SUMMARY OF
GCC MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Mark Gauthier, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, Tom Howland, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
541 NORTH STREET (GCC-2004-049; DEP 161-0612) NOI (Cont)
Applicants filed a Notice of Intent to conduct perc testing for a septic system. There has not been an occupied house on the site for over 50 years. The Board of Health & GCC are questioning whether this qualifies as a repair to an existing system or should be treated as a new system after all that time. The applicants asked for a continuation pending their next meeting with the BoH.
20 MEADOWVIEW ROAD (GCC-2006-12; DEP 161-0641) NOI (Cont)
Notice of Intent for a septic repair. The plan was accepted as it had been changed to move the system 17’ farther away from the resource. Hearing closed.
65R THURLOW STREET (GCC-2005-032; DEP 161-0636) ANRAD (Cont)
ANRAD hearing to delineate the wetland resources on site pending a sub-division development. Discussion centered on a possible vernal pool in the SE corner (applicants says it isn’t a vernal pool, GCC says it could potentially be one) and the Zone II Wellhead Protection Area (for Byfield wells). The applicant’s attorney wishes to change the Zone II area to exclude this property. That is not within the GCC’s jurisdiction. Plan accepted, hearing closed.
GCC MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2006
Attending: Carl Shreder, Mark Gauthier, Mike Birmingham, Paul Nelson, Tom Howland, Steve Przyjemski, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
RE-APPOINTMENTS
MOTION to re-appoint Elizabeth Rose & Eric Waybright to the Pentucket Pond Advisory Committee for 1 year – Paul / Tom / Unam
MINUTES
MOTION to accept the minutes from June 22 with amends – Paul / Tom / Unam
PENTUCKET POND FANWORT
Steve P, GCC Agent - ACT, Bill Dudley, Paul Nelson & I went out on the fanboat on the pond. We found very few fanwort plants. The NHESP gave permission for a full treatment for 2 yrs. We have $50k for it. We’ll need another boat run in the spring to check the plants again.
Carl S, GCC – The spot treatment seemed to put a low concentration throughout pond & it worked very well.
Steve P, GCC Agent – The native plants seemed to have been unaffected and there is now very little fanwort. I found the NE Aquarium survey for the bridle shiner. They were found in all 3 ponds in 1999. They did the study by snorkeling, which is how I found them as well.
HEARINGS
541 NORTH STREET (GCC-2004-049; DEP 161-0612) NOI (Cont)
No Reps.
Paul N, GCC – If the applicant gets a waiver from the Planning Board she will then come to us. If permitting before 1997 they could go that way as the Riverfront Protection Act didn’t come in until then. According to the RPA they can get a waiver if it’s proven to everyone’s satisfaction that their plan will have no effect on water quality, etc.
Mike B, GCC – How will they prove that?
Paul N, GCC – They can’t prove it empirically. There may be no alternatives as everything is within the 200’ Riverfront Protection zone.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I’ll contact her to find out what she’s planning to do.
Carl S, GCC – We need info from the BOH about why they made the repair determination. Nothing has been there in 50 yrs.
MOTION to continue to Sept 7 at 7:30 – Tom / Paul / Unam
20 MEADOWVIEW ROAD (GCC-2006-12; DEP 161-0641) NOI (Cont)
Rep: Bob Grasso, PLS
Bob Grasso, PLS – This is a redesign of the proposal. We will overdig to the edge of the driveway, which is 10’ from the property line. It won’t affect the trees in front of the shed. It will fit – it’s a 27’ x 15’ bed – still the same size. It is now 68’ away form the buffer zone, compared to 51’ in the original plan.
Carl S, GCC – Will the driveway, shed & trees stay the same?
Bob Grasso, PLS – Yes, with just the removal of some arbor vitae. The boat will be moved to another portion of the property. We will have to re-submit to the BOH but I don’t think there will be a problem – we don’t require anymore variances than before. It is still a Presby system, just a different configuration.
MOTION to accept the plan for 20 Meadowview Road (GCC-2006-12) dated 7/13/06 – Paul / Tom / Unam
Bob Grasso, PLS – This has a 40ml poly liner to a 5’ depth. It is very solid & holds materials very effectively.
MOTION to close the hearing – Mike / Paul / Unam
65R THURLOW STREET (GCC-2005-032; DEP 161-0636) ANRAD (Cont)
Reps: Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental; Gary Evans, Attorney
Gary Evans, Attorney – At the last meeting you asked for changes to the plan. We added the flood zone, the vernal pool area at the SE, and the Zone II reference to the plan. There are three flood zone designations included on the map. The FEMA line runs across the top right corner. Then there is the 70’ elevation of the Georgetown flood plain- shown on the floodplain map. The engineer gave the opinion that 71’ is the 100-yr flood. The FEMA flood zone includes the hill which is at 88.7’. The wetland is at the 66-67’ range.
Paul N, GCC – That’s how they’re made. They use geometric objects & not the topography. We need to fill in the dots from that.
Gary Evans, Attorney – That’s right & we can say that the flood elevation is at 70-72’ elevation.
Steve P, GCC Agent – I recommend that you not accept the flood plain at this point. 70’ is the wetland line, the floodplain line would normally be higher. We don’t have to nail it down now.
Mike B, GCC – Make sure we have the FEMA line on the map, we can go with that. We don’t have to decide that for an ANRAD.
Steve P, GCC Agent – Everything else looks good, I recommend giving them the delineation.
Gary Evans, Attorney – We still want to discuss the other vernal pool in the SE corner. The disputed vernal pool is in 2 categories – state & local determination as to whether it is there or not. We need to state that the vernal pool is not one according to state regulations and also say that it is not one under the local regulations.
Carl S, GCC – Our regulations say that we can act on a presumed vernal pool.
Gary Evans, Attorney – If the physical characteristics meet Sec 10 definitions it may be overcome with credible evidence that demonstrates that it cannot provide vernal pool habitat functions.
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – (Distributes report)
Carl S, GCC – We need evidence to support your argument.
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – I flagged the wetlands last year and examined the BVW areas with & without vernal pools. I did dip net analysis in all portions of the site with significant ponding. The pond itself has fish so that is not a vernal pool. In looking at the pool at the right of the lot - I looked at it in breeding season – April 27 or so – which is peak breeding season. During the dip netting I found 1 spotted egg mass in the central pool & one set of wood frog eggs at the top pool. I established that the center pool is a vernal pool but there is no evidence in the lower right one. We talked about it at the site visit. There was nothing in the first pass through. I also went out with Steve P, GCC Agent on May 24
after the flood event. There was plenty of water there.
Carl S, GCC – Would the deluge affect anything breeding there?
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – No, there was still breeding activity in the other areas. Egg masses will complete their gestation if they are left alone. I didn’t see anything in earlier visits that might have been disturbed. We accepted the other vernal pools & needed to establish the boundaries of them. It normally would have been a smaller area but it was very wet at that time.
Paul N, GCC – This is not a flat area, it wasn’t going to change.
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – With vernal pools, it would typically be an isolated pocket in the upland. It would be quite a depression with a distinct bank. If it is in a BVW it can have flow into the BVW – the DEP definition says it will have “no inlet or outlet”. Somewhere in the BVW is a depression where when the water goes down a pool of water is stranded that will support amphibians in their life cycle & allow them to get out before dries up. It would have been smaller if wasn’t for that rain event.
Carl S, GCC – We’re talking about the lower right hand area. We had presumption that it is vernal pool habitat so we have asked to have it identified as such. Our regulations say it should be assumed it is until proven otherwise.
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – I thought we’d resolved that. I discussed it with Steve P, GCC Agent & he said it wasn’t a vernal pool. I never saw anything in there to say it was a vernal pool. I found the evidence for the others. The 3rd party reviewer said he didn’t find evidence of vernal pool habitat either. I did the same analysis for all these areas. I don’t think this is a vernal pool.
Paul N, GCC – One sample in one year can’t prove it isn’t.
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – I have to define that in one season as I evaluate the site.
Paul N, GCC – There could have been many reasons why this didn’t have evidence in this one year. There could’ve been pesticides in there ... something may have prevented it for that year.
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – How many years do you expect the applicant to wait?
Carl S, GCC – The point is moot as we have only identified it as purported. The setbacks are not changing. It isn’t going away.
Mark G, GCC – I have three points. Point A: Was there evidence of ponding for two consecutive months?
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – Yes. I have 2 years data.
Paul N, GCC – Our regulations say there only has to be physical characteristics as evidence.
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental –I did not find any evidence of breeding at the highest point of the season.
Mark G, GCC – Point B: Do we have 3 consecutive years of rainfall data?
Gary Evans, Attorney – No.
Mark G, GCC – Point C: Is this area physically unable to provide vernal pool habitat?
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – No.
Paul N, GCC – Could it possibly be one?
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – Yes, of course it could.
Paul N, GCC – You’re saying that it has the physical characteristics but it happened to have nothing in it this year.
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – This was a dug out area. It’s a side pocket area I could jump over. It’s not that big. It’s problematic to be a vernal pool as predators could get in there easily. I swept with a dip net & didn’t find anything in there that was in the other areas. The conditions this year were terrible. I didn’t see anything in here.
Paul N, GCC – So if a salamander laid eggs in there they would survive.
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – Yes, that’s right it would.
Mike B / Carl S, GCC – Why is this such an issue?
Patrick Seekamp, Seekamp Environmental – I’ve given you everything I know about this site & my opinion that this is not a vernal pool.
Mark G, GCC – You haven’t refuted my points A, B or C so therefore it is a presumptive vernal pool.
Carl S, GCC – I agree.
Gary Evans, Attorney – Let’s move on to the Zone II issue. This Zone II is for the Byfield well 1.75 miles away. It appears that the Zone II area has been determined like the FEMA flood area, as a grid rather than by topo. That may be flawed. In Byfield they have 25’ setbacks from their own Zone II area, Georgetown has 100’ setback. We would like to move the setback to 25’.
Mike B, GCC – We can’t override Zone II protections. That’s outside this Commission.
Paul N, GCC – We could waive the requirement.
Gary Evans, Attorney – The Zone II and the vernal pool overlap. If I can get the Zone II out of there we would achieve 25 more feet.
Carl S, GCC – We’re not saying this is or is not a vernal pool yet. Everything else we need is on the plan & this is a presumptive vernal pool.
Mark G, GCC – We’re saying that we can’t say it isn’t a vernal pool – according to our regulations. And neither can Patrick Seekamp.
Paul N, GCC – All he can say is that he found no evidence this year.
MOTION to accept the plan for 65R Thurlow (GCC-2005-32) dated 7/7/06 – Tom / Mark / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – Mike / Tom / Unam
31-33 EAST MAIN STREET
No reps.
MOTION to continue to Aug 10, 8:00 – Tom / Mark / Unam
| 
