating the more repetitive nature of irrigation.
Jay – We can test like that but it’s complicated. Can’t determine whether there are ambient water changes or pump changes. We know what a pump test should look like. We had an almost complete water level recovery curve after the tests. He has high confidence in the yield of the well. If they pump for 6 hours it should take 6 hours to recover. This one came back in 1-2 hours. It would be the same for irrigation cycles.
Paul N – Though it might not affect the wetland, in fact there might have more from run-off. That might not be the water you want, depending on the nutrient etc load.
Mark – There are definitely benefits to having a second well. Reasons for 2nd: midnite – 9am watering. If had 2 wells wldn’t draw addl water to 25,000/day – aveg 1” per week per acre.
Carl S – We want to look at the whole number of wells at once.
Harry L – We want more testing.
Paul N – Why do you need another one?
Jay – This is a normal 6” well. The largest pump is only 4”, 10hp. Testing didn’t have to contend with pressure.
Paul N – Why not use supplementary in-line pump or parallel pumps?
Jay – That will burn a lot of electricity, is very inefficient. We can’t vacuum beyond 32’. Limited by physical constraints. 8” would be fine but can’t change 6” well to an 8” well.
Carl S – 2 wells & one 6-hr data test … is it more significant for 2 wells at different points on site for a longer drawdown?
Harry L – We need more actual data re. actual time conditions for summer weather.
Paul N – If the areas aren’t connected it wouldn’t change.
Harry L – Would be more comfortable with more data.
Mark – The testing would be too costly to re-perform. They have gone above requirements & shown the effects of the well already.
Harry L – The blips in the data are a concern – there is a drop 6 hours after pumping.
Paul N – If you look at Fig 3, WP1 at 1/14/05 - it goes right down.
Appl – If give a proposal for additional testing want to get GCC response. They got no response to the original pump test proposal. It is an expensive & significant effort.
Harry L – Maybe run the test again & pay for an independent geo-scientist to monitor alongside with them.
App – The 2nd well was intended to reduce the time of pumping. Don’t want to overwater – 1- 1.5” per week. One well would require longer irrigation cycles – a waste of water as water would occur during the day, etc. Worst case scenario – 1.4” per week or 22, 700 gals per week. Would the GCC accept pump test procedure & results if they came in again?
Paul N – What results would we expect to see in another test?
Carl S – The differences in summer pumping.
Paul N – These tests prove there is no connection between the two.
Harry L – These tests don’t prove that.
Carl S – GCC will take time to examine the report & data over the next week and discuss it again then.
Action: Add the Parker River Landing project to the April 21 meeting agenda.
OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BYLAW
This is coming up on Monday, 6:00 Planning Board –changes can be registered then. GCC should attend with written changes. Town Counsel has not looked at it. The PUD bylaw is ineffective, this will replace it. It will not replace Over-55.
It means developers must deal with GCC before filing a sub-division plan. Resource areas would be defined with ANRAD / RDA and GCC has first determination on where it can go. The applicant can have greater density within the developable area.
ROCK POND DOCK EO
Eric Harper called Paul Muscavitz, the property owner, for information. Muscavitz returned the EO & declared that he did not give anyone permission to build the dock on his property.
Should the EO be filed against the property owner or the dock builders?
MOTION to lift all EOs sent to Mr. Paul Muscovitz re. the dock in Rock Pond and GCC will issue another EO to the responsible party when we discover who they are – John / Harry / 2 Aye 3 Nay
MOTION to continue the Rock Pond EO issues to the next meeting – Harry / Mike / Unam
MOTION to appoint Laura Repplier to Open Space Committee – Harry / John / Unam
HEARINGS
77 LAKESHORE DR (NOI Garage Addition)
Reps: Bob Grasso, PLS; Louis Giannapolis, Owner
GCC-2005-005; DEP 161-0615
Bob G – Sent a letter informing the NHESP on 3/16 but have not had a reply yet.
Letter to GCC requesting waivers from Georgetown WPA Bylaw.
There is an existing one story 3-bed SFH. An original NOI was filed for a septic upgrade. Seekamp delineated the wetland. There was a site walk for the prior NOI. This NOI is for a garage addition. They are proposing a 46’ x 38’ garage + 1 story above.
They will use the existing driveway. Proposing to cut into the bank to level the grade. They will build the 1st floor of concrete, 2nd floor of wood. An existing wood deck is very aged. Want to expand that to 12’ x 12’ replacing the wood & adding some footings. They are not changing the grade there. They propose haybales from the corner of the house along the drive to the crossing & culvert.
Paul N – Why are there hay bales at the front?
Bob – We want to protect the intermittent stream & sloping driveway from silt. This is a minor project so proposed haybales but could use a silt sock instead.
Bob – The 2,200 sf wetland was delineated by Seekamp. They proposed to protect it with haybales and expanded pavement to the garage. There will also be a post & rail fence along the drive to prevent any activity in the wetland after construction. It now has a truck plow and antique car parked in the wetland. This construction will remove that & put them inside.
Carl S – A fence won’t last.
Bob – A fence keeps people out more than bounds do and critters can pass through it.
Carl S – We need to see bounds in addition to the fence.
Bob – Perpetual conditions could be added to maintain the fence in perpetuity. Post & Rail definitely stops activity in the wetland.
Harry L – We can’t close this week as are waiting for the NHESP. Is GCC comfortable with the delineation?
Bob – The flags are still in place.
Michael B – The flags were accepted on the site walk & with AB.
Bob – There will be a drain & dry well to catch roof run-off. Those waivers in are in the letter.
GCC – The proposed fence is good. Add 5 bounds as well. Reduced abutters notification is OK. Use a silt fence instead of haybales. This is a much better proposal than the original. We need a revised plan and NHESP notification to sign off at the next meting.
MOTION to continue to May 19, 8:30 – Harry / Mike / Unam
11 MARTEL WAY
NOI 10,000 sf commercial within 30’ of BVW
Reps: Constantine Ricci, Applicant; Mary Rimmer, Rimmer Environmental Consulting; Ken Knowles, Engineer, Meridian Associates; Nancy McCann, Attorney, McCann & McCann
Mary Rimmer – The wetland boundary was approved June 3, 2004. An OoC was issued in 1998 for a commercial building. There is better distance to the wetland areas in this plan. There are buffer zones on all sides as everything is on a knoll. This will be a 10,000 sf building, with the septic in the center of the knoll under asphalt (placement of the septic is driving the situation of everything on the site); the 25’ setback to wetland is shown; the 100’ buffer zone skirts the septic area.
The ’98 plan had grading within 8’of the wetland and construction within 12’.
The applicant is requesting variances (in writing). This is the only way to develop this site for commercial property.
Carl S – Does it meet DEP new regulations?
Mary – They are not applying with the new simplified forms as they are not more than 50’ from wetland.
Carl S – We should make a site awareness walk.
Ken Knowles, Meridian – We can stake the building corners for your reference.
The location of the septic is driving the building & parking placement. There are 2 sub-surface infiltration catch basins – one for 100 year storm, one for roof/lot drainage??
CS – What will this site be used for?
Constantine Ricci, Applicant – We are a bridge building firm, there will be only storage of steel and concrete forms, with no onsite work. Fabrication is done at the work site. He has been at Jackman St since 1993. There is not much activity as always at the work site. There will be a small office & storage. There will be no painting at all. Structural storage only.
Ken Knowles, Meridian – Drainage is through a gravel area & pavbed pitched toward the catch basins & routed thru storm sector & into the infiltration area. There is 70’ x 143’ (24,260 sf) of impermeable area. No stormwater review has been done yet with Planning Board. The BOH has not been approached yet – they know it’s around & are treating it as a re-design.
Michael B – Are you going to go into the 25’ buffer?
Ken Knowles, Meridian – The haybales are in 25’. The bounds are not in yet.
MOTION for site walk on May 14th at 8:00 am – Harry / John / Unam
MOTION to continue to May 19, 8:45 – Harry / John /Unam
MOTION to adjourn -
Harry / Mike / Unam
| 
